1

Piedmont College STEM Camp 2018

BioEngineering Group

Jami Brownlee

Jonathan Long

Jennifer Smith

Catherine Trice
 2

Introduction and Overview

The purpose of the 2018 Woodrow Wilson STEM Camp was to provide campers

with an opportunity to become experts in focused STEM fields. Roughly two thirds of the

campers were return participants and were rising 6th through 10th grade. Overall, 44

campers participated in the five day, overnight camp at the Demorest location of

Piedmont College. For the camp, the fellows were grouped in three subgroups:

BioEngineering, Environmental, and Robotics. While the camp as a whole was geared

towards pollution and ecosystems, BioEngineering decided to provide lessons and

experiences that emphasized humanity’s role in creating and reducing pollution. The

lessons started with focusing on very small pollution with the inclusion of good versus

bad bacteria and water quality1, ultimately working towards large pollution by learning

about microorganisms and trash collection. The scope of this group’s focus was to have

students observe various types of water pollution and discuss ideas and approaches to

reduce water pollution.

The students were first tasked with testing local water samples from local

sources for the bacteria E. Coli. These sources were mainly from the North Georgia

region with one sample coming from the Gulf of Mexico. The culmination of the camp

was to challenge students to design, build, and test a device to collect trash in the

water, drawing inspiration from a device called the Seabin. The Seabin is a device

created to collect physical trash from “water of marinas, Yacht Clubs, ports and any

water body with a calm environment and services available” (Seabin Project, 2016). It

1
Student Misconceptions: Inspirations for these common misconceptions were derived from two separate
misconception database entries by the BioEngineering group.
 3

was our ultimate goal to present the seabin prototypes to local communities as working

devices. Even though the students had many great ideas and were able to produce

valuable improvements to the design, no prototype is ready at this time to be donated.

Learning Objectives

The key learning objectives we strived for the BioEngineering students to take

away from this camp were derived from the Georgia Performance Standards for

Environmental Science: SEV5. Students will recognize that human beings are part of

the global ecosystem and will evaluate the effects of human activities and technology on

ecosystems. E. Describe the effects and potential implications of pollution and resource

depletion on the environment at the local and global levels (e.g. air and water pollution,

solid waste disposal, depletion of the stratospheric ozone, global warming, and land

uses). We also included a segment on flow of energy & cycling of matter in regards to

biomagnification, the water cycle, and the nitrogen cycle. We planned for students to

use this background information to build their opinions and participate in rich

discussions with their peers to expand their understandings about different types of

pollution. Students would receive the opportunity to perform laboratory work to analyze

water quality on the microscopic level. From there they would consider pollution on a

larger scale, such as plastics and trash, and come up with their own ideas to help

decrease the amount of pollution in our freshwater systems and then actually build their

own models. 2 This is where we anticipated students to practice the Engineering Design

2
Planning: We set specific content goals for our campers to achieve, as well as soft skill goals. Students
had the chance to learn the science behind freshwater pollution as well as gain experience with
laboratory procedures, problem-solving, and collaborating with their peers.
 4

Process to design, create, analyze, and revise their prototypes. Incorporated in the

Engineering Design Process are some of the Standards for Mathematical Practice

required by the Georgia Department of Education. These standards are as follows.

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

4. Model with mathematics.

5. Use appropriate tools strategically.

6. Attend to precision.

7. Look for and make use of structure.

8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Campers had to apply these standards to work through the steps of identifying the

problem, exploring, designing, creating, testing, and making improvements. One of the

most challenging standards is the first, to make sense of problems and persevere in

solving them. Campers had to constantly apply this standard during the Seabin

Challenge.
 5

STEM Camp 2018 Planning - Proposed Bioengineering Schedule

Monday (6/25) Tuesday (6/26) Wednesday (6/27) Thursday (6/28) Friday (6/29)

B-fast (8-9) Breakfast (8-9) Breakfast (8-9) Breakfast (8-9) Breakfast

AM (7-9) Check-in. LAB TIME LAB TIME (9-11) Modify & Test (9-10) Showcase
(9:30-10) Kick-off (9:15-9:45) Lab (9-10) Analyze E. Seabins @ Russell Set up.
-Introductions. Safety. coli results. Count *Video for (10) Parents
(10) Orientation (9:45-11) E. Coli colonies and presentations arrive.
*In STEM Center Lab compile class data.
*Walk resident (10-11) Discuss (11-12) Reflection: (11-12)
students down to (11-11:45) Group data. Think-Pair- *Students analyze Showcase
STEM Center Discussion/ Share results. their product.
Reflections- (Efficient? What (12-1)
Small group Microorganisms. (11-12) Reflections would you change?) Refreshments
(10-10:30) (Good vs Bad) *Students freely *Students can also and Pickup
Icebreaker - reflect on experience self reflect on their
Rock/Paper/Scisso so far. participation.
rs.
(10:30-11) Sewer
lice
*Explain goals for
lake trip and
purpose for lab.

