See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317346798

Integrating mechatronics in project-based learning of Malaysian high school

students and teachers

Article  in  International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education · June 2017

DOI: 10.1177/0306419017708636

CITATIONS READS

11 698

9 authors, including:

Flavia Tauro Faszly Rahim

Tuscia University USIM | Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
75 PUBLICATIONS   2,495 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kamisah Osman Lilia Halim

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
131 PUBLICATIONS   2,403 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   1,617 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Of Spiders and Social Insects: Geometric, Morphometric & Magnetic View project

Measurements and Observations in the XXI Century (MOXXI) - IAHS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Flavia Tauro on 21 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original article
International Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Education
Integrating mechatronics 2017, Vol. 45(4) 297–320
ß The Author(s) 2017
in project-based learning Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

of Malaysian high school DOI: 10.1177/0306419017708636

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijj

students and teachers

Flavia Tauro1, Youngsu Cha2,
Faszly Rahim3, Mohammad Sattar Rasul4,
Kamisah Osman4, Lilia Halim4,
Dominick Dennisur5, Ben Esner5 and
Maurizio Porfiri6

Abstract
College students’ attrition in engineering programs is a major problem in developed and
developing countries. Outreach activities in science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics are a powerful resource to ignite K-12 students’ interest to pursue scientific
and engineering careers. Here, a program on mechatronics for Malaysian high-schoolers
developed at the New York University Tandon School of Engineering and implemented
at the National University of Malaysia is presented. The program follows a dual model
where instructors and students work together on a project-based learning curriculum
inspired by real-world problems. A group of Malaysian graduate students and high-
school teachers was trained to serve as instructors by the New York University
team. After training, the New York University team aided the instructors to administer
the curriculum to 100 high-schoolers and organize a one-day exhibit for families at the
National University of Malaysia. Pre- and post-assessment surveys offer evidence for the

1
Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest Systems, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy
2
Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Center for Robotics Research, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of
Korea
3
School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor,
Malaysia
4
School of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
5
Center for K-12 STEM Education, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY, USA
6
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New York University Tandon School of Engineering,
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Corresponding author:
Maurizio Porfiri, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New York University Tandon School
of Engineering, Brooklyn NY 11201, USA.
Email: mporfiri@nyu.edu
298 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

positive impact of the program on teachers’ professional development and student

engagement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

Keywords
STEM education, smart cities, outreach, K-12, Malaysia

Introduction
Recent studies demonstrate that enrollment in college engineering and science pro-
grams has been generally decreasing over the years.1 For instance, in the United
States (US), only 28% of bachelor’s and 20% of associate’s degree students enroll
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.2 A large per-
centage of such students leave scientific and engineering studies3,4 and, even after
graduation, more than 30% do not pursue scientific or engineering careers. Even if
higher education is perceived as a driver for economic growth,1 the demand for
STEM talent still exceeds the availability of qualified professionals. Attitudinal
factors,5 financial reasons,6 and course-related experience7–9 all contribute to the
students’ attrition in STEM fields.10
Among STEM fields, engineering disciplines have experienced a rather severe
crisis due to a number of concurrent factors.11,12 Several studies have pointed out
limitations of traditional teacher-centered education practice and the need for
reconsidering our approach to train the next generation of engineers.12,13 In par-
ticular, there is a general consensus on the importance of encouraging innovative
and critical thinking toward multidisciplinarity and on the need of promoting the
substantial integration of nontechnical skills.14,15 Numerous efforts have been
devoted to address these needs at the university level.16–19
The inherent multidisciplinarity of mechatronics has been instrumental to design
innovative student-centered programs at the university level.20–24 For instance, in
Soares et al.,25 a program where teams of master students compete in improving
commercial electronics products is presented. In Wang et al.,26,27 mechanical, sys-
tems, electrical, control, and computer engineering concepts are synergistically
combined into a Chinese–German educational project. As a result of the integra-
tion of mechatronics elements in educational curriculum, students’ abilities to crit-
ically think and select creative design solutions can substantially improve. While its
potential in learning at the university level is established, the use of mechatronics in
K-12 education is relatively untapped. Even more elusive questions entail learning
outside the classroom through mechatronics and developing mechatronics-based
professional skills in teachers.
Mechatronics-based outreach programs can ignite the interest of K-12 students
in STEM disciplines through interactive learning and by stimulating connections
across multiple disciplines.28 For instance, in Kolberg et al.,29 non-technical high
school students improve their perception and motivation toward technology
through project-based learning (PBL) robotics activities inspired by real-life
Tauro et al. 299

environments. A similar program has been proposed in Abaid et al.,30 where

robotics and smart devices are used to bolster student participation and motivation
in deepening STEM concepts. Successful programs are typically dual in nature,
that is, they target and encourage collaboration among teachers and students.
Further, they promote student-centered learning and expose students to interaction
with real scientists.31,32 These elements are leveraged in the program proposed in
Chyba and Smith,33 whereby K-12 students are introduced to ocean research by
university faculty and students through interactive and age-adjusted hands-on
robotics activities. Similarly, in Yilmaz et al.,34 undergraduate students attend
innovative courses in robotics, which involve mentoring sessions for K-12 students.
In Kapila et al.35 and Kapila,36 the relationship between K-12 and university
learning is further strengthened by involving graduate students and teachers to
develop and administer engaging STEM lessons. These include interactive mecha-
tronics activities that involve K-12 schools throughout the academic year. Selected
activities were then showcased at the 2010 USA Science and Engineering Expo to
approximately 2500 children. Self-report survey data show that the exhibit pro-
vided young students with a clear picture of mechatronics.37
Planning and developing creative hands-on projects and experiments to train
teachers and K-12 students have been key activities for the New York University
(NYU) Tandon School of Engineering Center for K-12 STEM education (NYU
STEM Center in the following). Most of such activities are based on PBL, whereby
students explore complex real-world problems through questioning, critical thinking,
and practical designing and doing.38 In the past few years, several programs led by
the NYU STEM Center have resulted in successful formats currently implemented in
several K-12 schools in New York City. These programs often utilize mechatronics
as interactive elements to excite students about STEM fields and enhance in-class
structured learning of the curriculum. Collaborative activities with the Dynamical
Systems Laboratory (DSL) at NYU have resulted in successful outreach programs
regularly conducted in Brooklyn public schools. For example, the NYU-Tandon
Mitsui USA STEM Learning Lab is an after-school program where students are
trained in mechatronics, environmental science, and biomimicry.39
The ‘‘Science of Smart Cities’’ project and curriculum were initially conceived as
a summer program, in which NYU STEM undergraduate and graduate students
teach engineering-related subjects to New York City middle-schoolers. The success
of this program has attracted the attention of several national and foreign institu-
tions, including the National University of Malaysia (UKM). Since the 1950s,
Malaysia has experienced impressive economic and social development, and it is
expected to achieve the developed nation status before 2020.40,41 Engineering is not
part of Malaysian secondary school curriculum, and science and technology elect-
ive subjects can be selected by students only in the upper secondary level.42 To
foster the interest in STEM professions, the Faculty of Education at UKM has
promoted a collaboration between the NYU STEM Center and the New York
Academy of Sciences’ K-12 education outreach program to train future Malaysian
K-12 teachers on novel approaches in STEM education.
300 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

