K-12 Engineering Outreach: Design Decisions, Rationales, and Applications

Main Article Content

Gamze Ozogul
Jana Reisslein
Martin Reisslein


Even though engineering outreach to K-12 schools initially seemed to be a simple undertaking, it proved to require complex design solutions related to a variety of issues. The purpose of this design case is to tell the story of our National Science Foundation (NSF) supported engineering outreach project, that took place between the years of 2007-2013. The design problem of this project started with the issue of how to design the engineering instruction, what to provide within the K-12 instruction, how to conduct the outreach, and how to overcome physical limitations of school sites. This design case captures the design process, context, various designs of the computer-mediated learning platform, and the rationales for design iterations. We also describe how the design team, which included experts in instructional design, electrical engineering, and educational psychology, as well as carpenters, teachers, and graphic designers, worked together to accomplish an outreach project that reached over 3,600 K-12 students. In addition to the design processes, we also report the major findings from our evaluation studies of the intructional modules delivered to K-12 students, and how we used these results to iterate and refine our module designs.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ozogul, G., Reisslein, J., & Reisslein, M. (2016). K-12 Engineering Outreach: Design Decisions, Rationales, and Applications. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i2.20105
K-12 Classroom Implementation
Author Biographies

Gamze Ozogul, Indiana University

Gamze Ozogul is an Assistant Professor of the Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University. She has her M.S. from Middle East Technical University in Computer Education and Instructional Technology, and her Ph.D. in Educational Technology from Arizona State University (ASU). She completed her Postdoc in ASU’s School of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering. Her research interests include instructional design, engineering education, and evaluation of educational programs. 

Jana Reisslein, Arizona State University

Jana Reisslein received her Ph.D. degree in educational technology from Arizona State University, Tempe, in 2005. Her research interests are in the areas of instructional design and evaluation.

Martin Reisslein, Arizona State University


Martin Reisslein received his Ph.D. in systems engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in 1998. He is a Professor in the School of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe. His research interests are in the areas of communication networks and engineering education.




Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 932-945.

Ayres, P. and Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135-146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255 (5044), 556-559.

Bartholome, T. & Bromme, R. (2009). Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: What kind of support for whom? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 282–293.

Besterfield-Sacre, M.B., Moreno, M., Shuman, L.J., & Atman, C.J. (2001). Gender and ethnicity differences in freshman engineering student attitudes: A cross-institutional study. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 477-490.

Billings, D. R. (2012). Efficacy of adaptive feedback strategies in simulation-based training. Military Psychology, 24(2), 114-133.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: US National Academy Press.

de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science, and information technology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(110), 7-14.

Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the splitattention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216–224.

Gilmartin, S. K., Li, E., & Aschbacher, P. (2006). The relationship between interest in physical science/engineering, science class experiences, and family contexts: Variations by gender and race/ ethnicity among secondary students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 12(2-3), 179-207.

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525.

Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54.

Helgeland, B., & Rancour, D. (2006). Circuit concepts inventory, Part I. University of Massachusetts—Dartmouth. Retrieved from http:// www.foundationcoalition.org/home/keycomponents/concept/ circuits.html

Ing, M., Aschbacher, P. R., & Tsai, S. M. (2014). Gender differences in the consistency of middle school students’ interest in engineering and science careers. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2), 1-11.

Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 135–145.

Johnson, A. M., Butcher, K. R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Learning from abstract and contextualized representations: The effect of verbal guidance. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2239-2247.

Johnson, A. M., Butcher, K. R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Introductory circuit analysis learning from abstract and contextualized circuit representations: Effects of diagram labels. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(3), 160-168.

Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319-337.

Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97-115.

Johnson, A.M., Reisslein, J., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Representation sequencing in computer-based engineering education, Computers & Education, 72, 249-261.

Johnson, A.M., Reisslein, J., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Transitional feedback schedules during computer-based problem-solving practice. Computers & Education, 81, 270-280.

Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.

Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Kester, L., Kirschner, P.A., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 167-185.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(6), 569–596.

Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual information processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.

Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

McGuinness, C. (1990). Talking about thinking: The role of metacognition in teaching thinking. In K. Gilhooly, M. Deane & G. Erdos (Eds.), Lines of thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 310-312). San Diego: Academic Press.

McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 440–448.

Meij, J. van der, & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199–212.

Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178.

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback on discoverybased multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1), 99-113.

Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1-19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 765-781.

Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 492-503.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215-248.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156-163.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 165-173.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117-128.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 194-206.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.

Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 32-47.

Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2009). Optimizing workedexample instruction in electrical engineering: The role of fading and feedback during problem-solving practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 83-92.

Moreno, R., Reislein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 52-60.

Nathan, M. J., Srisurichan, R., Walkington, C., Wolfgram, M., Williams, C., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Building cohesion across representations: A mechanism for STEM integration. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 77–116.

Ogunfunmi, T., & Rahman, M. (2010, May). A concept inventory for an electric circuits course: Rationale and fundamental topics. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), (pp. 2804-2807). IEEE.

Ozogul, G., Johnson, A.M., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2012). Technological literacy learning with cumulative and stepwise integration of equations into electrical circuit diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 480-487.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 103-122). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Reisslein J., Johnson A.M., & Reisslein M. (2015). Color coding of circuit quantities in introductory circuit analysis instruction. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58(1), 7-14.

Reisslein, M., Moreno, R., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: The impact of abstract vs. contextualized representation and practice on learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 225-235.

Reisslein, J., Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Bishop, K. L., Harvey, J., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Circuits kit K–12 outreach: Impact of circuit element representation and student gender. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(3), 316-321.

Sangam, D., & Jesiek, B. K. (2015). Conceptual gaps in circuits textbooks: A comparative study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58(3), 194-202.

Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2009). The effects of realism in learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 481–494.

Slotta, J.D., & Chi, M.T.H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261-289.

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.

Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990) Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119,176–192.

Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988) Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424–436.

Tulving, E. (1977). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381-403). New York: Academic Press.

Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.