(11-1) Travel Lake

Lanier

Lunch *Lunch-to-go *Lunch (12-1) *Lunch (12-1) *Lunch (12-1)

Cookout

PM (1-4) Lake Activity (1-2) Intro to Seabin (1-4) Seabin Build (1-3) Modify (as *DEBRIEF
*Boat Activity. Brainstorm (30-45 Finalize Seabin needed) *Clean
*Prior Knowledge mins): how can we plans. *Video for *Create Legacy
Mind Mapping. make our Seabin -Students explain presentations Documents
*Collect samples. more efficient? their proposals. *Presentation Prep
*Show students -Show video. -Make their models Discussion: Seabins
our Seabin Model. -Students come up and test in the SDC *What, So What,
- Students make with solutions on pool. Now What? In what
notes on what their own. *Video for ways are they
improvements presentations beneficial? Donate
they could do to (2-4) Seabin: Prep to local lake?
help efficiency. -3 groups of (4-5) Dorm Time
students. (3-4) Showcase
-Engineering Review
process / Scientific
Method.
 6

(4-5) Dorm Time (4-5) Dorm Time

Dinner (5-6) (5-6) (5-6) Pizza Night (5-6)

Eveni (6-7) Content (6-8) Georgia Floor (6-7) Run Mini-Task (6-7) Content
ng Reflections Map *Skit Reflections
(7-8) Program (8-9) Flex night / (7-9) Movie night (7-9) Showcase
Night Gym (9-10) Dorm Time prep
(8-9) Nature Walk (9-10) Dorm Time (9-10) Dorm Time
(9-10) Dorm Time

Daily ● Sewer Lice ● Student ● Student ● Student

Materi materials notebooks notebooks notebooks
als ● Student ● E. coli lab setup ● New Seabin ● WW Van
notebooks ● Articles / Videos materials (if ● Video cameras
● Large chart about bacteria requested) ● Chromebooks?
paper ● Seabin video ● Mini-Task Skit
● Markers ● Seabin prompt
● Collection jars materials
● Our Seabin ● Chromebooks
prototype for research?
 7

Daily Schedule

Monday, June 25th

11am - 5pm

STEM Camp kickoff started at 9:30 in the STEM Discovery Center (SDC). This

portion included a reading of Camp rules, a group activity performed by Ben Manning,

and a water trivia session hosted by Dr. Julie Palmour. Prior to camp, students filled out

a survey indicating their group preference, the three choices being Bioengineering,

Robotics, and Environmental, and all but one student received their top choice. Dr.

Palmour facilitated the grouping of students into these three subgroups followed by a

trip to Lake Lanier in Gainesville for a Lake Lanier Aquatic Study. This activity is a

floating classroom hosted by the Elachee Nature Science Center on a boat that works

directly on Lake Lanier. The activity is divided into two parts, one that is on land and

focuses on watersheds and water quality, and another that is conducted on a boat

focusing on the biology and chemistry of the lake. This activity was a perfect tie in to the

goals of the camp and was a driving force in creating a desire and initiative for the

campers to learn about ways to reduce pollution (www.elachee.org). The program guide

can be viewed in Appendix A.

Tuesday, June 26th

Morning 9am -12pm

We began Tuesday in a microbiology lab in Stewart Hall with the intent to learn

about the E. Coli bacteria and its characterization as “bad” bacteria. Students were

grouped into five groups of three. This was done to maximize participation within

smaller groups and to help maintain organization. Since there was little prior knowledge
 8

as to the dynamics of the group, campers were grouped by counting off in numbers 1-5.

To begin the lab session, Jami led by playing a lab safety video by the Youtube artists

ASAPscience. The students were instructed to watch the video and note “Dos” and

“Don’ts” in the lab. After the video, groups were to discuss the “Dos and Don’ts” from

the video. One student from each group was instructed to go to the board and list one

item from the lab safety video. When all groups had gone, we reviewed the list as a

group and emphasized the handling of broken glass and emergency procedures. We

decided that using a video and having the students list procedures would give the

students a larger buy-in for lab safety. We wanted to avoid reading a list of rules that

could potentially alienate the campers.