Within such a collaborative environment, the NYU STEM Center and the DSL
have sought to transform the module ‘‘Science of Smart Cities’’ into an integrated,
extensive PBL program for the Malaysian community. The program was implemented
at the School of Education at UKM in September 2013. The NYU team comprised
two graduate students and two members of the NYU STEM Center. The team spent
two weeks in Malaysia under the support of UKM. The program was designed
on a dual scheme, which addressed both teachers and students. Specifically, it included
training sessions for graduate students at UKM and high-school teachers (both cate-
gories are named ‘‘graduate instructors’’ in the rest of the paper) by the NYU team.
Thereafter, the NYU team aided the graduate instructors to administer the curriculum
to 100 students from local Malaysian high-schools. During students training, instruc-
tors acted as guides rather than lecturers, and they were trained to aid high-schoolers
to independently develop creative solutions to the curriculum activities. The students’
training culminated in a one-day exhibit for high-schoolers and families.
The program aimed to: (i) establish a PBL curriculum to ignite the interest of
Malaysian high-schoolers toward engineering careers; (ii) offer a novel perspective
on STEM education to future K-12 teachers; and (iii) assess the efficacy of the
curriculum in improving the students’ perception of STEM disciplines. To accom-
plish these objectives, a range of activities revolving around the concept of a smart
city was developed, with a specific focus on pressing problems for the Malaysian
community. The concept of smart cities was regarded as the complex of human
community and technological infrastructure that is founded on wise management
of natural resources and sustainable environmental practice.43,44 Specifically, in
agreement with UKM faculty of Education and based on the increased interest
of Malaysia in energy development,45,46 the complex dynamics of provisioning and
managing energy in smart cities was the main focus of the curriculum.
Here, we present an overview of such a curriculum, along with the systematic
evaluation of the program, through pre- and post-assessment surveys completed by
both high-schoolers and graduate instructors.

Overview of the curriculum

The curriculum is inspired by PBL theory47,48 and, specifically, recognizes the
following PBL basics: (i) activities are centered around real-world problems that are
solved by small teams of students; (ii) solutions to problems require multidisciplinary
and critical thinking; (iii) instructors supervise and guide learning, but solutions
are found independently by students’ teams; and (iv) final oral presentations take
place in front of instructors, and teams are expected to share their different approaches
to solve the problems. Activities are organized in six parts: two introductory sessions
and four sessions on real-world engineering-related topics. In the introductory ses-
sions, instructors facilitate the learning process by presenting the fundamentals of the
scientific method and elements of mechatronics. Students become familiar with tools
and concepts that they will utilize in subsequent sessions. These first two introductory
sessions seek to promote active students’ participation and creativity.
Tauro et al. 301

Subjects covered in the topical sessions focus on real-world issues. The session on
‘‘Worldly environment’’ introduces students to the concept of the global environ-
ment and to critical problems that smart cities necessarily must deal with, such as
global warming. This session aims at explaining to students what energy is and how
it is transformed through easy experimental activities. The session on ‘‘Power gen-
eration’’ addresses the principles of renewable and non-renewable energy and allows
the students to build their own energy generator. In the session on ‘‘Power storage’’,
students learn about energy demand in urban communities and smart grid technol-
ogy. Finally, in the session on ‘‘Biomimicry’’, they integrate previous concepts on
mechatronics and environmental science to assemble an energy-efficient robot.
Sessions start with a conversational briefing on the main subjects by instructors.
After this introduction, most of the time is devoted to hands-on activities. Students
are grouped in small teams, and they are assigned a problem and a slide presenta-
tion summarizing theoretical concepts. Then, teams independently work on experi-
mental activities on different tables in the same room. Instructors remain in the
room to answer questions. The first introductory sessions are structured to be
covered in a day (approximately six hours). Each of the remaining four sessions
is covered in approximately three hours. At the end of the four topical sessions,
teams prepare poster presentations and present their work in front of instructors
and the other students.

Session 1: Why communities?

The first session of the curriculum focuses on the definition of a ‘‘community’’. This
session aims at introducing the very foundation of smart cities: its human and nat-
ural components. Students are encouraged to brainstorm on what a community is
and how its members can use and contribute to a smart and sustainable management
of natural resources. Specifically, the instructors lead a conversational lecture where
the etymology of the word community is introduced and the major components of
human communities are explained. Participants are encouraged to contribute to the
discussion by providing their cultural and personal opinion on the topic.
To invite the students to take part in the conversation, a word diagram is
utilized, where each participant is asked to contribute by sketching a word and
an arrow. The instructors start writing ‘‘people’’ in the center of a board and
students participate to the creation of the diagram. While being a successful ice-
breaker, this activity also leads to a graphic representation of values perceived as
crucial for the participants’ community, and stimulates students toward collabora-
tive learning, see Figure 1. The session is concluded with a few videos displaying
energy efficient communities, such as the city of Songdo, South Korea.

