Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:37:46.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Outcomes and Insights from a Chocolate-based Undergraduate Materials Science Course and Other Topical Outreach Activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2018

Jennifer Dailey
Jennifer Dailey*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N Charles St, Baltimore, MD, USA 21218
*
*(Email: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract

Those involved in STEM outreach, from elementary schools through undergraduate students, all use varying teaching styles in an effort to instruct and inspire students. However, it is incredibly difficult to gauge or compare learning outcomes from new teaching techniques in situ. In this work, we describe the outcomes of a new undergraduate mini-course at Johns Hopkins University, Chocolate: An Introduction to Materials Science. In particular, the outcomes of teaching binary phase diagrams in this course using topical food examples were compared to the outcomes of the same instructor teaching a similar control group of students using standard textbook examples, reducing a number of confounding factors and allowing us to objectively analyze the benefits of using an atypical, popular approach to teach a standard subject. Results indicate that the students in the Chocolate course were not only more excited and engaged in the lecture, but they had identical or potentially greater learning gains than the control group.

Keywords

educationphase equilibriabiomaterial
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 3 , Issue 12: Broader Impact , 2018 , pp. 623 - 629
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S., Innovation in Large Lectures: Teaching for Active Learning. BioScience. 47, 601–607 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, I., A Sense of Wonder, Starting Point for Inquiry in Primary Science. Science Education International, 21, 102–115 (2010).Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E., Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criswell, B., Framing Inquiry in High School Chemistry: Helping Students See the Bigger Picture. Journal of Chemical Education. 89, 199–205 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A., Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education. 86, 175–218 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, G., Chocolate: A Marvelous Natural Product of Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 81 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. J., Using Differential Scanning Calorimetry To Explore the Phase Behavior of Chocolate. Journal of Chemical Education. 93, 898–902 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowat, A. C., Hollar, K. A., Stone, H. A., & Rosenberg, D., The Science of Chocolate: Interactive Activities on Phase Transitions, Emulsification, and Nucleation. Journal of Chemical Education. 88, 29–33 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, S. T., The science of chocolate (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Dailey supplementary material

Dailey supplementary material 1

Download Dailey supplementary material(File)
File 47.9 KB