Once we were comfortable that safety was a priority with the learners, we began

our lesson with background information regarding E. Coli. Catherine Trice took the lead

for this section and facilitated a group discussion based on key vocabulary terms that

are essential for understanding and performing the lab. She wrote four words on the

board: Prokaryote, Enzyme, Contaminate, and Sterile. As she read each word, she

asked for students to raise their hand if they were familiar with the term in order to

gauge prior knowledge amongst the group.3 She then asked for volunteers to give the

definition of each and elaborated on their answers so that the whole group could gain a

deeper understanding. We then discussed where E. coli comes from and whether or not

it should be considered a “bad” bacteria. It was explained to students that E. coli is

naturally found in the intestines of all mammals and is necessary for normal digestion.

However, if the bacteria gets into a mammal’s stomach then it can cause it to become

3
Assessment: Checking for prior knowledge.
 9

ill. It was also emphasized that everyone should wear gloves at all times during the lab,

refrain from touching their faces, and wash their hands at the end to decrease the

chances that E. coli is ingested.

The range of grade levels and differences in readiness quickly became apparent

as the older students were offering answers and making connections to the lab. On the

other hand, these same students were also the ones to quickly become distracted

because they felt they already knew the content being covered. One of the older males

in our group privately asked Catherine, “So where is the challenge in this activity?” This

is one aspect of camp that was the most difficult because of such a wide range of

student grade levels. Especially since for most of our campers, this was new material

and enough of a challenge. We had thought through additional supports for lower levels

of readiness, but reflected as a group at the end that we should have prepared some

additional challenge activity for students with higher levels of readiness.

The water samples were taken from local areas in Georgia and from the ocean;

Dasani Water (the negative control), Lake Lanier, Lake Russell, Hemlock Falls,

Piedmont’s Wetlands, and ocean water from the Gulf Coast. Each student group was

assigned one of these samples to test for E. coli and coliforms using the filtration

apparatus. To help maintain effectiveness and the time schedule, we demonstrated the

lab procedures to the whole group. This was done to provide context for the students

and clarify any steps the students may deem difficult. Jonathan, Jennifer, and Jami all

demonstrated the steps for completing the lab using the negative control. The students

were also provided with lab procedures, shown in Appendix B. that were designed for a
 10

multilevel classroom constitution. We used pictures and simple sentences to

differentiate for different student readiness and entry points.4

The basic lab procedures required students to safely break an ampule filled with

nutrient broth, pour it on an absorbent pad, and then place the broken glass into the

sharps container. After prepping their plate, students then put filter paper into the

filtration apparatus and poured 50 mL of their water sample through while hand

pumping to ensure all of the sample went through the device. This filter paper was then

placed onto the broth and all of the petri dishes were incubated at 35 degrees Celcius

for 24 hours. Since there was only one filtration system, the groups took turns running

their samples through so when they had spare time we asked that they copy down the

data chart into their journals and reflect on the new science concepts we had just

discussed at the beginning of the lab. They were also asked to use this time to write out

their hypothesis about which sample they thought would contain the most E. coli and

which would have the lowest number of colonies.

Upon finishing the lab, students had time to reflect and answer post lab questions

in their lab notebooks. The post lab questions, Appendix C, were used to help students

make connections and help them get into to mode of journaling their thoughts. Science

literacy is an underlying goal for the week and a simple exercise answering these

questions was suitable for the campers’ introduction into scientific practice. This

enabled the students to understand the role of recording data and observations while

simultaneously easing them into comprehending science literature. Throughout the

4
Differentiation: We used visual supports (demonstrating, pictures, list of basic steps), verbal supports,
and individual supports as needed to make sure all students were clear on how to safely perform the lab.
This helped us with making sure different ability levels were addressed.
 11

entire lab section, we walked around to assist students with completing these steps,

answer any questions, and have small group discussions about the content or lab

safety. This was the first time we really had a chance to learn about our students and

listen for any previous knowledge or misconceptions.