Session 2: Fundamentals of nature laws and mechatronics

In the second introductory session, students are exposed to Newton’s laws of phys-
ics and to fundamentals of mechatronics. This lecture also introduces students to
302 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

Figure 1. Session 1: instructors and students brainstorm on the word ‘‘community’’.

the scientific method and provides the necessary background for the program’s
interactive activities. To enable rapid assembly of classroom artifacts, most of
the activities rely on the use of simple electronic components. At the beginning
of the session, instructors use slide presentations, animations, and videos to display
basic concepts. After the fundamental laws are explained, students work on simple
hands-on activities related to the theoretical material.
In the first experimental activity, students build simple LED fader and flasher
circuits using bread-boards and electronic components. The instructors divide the
students into groups of three or four and each team is provided with slide presen-
tations, which detail each step of the device assembly. In the fader circuit, a battery,
wires, a resistor, a capacitor, and an LED are assembled to have the LED, battery,
and capacitor in parallel connection. When the battery is removed from the circuit,
the LED fades rather than immediately turning off due to the discharge timing
characteristics of the capacitor. In the flasher circuit, students build a more complex
circuit where transistors act as automatic switches letting two LEDs flash on and off.
This session also entails a final, more complex, experiment, where simple mecha-
tronics concepts are applied to illustrate connections between nature and technol-
ogy.39 Specifically, students are asked to: (i) design a two-link mechanical system
mimicking the tail of a swimming fish and (ii) assemble an electronic circuit to drive
the servomotor at the joint between the two links. The efficiency of different tail
shapes to swim is assessed by directly testing them in a water tank. The participants
execute every step of the procedure, from the assembly of the circuit to testing of
the tail. Students are encouraged to draw conclusions on the tail shape efficiency
based on the visualized flow patterns. In particular, tail shapes with a higher degree
of biomimicry are expected to create larger vortices in the tank.
Tauro et al. 303

Session 3: Worldly environment

This session is designed to allow the participants to experience with real-world
problems introduced in Session 1. The first experimental activity addresses global
warming through a demonstration of the green house effect.49 Students are asked
to add a few grams of baking soda in two transparent containers. Water is added to
one container and vinegar to the other. Both containers host thermometers, are
covered with plastic wrap, and are exposed to a light bulb for a few minutes. Since
the reaction between baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and vinegar (diluted acetic
acid) generates carbon dioxide gas, temperature in the container with vinegar
should increase in time due to the green house effect. Students are asked to monitor
temperature change for several minutes and draw conclusions on the chemical
reactions taking place in both containers.
The experiment on environmental remediation focuses on cloud seeding, a meth-
odology often adopted by the Malaysian government to mitigate the haze effects.
To familiarize students with the concept of artificial rain, some water is poured in a
flexible plastic bottle. Students are asked to cap the bottle and squeeze it repeatedly
for a few minutes. During squeezing, the pressure and temperature in the bottle
increase, while the opposite is found when the bottle is released. While groups work
at their bottles, instructors light a few candles and let a student from each group
light a wood splint. Each group puts out the wood split, introduces some smoke
through the bottle mouth, immediately closes the bottle, and repeats the squeezing
and releasing. Smoke particles in the bottle soon work as condensation nuclei,
generating cloud droplets that tend to stick on the bottle walls.
The last experiment of this session deals with clean solar energy through the
fabrication of a solar panel from copper sheets.50 This interactive activity is based
on the mechatronics elements presented in Session 2. Students are guided by the
instructors to clean and sand two copper sheets to remove corrosion layers. One
copper sheet is placed on a hot plate for a few minutes until oxidation patterns are
observed and cupric oxide starts flaking off. The copper sheet is scrubbed and then
fit with the unheated one in a plastic container holding water and a tablespoon of
salt. When exposed to solar light, the cuprose oxide plate acts as a semiconductor
and a small current is observed. Students are encouraged to observe measurement
variations when the container is in the dark and upon addition of different quan-
tities of salt to the solution.

Session 4: Power generation

In this session, students learn and apply the mechatronics concepts learned in
Session 2 to renewable and non-renewable resources. The experimental activity
of this session entails the development of a turbine for hydropower generation.51
The turbine is built by gluing commercial magnets on corrugated cardboard and
looping wires around them to create the coil. Cut spoons are used as the turbine
blades and are placed inside a plastic jug, whose bottom is preliminarily cut and
304 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

removed. The magnet coil is located outside the jug and connected to the blades
through a wood shaft. When water is run through the jug mouth, the turbine blades
spin and a voltage can be measured at the ends of the coil. The hydropower gen-
erator is easily modified into a wind harnessing system. After fabrication, students
are asked to test the device in a faucet and measure how the output voltage varies
with increasing water flow rates.

Session 5: Power storage

In this session, students apply the mechatronics fundamentals of Session 2 to
hands-on activities related to energy demand in urban communities. Several
videos illustrating the energy grid system are projected and data for the
Malaysian smart grid technology are reported. Diagrams of daily energy demand
in urban communities are explained by the instructors, and students are encour-
aged to think of ways of storing energy in case of unexpected power needs.
In the first experimental activity of this session, the principles of electrolysis and
recombination of gases to produce electricity are illustrated through the develop-
ment of a hydrogen fuel cell.50 The cell is built by connecting a copper wire (as an
alternative to the much more expensive platinum) to two ends of a battery and
deploying these copper electrodes in water. Electrolysis is caused by connecting the
battery for few seconds, as suggested by the rapidly forming bubbles in proximity
of the metal electrodes. When the battery is removed, the opposite reaction takes
place where hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water molecules. Connecting
the metal electrodes to a multimeter, students observe a small voltage that quickly
drops as the bubbles dissolve in water.
Another example of an unusual power source is the electrochemical power
stored in potatoes. Students are guided to make giant potato batteries using pota-
toes, pieces of copper, and galvanized nails, see Figure 2. A multimeter measures
the total voltage generated by the potatoes connected in parallel and series, and an
LED is turned on after charging a capacitor.
In the last experiment of the session, a solar cell is built using blackberry juice. This
activity follows the directions in Smestad and Gratzel.52 As several phases of the
activity entail dealing with chemicals, instructors perform most of the steps with
help from a few students. The cell is made by using conductive glass slides and sintering
one slide with a suspension of titanium dioxide powder, vinegar, and dishwashing
detergent. The opposite slide is coated with a graphite layer by using a pencil or
exposing it to a candle flame. The sintered slide is then immersed in blackberry juice
and then put on top of the carbon-coated slide. When exposed to solar light, electrons
in the dye transfer to the titanium coating, thus producing a measurable current.

