No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: In this study, we investigated the implementation of project‐based learning (PBL) activities in four secondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education settings to examine the impact of inquiry based instructional practices on student learning. Method: Direct classroom observations were conducted during the 2013–2014 school year in STEM Traditional Courses, a STEM Platform School, an Engineering Optional Program (EOP), and a Virtual STEM Academy (VSA) to measure teacher instructional practices (School Observation Measure) and student engagement (The Rubric for Student‐Centered Activities). Results: The four approaches to STEM education showed significant differences in their implementation of PBL, with the EOP and VSA having higher incidences of PBL activities. Additionally, higher‐level questioning strategies, higher‐order instructional feedback, and integration of STEM subject areas was absent or rarely observed. Conclusions: Components of PBL are missing in STEM education, in traditional and non‐traditional STEM courses. In‐service teachers may benefit from professional development that enhances their understanding of PBL activities to maximize student learning opportunities.

This study, which was based on Houston and Mednick's experiment (1963), assessed the differential reinforcing properties of associative novelty for high-creative and low-creative Ss. Eighty subjects, die top and bottom 26 per cent of a pool of 156 Ss who had taken the Remote Associates Test (RAT), participated in a 2 X 4 factorial experiment. The independent variables were creativity, measured by the RAT, and type of reinforcement of nouns; the dependent variable was the number of nouns chosen over blocks of 40 trials. Each S saw 180 cards with two words, a noun and a non-noun, typed on each card. If S chose the non-noun, E responded with its most common associate. If S chose the noun, E responded with a very common associate, a moderately common associate, a very uncommon associate, or a similar-sounding word, depending on the experimental condition. Neither main effect of creativity nor type of reinforcement was significant (p > 0.05); only the effect of trials was significant (p < 0.01). Hence, the main findings of Houston and Mednick were not replicated. Such results may have been due to the nature of the task which was perceived by the Ss as a multidimensional concept-identification task with many irrelevant aspects to divert S's attention from the relevant features of the experiment. ACCOBDING TO MEDNICK'S ASSOCIATIVE THEORY of creativity (1962, p. 221),•This experiment was conducted as a senior undergraduate independent study project in which die second author served as advisor.