We found ourselves with some time between our post activity/reflection and

lunch, so we decided to allow the students some downtime. We had yet to take time to

get to know each other so we used the courtyard in front of the dorms to play a game

that helped us learn each other's’ names. This gave the campers a well deserved break

from “official” work and let us begin developing relationships. This served as a balanced

transition to working in the lab for three hours processing information and gave the

campers opportunity to decompress before moving on to the afternoon session. Jami

was the lead for this game, which was set up so that all of us formed one big circle. She

demonstrated how to play and explained that you had to say one person’s name in the

group and start walking towards them. Before you reached their spot, they had to say

another person’s name and begin walking to that person, and so on. It was very

engaging as we played for at least 15 minutes and it was effective because from that

point on most of our group was comfortable with everyone’s names.

Afternoon 1pm - 4pm

After the students have explored the idea of microscopic pollutants in terms of

microscopic organism with the E. Coli lab, we introduced the students to the idea of

larger pollutants like plastics. We introduced this idea first by showing them a video
 12

about the great pacific garbage patch.5 This idea of larger pollutants was important to

introduce because it was to be our main focus for the week with the seabin build. After

we watched the video, discussion was opened about how plastics and other large

pollutants enter our waterways. We connected this idea to the activities at Lake Lanier

on Monday by discussing how water flows from streams, to rivers, to the ocean, and

how plastics begin in the streams and rivers to ultimately end up in the ocean. The

students learned at lake Lanier that the Chattahoochee River feeds Lake Lanier, so we

discussed the probability of plastic pollutants entering the lake from the river, as well as

from the marinas on the lake. This discussion lead the students to a time of reflection

where they wrote about how the video, our discussion, and all they had learned about

thus far in camp about pollution and how it made them feel, they wrote this reflection in

their notebook.6 After they had time to reflect in their notebook, we transitioned to the

mind mapping activity.

As another way to collect prior knowledge and understandings, we had all of our

campers participate in a Mind Mapping activity.7 This was one by writing three key

words (Pollution, Human Activity, and Water Quality) on three separate pieces of large

chart paper. Groups were formed based on where campers were already sitting by

choice in the room. Each table was assigned a color with markers so that we could tell

which groups added ideas to each map. Catherine demonstrated how to contribute to

the mind map by drawing an example on the chalkboard. Prior to starting the activity,

5
Differentiation: Providing information via video/audio changes the pace of information flow and allows
visual and audio preference learners an opportunity to collect information in ways they are comfortable
with.
6
Assessment: Checking for understanding from the previous day in a written format.
7
Assessment: Checking for prior knowledge and abilities to make connections.
 13

students were also given two graphics, one showing the Water Cycle and the other

showing the Nitrogen Cycle. They had two minutes to review and discuss with their

group and then begin their first map station. It was explained to them that they would

have four minutes at the first station, then rotate to station two where they would have

three minutes to add their thoughts, and the last station would be for two minutes.

Students were encouraged to not only generate new connections to the main topic word

on the paper, but also make connections to what other students had written before

them. Refer to Appendix D for details and examples of Mind Mapping.

At the end of the Mind Map activity, we gave all of the students a chance to walk

around to see what other campers had added to the maps as a whole. We had planned

to let them walk around and then lead a discussion afterwards. However, all of us were

pleasantly surprised to see that the students took it upon themselves to host their own

discussions about human activity and the effects we have on our environment,

specifically due to pollution. It was exciting to see them freely express their opinions and

passion for their beliefs while using facts to back them up. One of the male students

was arguing that if humans did not exist, then the world would be a better and cleaner

place. A female student jumped into the conversation and explained that it would not be

as bad if humans were not lazy and did their part to help conserve our environment and

resources. Another group of students were talking about recycling and how people only

do it if it is convenient or a cheaper option. Discussions such as these lasted at least 10

minutes, and we waited for a natural quiet point to regroup the students and come

together as a whole to review the final maps around the room.

 14

Students were asked to make two lists in their journals, one with similarities

within each map and then unique items listed in each map. Catherine started the whole

group conversation by asking someone to share what they found and wrote down in

their journal. The amount of participation and willingness to share their ideas was

extremely high and made for excellent discourse within the group. Littering was a

common theme, and it was nice to hear that they already had some prior knowledge

about it.8 It was mentioned by one student that in some states, people receive discounts

for recycling while in other states it costs more to recycle. They were all in agreement

that recycling should be the cheaper option and available to everyone in an effort to

increase motives and participation. At the end of the group discussion, Catherine also

reviewed the two cycles that were on each groups tables. Some were familiar with the

water cycle and could make the connection to yesterday’s Lake Lanier activity about

watersheds and runoff. Very few knew what the Nitrogen cycle was, so it was explained

to the campers and linked to farming and fertilizers that can lead to eutrophication in the

water systems.