Session 6: Biomimicry
This session fosters critical thinking by stimulating discussion on environmental
science and energy. Students integrate concepts introduced in previous sessions in a
Tauro et al. 305

Figure 2. Session 5: students showcase their potato batteries.

multidisciplinary interactive experience on Malaysian fauna. Specifically, the prelim-

inary conversation focuses on biodiversity, and an overview is provided on smart
ways nature uses to scavenge energy. For instance, fish anatomy is related to different
light and water temperature conditions in marine ecosystems. Students are then
encouraged to apply the scientific method to analyze pictures of environmental phe-
nomena, such as massive fish poisoning due to industrial waste and animal extinction
due to glacier retreat. Participants are asked to: (i) observe and describe pictures, (ii)
formulate hypotheses and predict possible consequences of the phenomena, and (iii)
think of possible ways to test and analyze their explanations.
In the experimental activity, instructors reinforce the concept of biomimicry and
provide examples of animals which take advantage of their particular body shapes to
efficiently move in their ecosystems.53,54 Students are encouraged to develop their own
nature-inspired energy-efficient animal based on simple mechatronics elements.
Specifically, participants assemble a robot capable of resembling the motion of a
living animal. Students exploit the circuit preliminarily developed in the section
‘‘Session 2: fundamentals of nature laws and mechatronics’’ that provides an animal-
like mechanical motion. Further, they design and build a structure with pipecleaners
and cardboard around the circuit to enable efficient ‘‘walking’’ of the robot and to
reproduce animal features. Some of the assembled robots are reported in Figure 3.

Activity format
The program was performed in six days at the School of Education campus at
UKM. The sample of graduate instructors included 28 individuals from the
306 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

Figure 3. Session 6: students assemble robots which resemble the motion of living animals.

graduate schools of science education, vocational-technical education, biology,

environmental sciences, chemistry, chemical technology, applied physics, computer
sciences, engineering, and nanotechnology at UKM (87.50%) and some secondary
school teachers (12.50%). Graduate participants were selected by the UKM faculty
of Education among the best students at UKM in STEM fields and Education.
Graduate instructors were mostly females (70.00%), from Malaysia (96.00%).
On the first day of the program, the entire sample was trained on introductory
sessions one and two. On the second day, the sample was divided into two groups:
one group was trained on sessions three and four and the other group on sessions
five and six. This division was aimed at optimizing training time while offering a
demonstration of the entire contents of the program to the high-school students.
On days three to five, the NYU team and graduate instructors administered the
program to 100 students from local high-schools. Schools were selected by UKM
faculty of Education among the highest ranked in Peninsular Malaysia; student
participants were chosen by the respective teachers among the best in their classes.
The students were divided in four groups to facilitate training. The group consisted
mostly of male students (62.00%) and a large majority of the participants were of
Malay origin (98.00%). Approximately 30.00% of the students were attending
schools located in rural areas.
On day three, each group learned about sessions one and two. On day four, each
group worked on either session three, four, five, or six, and prepared for the
exhibit, which took place on the fifth day. During the training, each group of 25
students was further divided into smaller groups of three or four individuals, which
were mentored by a graduate instructor. At the exhibit, each group of three or four
students presented classroom artifacts developed and selected during the training
Tauro et al. 307

along with posters illustrating the related scientific content. On day six, the groups
of graduate instructors switched to allow all the participants to be exposed to the
entire curriculum. The last day was also used to gather feedback on the program
and suggestions for future implementations.
The effectiveness of the program in training graduate instructors in teaching
engineering-related subjects and teaching high-schoolers what engineers do was
assessed through pre- and post-surveys, similar to Laut et al.39 and Abaid et al.55
Graduate instructors were surveyed on day one before the beginning of the
training and on day six at the end of the program. The pre-assessment question-
naire included two fill-in-the-blank questions and one ranking question (T1, T2,
and T3), see Figure 4 in Appendix 1, where the post-assessment survey is reported
for improving readability. In T1 and T2, graduate instructors were asked about
their teaching experience with respect to their students’ age and the area of science
they typically teach. In T3, they were asked to rank five figures, where the first one
was expected to be highly impacted by a smarter use of energy in the Malaysian
community and the last one not to be effected by smarter energy. The question
displayed a picture of the Petronas Tower, Kuala-Lumpur, during one major haze
event; an image of an isolated naked tree with an orangutan; a view of the crisp
border between the rainforest and a palm oil plantation; a picture of a recently
introduced overhead train line; and a cartoon of a hospital and a doctor. While all
issues illustrated in the pictures can be impacted by a smart use of energy sources
(there are no good or bad answers), the question was mainly designed to survey the
level of awareness of the participants of current Malaysian problems. The rest of
the survey included three statements (T4, T5, and T6), where the rate of agreement
(from ‘‘agree a lot’’ to ‘‘disagree a lot’’) of the graduate instructors for engineering,
the importance of hands-on experiments in education, and the relationship between
nature and engineering were tested. The graduate instructors’ post-assessment
survey included questions T1 to T6 and three more statements (T7 to T9) to test
the feasibility of the curriculum to be easily taught in Malaysian secondary schools,
see Figure 4 in Appendix 1. Further, a few lines were included to add suggestions to
improve the curriculum.
The students were also surveyed with pre- and post-questionnaires before start-
ing the training and at the end of the exhibit, see Figure 5 in Appendix 1, where the
post-assessment survey is reported for improving readability. The pre-survey
included four fill-in-the-blank questions. Specifically, it comprised a demographic
question (S1) asking for the student’s grade; a question on the perception of the par-
ticipant toward STEM disciplines in school (S2); a comfort question (S3) on the
student’s favorite animal; and another STEM-related question (S4), where the
student expressed what he/she wants to be when an adult. Question 5 (S5) was
the ranking question corresponding to T3 of the graduate instructors’ surveys.
Further, a graphic multiple-choice question (S6) asked the student to circle one
thing engineers do among researching, performing, designing, cooking, building,
and assembling. Similar to the graduate instructors’ surveys, the questionnaire
included seven statements (S7 to S13) to express the rate of agreement toward
308 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

STEM and engineering. In the post-assessment surveys, three more statements (S14
to S16) were added to evaluate the perception of the program and the exhibit.
To test the impact of the curriculum on the graduate instructors and students,
survey responses were compared in pre- and post-assessments. Answers were con-
verted to natural numbers, with 1 representing the most positive option
(‘‘extremely’’ in questions T3 and S5, and ‘‘agree a lot’’ in questions T4 to T9
and S7 to S16) and increasing numbers less favorable options. The non-parametric
Mann–Whitney U test56 was utilized to compare pre- and post-distributions. This
test is appropriate for ordinal or interval-independent variables and allows efficient
analysis without the restrictive hypothesis of a normal distribution for the data-
set.57 For completeness, we report pre- (PRE median) and post-medians (POST
median) and pre- (PRE mean) and post-means (POST mean) in tables. In case of
statistically significant comparisons (p < 0.05), p values are also presented.

Training results
Graduate instructors
Every graduate instructor completed the pre-assessment survey, yet, 5 out of 28 did
not participate in activities on day six of Bitara STEM and in the post-assessment
survey. According to the pre-assessment, 25.00% of the graduate instructors did
not answer question T2 (area of science taught), suggesting that at least 75.00% of
them had some teaching experience. Among them, 21.00% had experience in teach-
ing engineering, 7.00% in educational sciences, and 46.00% in sciences, such as
biology and chemistry. Out of the instructors with previous teaching experience,
some of them taught high-schoolers, and some had teaching experience at the
university level according to responses to question T1 (grade level taught in
school).
When asked to rank the most impacted problems by a smart use of energy (T3), the
graduate instructors indicated transportation (40.00%), forest (30.00%), haze
(20.00%), animals (10.00%), and health (0.00%) as extremely affected in the pre-assess-
ment. Percentages in parentheses indicate the number of responses normalized by the
number of participants. After the training, the most extremely impacted problems were
ordered as forest (43.48%), haze (30.43%), transportation (21.74%), animals (4.35%),
and health (0.00%). Statistical comparison indicates that instructors’ response was sig-
nificantly different after the activity (p < 0.01 for each problem), see Table 2.
Results for questions T4 to T9 are reported in Table 1. Question T4 (engineering
is important for the future of the world) was generally agreed upon (92.86% and
100.00% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the pre- and post-surveys, respectively).
Similarly, statement T5 (experiments are necessary for students) demonstrated large
consensus (92.86% and 95.65% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the pre- and
post-surveys, respectively). Question T6 (engineers need to know much about nature)
had a similar response (92.86% and 100.00% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the
pre- and post-surveys, respectively). Questions on the curriculum also demonstrated
Tauro et al. 309

Table 1. Pre- and post-assessment results for questions T4 to T9. Values are reported in per-
centages rounded to the nearest hundredth.

T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9

AA 71.43–78.26 78.57–91.30 71.43–78.26 30.43 34.78 26.09

A 21.43–21.74 14.29–4.35 21.43–21.74 65.22 52.17 60.87
D 0–0 0–4.35 0–0 4.35 13.04 13.04
DD 7.14–0 7.14–0 7.14–0 0 0 0
A dash separates pre- and post-assessment values for questions T4 to T6.

the favorable rate of agreement of the graduate instructors. Specifically, statement

T7 (the curriculum is easy to implement in class) was largely agreed upon (95.65% of
either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’). Statement T8 (students’ background is appropriate
for the curriculum) also showed large consensus (86.95% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or
‘‘agree’’). Statement T9 (students can easily do the experiments) confirmed the favor-
able opinion of the instructors on the program (86.96% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or
‘‘agree’’). Median and mean results are reported in Table 2.

Students
A group of 62 students completed the pre-assessment and 55 the post-assessment
questionnaires. According to responses to question S1 (what grade are you in), the
participants were high-schoolers. When inquired about their favorite subject in
school (S2), students responded consistently in both the pre- and post-assessments
(79.00% and 84.00% indicated either mathematics or science in pre- and post-
surveys, respectively). Results for the comfort question S3 (what’s your favorite
animal) are not reported. Typical answers were ‘‘cat’’ and ‘‘rabbit’’.
With regard to question S4 (what do you want to be when you grow up?), see
Table 3, students’ responses in the pre-survey were as follows: 20.97% engineers,
25.81% scientists, 24.19% doctors, 6.45% business persons, 17.74% other, and
4.84% null answers. After receiving the training, percentages were as follows:
34.55% engineers, 18.18% scientists, 16.36% doctors, 10.91% business persons,
12.73% other, and 7.27% null answers.
Pre-assessment responses to the ranking question S5 indicated the following
order of extreme effectiveness due to smart energy: forest (57.14%), health
(21.43%), transportation (14.29%), haze (7.14%), and animals (0.00%). After
the training, the students preference for extremely impacted problems was modified
as follows: forest (45.16%), health (22.58%), haze (22.58%), animals (6.45%), and
transportation (3.23%). Statistical comparison indicates that students’ response
was significantly different upon administration of the curriculum (p < 0.01 for
each problem), see also Table 4.
The question on what ‘‘engineers do’’ (S6) shed light on the effect of the cur-
riculum on the changed perception of STEM-related careers. Before the training,
310 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

Table 2. Pre- and post-assessment median and mean results for questions T3 to T9.

Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post

T3
Haze 4 3 3.3 2.7
Animals 3.5 3 3.5 3.2
Forest 2.5 2 2.6 2.4
Transportation 2 3 2.3 2.6
Health 3 4 3.3 4

T4 T5

Median Mean Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1 1 1.4 1.2 1 1 1.4 1.1

T6 T7
Median Mean Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post – Post – Post

1 1 1.4 1.2 2 1.7

T8 T9
Median Mean Median Mean

– Post – Post – Post – Post

2 1.8 2 1.9

most of the students (70.00%) identified engineers with research, building, and
assembling. Specifically, students’ selections were as follows: 22.50% research,
1.25% perform, 17.50% design, 0.00% cook, 20.00% build, 27.50% assemble,
and 11.25% null answers. After the activity, the designing and building compo-
nents were very often reported (40.00% in the post-survey against 37.50% in the
pre-survey). Specifically, the following scores were obtained: 13.85% research,
0.00% perform, 18.46% design, 0.00% cook, 21.54% build, 24.62% assemble,
and 21.54% null answers.
Results for questions S7 to S16 are reported in Tables 3 and 4. The statement
questions were generally agreed upon by more than half of the students’ popula-
tion. Specifically, question S7 (engineering is fun) was answered consistently in the
pre- and post-surveys (93.55% and 92.73% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the
 Tauro et al.

Table 3. Pre- and post-assessment results for questions S4 to S16.

S4
Engineer Scientist Doctor Business Other None
20.97–34.55 25.81–18.18 24.19–16.36 6.45–10.91 17.74–12.73 4.84–7.27

S6
Null Research Perform Design Chef Build Assemble
11.25–21.54 22.50–13.85 1.25–0 17.50–18.46 0–0 20.00–21.54 27.50–24.62

S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16

AA 50.00–54.55 50.00–58.18 9.68–21.82 16.13–29.09 59.68–70.91 41.94–56.36 16.13–41.82 70.91 78.18 74.55
A 43.55–38.18 48.39–34.55 22.58–29.09 58.06–45.45 40.32–23.64 43.55–32.73 35.48–21.82 21.82 14.55 14.55
D 6.45–1.82 1.61–1.82 61.29–40.00 25.81–20.00 0–0 6.45–9.09 35.48–29.09 3.64 0 5.45
DD 0–5.45 0–5.45 6.45–9.09 0–5.45 0–5.45 1.61–1.82 6.45–7.27 3.64 7.27 5.45
N 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 6.45–0 6.45–0 0 0 0

Values are reported in percentages rounded to the nearest hundredth. A dash separates pre- and post-assessment values for questions S4 to S13.
311
 312

Table 4. Pre- and post-assessment median and mean results for questions S5 and S7 to S16.

Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post

S5
Haze 5 5 4.2 3.8
Animals 3 3 3.1 3
Forest 1 2 1.9 2.1
Transportation 3.5 3 3.1 3
Health 3 3 2.7 3.1

S7 S8
Median Mean Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

1.5 1 1.6 1.6 1.5 1 1.5 1.5

S9 S10
Median Mean Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

3 2 2.6 2.4 2 2 2.1 2
(continued)
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)
 Tauro et al.

Table 4. Continued

S11 S12
Median Mean Median Mean

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

1 1 1.4 1.4 2 1 1.6 1.6

S13 S14
Median Mean Median Mean
Pre Post Pre Post – Post – Post

2 2 2.3 2 1 1.4

S15 S16
Median Mean Median Mean
– Post – Post – Post – Post

1 1.4 1 1.4
313
314 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

pre- and post-surveys, respectively). Question S8 (engineers are cool) was also
largely agreed upon (98.39% and 92.73% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in
the pre- and post-surveys, respectively). Question S9 (I know many engineers)
revealed that a rather small percentage of the participants was acquainted with
the engineering world (32.26% and 50.91% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the
pre- and post-surveys, respectively). Question S10 (many kids in my class could
become engineers) illustrated a positive attitude toward the possibility of becoming
professionals (74.19% and 74.54% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the pre-
and post-surveys, respectively).
Similarly, general agreement was found with respect to question S11 (engineer-
ing is important for the future of the world) in both assessments (100.00% and
94.55% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the pre- and post-surveys, respect-
ively). Statement S12 (engineers need to know much about nature) garnered a large
favorable consensus (85.49% and 89.09% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the
pre- and post-surveys, respectively). Question S13 (I want to be an engineer when I
grow up) indicated a general excitement toward STEM fields (51.61% and 63.64%
of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’ in the pre- and post-surveys, respectively). A
large number of students also strongly agreed on statement S14 (I learned a lot
these days) in the post-survey (92.73% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or ‘‘agree’’). Also, a
strong agreement was found with respect to the curriculum and the exhibit. In
particular, many students agreed on statement S15 (I would like more activities
like this one in the future) in the post-survey (92.73% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’ or
‘‘agree’’). Favorable consensus was also obtained for statement S16 (today’s exhibit
made engineering look fun) in the post-assessment (89.10% of either ‘‘agree a lot’’
or ‘‘agree’’).

Discussion and Conclusions

Graduate instructors and students showed a favorable attitude toward the curricu-
lum. Further, the Bitara STEM exhibition was successful in involving students,
teachers, and families in a multidisciplinary STEM festival. General appraisal of
the program and positive feedback from the surveys demonstrate that the curricu-
lum was successful in engaging instructors and students in a novel PBL-based
educational environment. This was the major objective of the program, and such
a favorable reception offers a compelling evidence for the need of future imple-
mentations in Malaysia. Specifically, strong consensus was shown with respect to
the contents of the sessions (S14) and to the experimental activities (S15). A large
amount of the participants strongly agreed with ‘‘engineering being fun’’ (S7), and
many enjoyed the Bitara STEM exhibition (S16). According to the statement ques-
tions in the graduate instructors’ post-surveys (T7 to T9), the curriculum was
deemed easy to implement in high-school classes and appropriate for the students’
background.
According to the assessment, the activities included in the curriculum improved
and enriched the instructors’ perspective on STEM education. For instance,
Tauro et al. 315

statistical significance among answers given to T3 in the pre- and post-assessments