After discussion about a variety of pollutants and how they enter our waterways

and affect the environment, we presented to the students the main objective for the

week, to build and improve upon our prototype of a seabin. We introduced this by

showing the students a video from Henry Ford’s Innovation Nation, about the seabin

project, so the students could see the inspiration for the project and what the company

intended the product’s use to be.9 After we showed the video, we previewed our

8
Assessment: Verbally checking in to see where students stand with the content.
9
Differentiation: Providing information via video/audio changes the pace of information flow and allows
visual and audio preference learners an opportunity to collect information in ways they are comfortable
with.
 15

prototype to the students. We took this time to show them what we were able to

complete and what we felt needed improvement. Each group of students were given a

chance to come and look at our prototype to see the intricacies of the product and

generate ideas about how to improve upon our prototype. After each group had a

chance to look at our prototype Jennifer introduced them to the engineering design

process to help them in their build planning.

According to Merriam-Webster for English Language Learners, an engineer is a

person who has scientific training and who designs and builds complicated products,

machines, systems, or structures. Additionally, an engineer is a person who specialized

in a branch of engineering. Although these are good definitions, an engineer is often

times hired to improve upon an existing product, machine, system, or structure which is

exactly what we challenged the campers to do in the Seabin Challenge. Even though

this experience is hands-on and somewhat self paced, we introduced them to the

engineering design process as shown in Appendix E10 to help guide them through the

process of designing and improving their Seabin prototypes. First they needed to

identify the problems with our Seabin prototype in order to define the improvements

they wanted to try to design. Next, campers were asked to explore using items we had

on hand and using Chromebooks to find out what others might do or have done to

design similar improvements in other products. Individuals and groups made sketch

drawings or “blueprints” of their design ideas and collaborated to agree on one design

for the group’s prototype. Some of the blueprints and design notes are shown in

10
Differentiation: The handout provided many pathways for students to think through the engineering
design process. Learners that needed to write/draw their thoughts/designs were able to do so while
others could go straight to the hands on ‘sensory’ portion working with physical materials in real time.
 16

Appendix F and G. Each group was asked to create a list of materials they wanted to

use after completing the explore and design phase of the process. The groups were

exposed to the remaining three phases, creating, testing, and improving, so that they

were prepared to run with building, testing, and improved their own designs.

Wednesday, June 27th

Morning 9am - 12pm

This was the morning we anticipated to see results from our E. coli experiment.

Before examining our plates, Catherine gave an overview of the goals and expectations

for the morning. We would count the number of colonies and use a simple mathematical

formula to determine the amount of Colony Forming Units (CFU) per 100 mL of water

sample. We could then compare our calculated numbers to the accepted number listed

by the Environmental Protection Agency for each water source. Using the data, each

group would determine whether their water source should be designated as a drinking

water, for recreational purposes only, or neither due to dangerous levels of E. coli. The

following question was posed: “What does each colony represent?” This was done to

get them thinking about the science we talked about the previous morning about

prokaryotes and asexual reproduction. The class as a whole was unsure how to

answer, so another question was stated: “Can we see a single celled bacterium with our

naked eye?” They all responded no and reasoned out that it would represent a cell that

has replicated over and over again to an amount that can be seen.

We then discussed the idea of growing bacteria in ideal conditions in order to see

and identify them. Catherine reviewed one of the post-lab questions, which was to

explain how the conditions we placed our bacteria in mimics the human body. Students
 17

were able to offer the key points, which were similar temperatures, moist and dark

environment, and proper nutrients for the bacteria to thrive in. When these conditions

are met in the human stomach, the bacteria are able to divide rapidly and cause illness.

These ideas were connected through further questioning: “What might be some

characteristics that can help us identify different types of bacteria?” We were pleased to

see many students raise their hands to offer ideas without additional supports such as

shape, smell, color, length of incubation, type of nutrient it can grow on, etc. This was a

good indicator for student ability to link content and demonstrate reasoning.11 With this

discussion, we lead into how we will use shape and color to identify coliforms in general

and E. coli specifically. We revisited the concept of enzymes and thought about how our

nutrient broth contained lactose and a substrate specific to an enzyme found in E. coli.

Because coliforms are able to survive on lactose alone, and other bacteria cannot, we

are selecting for just coliforms to grow on our plate. Additionally, only E. coli specifically

contain the enzyme that will cause a reaction that turns the bacteria a blue color in the

presence of this substrate. Thus, any colonies that appear to be a blue/purple color can

be positively identified as E. coli, while others will show a red/orange coloration and are

identified as a general coliform bacteria colony.