showed that instructors were stimulated to think of the diverse impacts that energy
has on society and nature, potentially improving their capacity of multidisciplinary
thinking and integrating technical and nontechnical skills. Given the short time of
the program and the relatively small number of participants, the improved per-
formance of the instructors is a particularly encouraging results, which is rarely
observed in the literature.31 Based on written and oral assessments by the instruc-
tors, the sessions harmoniously balanced theoretical aspects and engaging experi-
ments in a friendly format.
The interest of K-12 students in the program supported the efficacy of the cur-
riculum at improving engineering perception in children. From the pre-surveys,
almost 21.00% of the student participants declared the desire to pursue a career
in engineering before attending the program. Remarkably, the portion of students
interested in engineering jobs increased up to 34.55% in the post-assessment. When
asked about being engineers in the future (S13), a noticeable, though not statistic-
ally significant, increase of ‘‘agree a lot’’ answers was observed in the post-assess-
ment. Therefore, it can be concluded that even if the program did not make the
students change attitude toward their ‘‘dream job’’, it certainly contributed to a
positive perception of engineering. According to the assessment, the activities
included in the curriculum improved and enriched the students’ idea of what
engineers do. A large majority of students also agreed that engineering is very
important for the future of the world (S11) and that engineers need to know a
lot about nature (S12).
Although the program obtained a favorable reception, several factors should be
considered for future implementations. Firstly, most of the answers by both
instructors and students did not show statistically significant variations
between pre- and post-surveys. Further, the concentration of top students and
highly interested individuals in STEM disciplines certainly contributed to the
favorable reception of the program. To fully reduce instructors’ intervention in
hands-on activities, the curriculum should be adjusted to include only experiments
that are directly performed by children (the solar cell experience should be either
simplified or administered to older students). In line with PBL theory, the curricu-
lum activities should be administered over longer times, possibly in several weeks,
to allow the students to assimilate concepts and to fully express their creativity.
Finally, testing larger populations may aid in further analysis on the effectiveness
of the program on K-12 students.
Future projects should target the participant attitude, background, and individ-
ual abilities to provide a thorough assessment of the program. For instance,
gender-disaggregated data would be particularly interesting to capture the repre-
sentation of Malaysian women in engineering.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
316 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by the National University of
Malaysia under a contract with the New York Academy of Sciences’ K-12 education out-
reach program and the New York University (NYU) Tandon School of Engineering Center
for K-12 STEM Education. Further, the authors thank the NYU School of Engineering
student team that initially developed and taught ‘‘Science of Smart Cities’’ and its initial
funding source, the Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation. The authors would also like to
acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation under CAREER grant no.
CMMI-0745753 and from the Mitsui USA Foundation for developing curricular elements
that were then adapted in the Bitara STEM energy curriculum.

References
1. Craig E, Thomas RJ, Hou C, et al. Where will all the STEM talent come from? Technical
report, Accenture Institute for High Performance, 2012.
2. US Department of Education. STEM Attrition: college students’ paths into and out of
STEM field – statistical analysis report. Washington, DC: ED Publications, 2013.
3. Lord SM, Layton RA and Ohland MW. Trajectories of electrical engineering and computer
engineering students by race and gender. IEEE Trans Educ 2011; 54: 610–618.
4. Orr MK, Lord SM, Layton RA, et al. Student demographics and outcomes in mech-
anical engineering in the U.S. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2014; 42: 48–60.
5. Ost B. The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences.
Econ Educ Rev 2010; 29: 923–934.
6. Whalen DF and Shelley MC. Academic success for STEM and non-STEM majors.
J STEM Educ 2010; 11: 45–60.
7. Baglione ML. Incorporating practical laboratory experiments to reinforce dynamic sys-
tems and control concepts. In: ASME international mechanical engineering congress and
exposition, vol. 7. Lake Buena Vista, FL: American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2009, pp.391–395.
8. Mervis J. Better intro courses seen as key to reducing attrition of STEM majors. Science
2010; 330: 306.
9. Samian Y and Noor NM. Student’s perception on good lecturer based on lecturer
performance assessment. In: Procedia – social and behavioral sciences, vol. 56, 2012,
pp.783–790.
10. National Research Council. Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: rapidly approach-
ing category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
11. Strauss K. The most underrated jobs of 2016. Forbes 2016. https://www.forbes.com/
sites/karstenstrauss/2016/09/16/the-most-underrated-jobs-in-2016/#10db400910db.
12. López-Querol S, Sánchez-Cambronero S, Rivas A, et al. Improving civil engineering
education: transportation geotechnics taught through project-based learning methodol-
ogies. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Practice 2014; 141: 04014007.
13. Nehdi M. Crisis of civil engineering education in information technology age: analysis
and prospects. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Practice 2002; 128: 131–137.
14. Chan EHW, Chan MW, Scott D, et al. Educating the 21st century construction pro-
fessionals. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Practice 2002; 128: 44–51.
15. Christodoulou S. Educating civil engineering professionals of tomorrow. J Prof Issues
Eng Educ Practice 2004; 130: 90–94.
Tauro et al. 317

16. Leang KK. An experiment for teaching students about control at the nanoscale. IEEE
Control Syst Mag 2012; 32: 66–68.
17. Rinderer M, Kollegger A, Fischer BMC, et al. Sensing with boots and trousers -
qualitative field observations of shallow soil moisture patterns. Hydrol Process 2012;
26: 4112–4120.
18. Shakerin S and Jensen DD. Enhancement of mechanics education by means of photo-
elasticity and finite element method. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2001; 29: 307–320.
19. Wood J, Campbell M, Wood K, et al. Enhancing the teaching of machine design by
creating a basic hands-on environment with mechanical ‘‘breadboards’’. Int J Mech Eng
Educ 2005; 33: 1–25.
20. Altintas Y and Croft EA. Electro-mechanical design engineering: a progress report and
future directions for mechatronics education. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2002; 30: 325–339.
21. Do Y. Self-selective multi-objective robot vision projects for students of different cap-
abilities. Mechatronics 2013; 23: 974–986.
22. Putra AS, Ng JJ, Tan KK, et al. Enhancing student participation in a design-centric
mechatronics class. Mechatronics 2013; 23: 918–925.
23. Saliba MA, Cassar DJ and Axiak M. Undergraduate mechatronics research case study:
contributing towards a dexterous robot hand. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2012; 40: 234–250.
24. Wang Y, Yu Y, Xie C, et al. A proposed approach to mechatronics design education:
integrating design methodology, simulation with projects. Mechatronics 2013; 23:
942–948.
25. Soares FO, Sepùlveda MJ, Monteiro S, et al. An integrated project of entrepreneurship
and innovation in engineering education. Mechatronics 2013; 23: 987–996.
26. Wang Y, Schwarz B, Pan Y, et al. Mechatronics education at CDHAW of Tongji
University: structure, orientation and curriculum. Mechatronics 2008; 18: 172–177.
27. Wang Y, Yu Y, Xie C, et al. Mechatronics education at CDHAW of Tongji University:
laboratory guidelines, framework, implementations and improvements. Mechatronics
2009; 19: 1346–1352.
28. Tobin K. Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and
answers to improve learning. School Sci Math 1990; 90: 403–418.
29. Kolberg E, Reich Y and Levin I. Project-based high school mechatronics course. Int J
Eng Educ 2003; 19: 557–562.
30. Abaid N, Bernhardt J, Frank JA, et al. Controlling a robotic fish with a smart phone.
Mechatronics 2013; 23: 491–496.
31. Faria F, Klima K, Posen ID, et al. A new approach of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics outreach in climate change, energy, and environmental decision
making. Sustainabil J Rec 2015; 8: 261–271.
32. Musto JC, Howard WE and SkipRather S. Using solid modeling and rapid prototyping
in a mechanical engineering outreach program of high school students. Int J Mech Eng
Educ 2004; 32: 283–291.
33. Chyba M and Smith RN. Robo-Nemo: educating youth about ocean research! 2013.
http://math.hawaii.edu/stomp/RoboNemo.
34. Yilmaz M, Ozcelik S, Yilmazer N, et al. Design-oriented enhanced robotics curriculum.
IEEE Trans Educ 2013; 56: 137–144.
35. Kapila V, Iskander M and Kriftcher N. Integrating graduate student research into K-12
classrooms: a GK-12 fellows project. In: Proceedings of the American Society of
Engineering Education Annual Conference. Washington, DC: American Society for
Engineering Education, 2010.
318 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

36. Kapila V. Research experience for teachers site: a professional development project for
teachers. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition. Washington DC: American Society for Engineering
Education, 2010.
37. Abaid N, Yuvienco C, Kapila V, et al. Mechatronics mania at the inaugural USA
Science and Engineering Festival. IEEE Control Syst Mag 2011; 31: 105–124.
38. Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Marx RW, et al. Motivating project-based learning: sus-
taining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychologist 1991; 26: 369–398.
39. Laut J, Bartolini T and Porfiri M. Bioinspiring an interest in STEM. IEEE Trans Educ
2015; 58: 48–55.
40. Rulli MC and D’Odorico P. The water footprint of land grabbing. Geophys Res Lett
2013; 40: 6130–6135.
41. Schwab K and Sala-i Martı́n XA. The global competitiveness report 2013–2014.
Technical report, World Economic Forum, Geneva, 2013.
42. Nozawa M. Secondary education regional information base: country profile - Malaysia.
Technical report, UNESCO, Bangkok, Thailand, 2011.
43. Caragliu A, DelBo C and Nijkamp P. Smart cities in Europe. Series Research
Memoranda - VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration
and Econometrics (48), 2009.
44. D’Alessandro A, Ubertini F, Laflamme S, et al. Towards smart concrete for smart cities:
recent results and future application of strain-sensing nanocomposites. J Smart Cities
2015; 1: 3–14.
45. Ahmad S and Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable devel-
opment of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of
Malaysia. Renew Energy 2014; 63: 458–466.
46. Tang CF and Tan BW. The linkages among energy consumption, economic growth,
relative price, foreign direct investment, and financial development in Malaysia. Qual
Quant 2014; 48: 781–797.
47. Bell S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. Clearing House:
A J Educ Strategies Issues Ideas 2010; 83: 39–43.
48. Dolmans DHJM, DeGrave W, Wolfhagen IHAP, et al. Problem-based learning: future
challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ 2005; 39: 732–741.
49. Environmental Literacy and Inquiry Working Group at Lehigh University, 2014. http://
ei.lehigh.edu.
50. Science Toys You Can Make With Your Kids, 2014. http://scitoys.com.
51. GreenLearning Canada, 2014. http://re-energy.ca/hydro-generator.
52. Smestad GP and Gratzel M. Demonstrating electron transfer and nanotechnology: a
natural dye-sensitized nanocrystalline energy converter. J Chem Educ 1998; 75: 752–756.
53. Chen Z, Um TI and Bart-Smith H. Bio-inspired robotic manta ray powered by ionic
polymer-metal composite artificial muscles. Int J Smart Nano Mater 2012; 3: 296–308.
54. Kim D and Myung H. Birdlike bipedal robot and its walking control. In: Han JH (ed.)
Proceedings of the international symposium on nature inspired technology, Kangwon,
Korea, 2012, p.109.
55. Abaid N, Kopman V and Porfiri M. An attraction toward engineering careers: the story
of a Brooklyn outreach program for K-12 students. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 2013; 20:
31–39.
Tauro et al. 319

56. Keller G. Statistics for management and economics, 8th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western
College Publications, 2008.
57. Robson C. Experiment, design and statistics in psychology. Middlesex, England: Penguin
Books, 1994.

Appendix 1
Here, post-assessment surveys administered to graduate instructors and students
are reported in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Post-assessment surveys administered to graduate instructors. All questions in the

pre-assessment were included in the post-assessment.
320 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 45(4)

Figure 5. Post-assessment survey administered to students. All questions in the pre-assess-

ment were included in the post-assessment.

View publication stats