When we checked our plates there were no colonies found on any of the

samples. This was a major surprise to all of us because we had practiced the lab a

week before the camp to make sure we had the necessary materials and it worked very

well for us. Instead of analyzing colonies, we used this time to discuss possible reasons

as to why we found these results. Students came up with the following ideas: Maybe

11
Assessment.
 18

none of the samples contained bacteria, we could have messed up some of the

procedures, maybe the samples need to incubate longer? This was an unexpected

learning opportunity and actually turned out to be a productive discussion and allowed

students to see first hand that not everything works out as planned and that it is ok to

take a step back and figure out why.12

Afterwards, we regrouped and looked back at one of our previous driving

questions: Are all microorganisms bad? We passed out an article, “How Microbes

Helped Clean BP’s Oil Spill” by David Biello (Appendix G), about oil-eating bacteria and

asked students to read quietly on their own. Campers were also given time to discuss it

with their lab group members. Next, the whole group discussed how the oil eating

bacteria helped or hindered the clean up. This discussion gave us an opportunity not

only to assess understanding, but to also assess changes in the common

misconception that all bacteria is bad. Jennifer led the discussion with the following

questions about the article.13

● How do microbes use oil? Why would the microbes want to eat oil?

● What did the microbes eat in addition to oil? What caused the microbes to

eat something other than the oi?

● What helped the microbes?

● What does tractable mean? What impact did tractability have on the clean

up?

12
Planning: Had to make adjustments due to unforeseen circumstances.
13
Assessment and Misconception: Discussion assessed student understanding of the use of bacteria to
clean pollutants, and the article addresses the misconception about all bacteria being bad.
 19

● Did the microbes behave as the scientists expected? If not, then how was

the behavior different?

● What impact did ocean currents have on microbial activity? Why was this

impact important?

● What could the microbes not clean up?

● Why do scientists continue to collect samples from the Gulf of Mexico?

● What was the “snowy,” unexpected after-effect? What were its impact?

The group discussion wrapped up with discussing which components of the Scientific

Method or the Engineering Design Process we could identify in the clean up initiative

and when we might experience the same challenges during our Seabin design. Jami

challenged the campers with one final question for them to reflect on and write about in

their journals to further incorporate science literacy. The students were asked to

evaluate the effectiveness and the limitations stated in the article, which was discussed

prior in a group setting. This allowed the students to synthesize their thoughts from the

group discussion and to ameliorate lingering misconceptions regarding the roles of

bacteria.

We as group leaders met to discuss what may have happened to our experiment

during lunch that day.14 None of us are well versed in microbiology so we consulted with

a fellow who is more experienced with this practice. He suggested that the bacteria

could have settled to the bottom of the sample jars and that we should have had the

students shake the samples prior to measuring out 50 mL and filtering it. He also

explained that we should have had a positive control using known E. coli to ensure that

14
Reflection: We attribute the poor results to the fact that none of us have a strong background in
Microbiology.
 20

the conditions would have grown the bacteria we were looking for if there were any in

the sample. This made sense to us and we shared this discovery with our students after

lunch. We asked the campers to consider whether or not they would like to re-do the lab

and make adjustments to see if we could get better results, or if they would be ok with

looking at photos of what they should have seen. We took a vote and only 2/14 students

wanted to repeat the lab. It was noted that the oldest male and oldest female student in

our whole group were the ones who wanted to do the lab again.

Afternoon 1pm - 4pm

The students were well on their way putting the engineering design process to

use during the afternoon work session. The students identified problems that they

wanted to address and began to explore options using materials we had onsite for them

to brainstorm with. Students were encouraged to use their engineering design process

handout to help guide them and keep them on track. The students were also provided

with chromebooks to conduct research and could use the group leaders as references

to ask us about our own design. One group was able design, create, and test their

prototype in this time period while other groups were still working out intricacies and

getting ready to test. In hindsight, we should have planned activities for early finishers

as we had assumed that all groups would use a majority of the work session

productively.

Movie Night
 21

While we will not be going into detail for events that we did not have direct

planning for we wanted to discuss movie night. We were fortunately able to have 3

spanish speaking EL students attend STEM Camp. Prior to viewing the movie, Jami

suggested that we include spanish subtitles to help these students. This was very

beneficial since it allowed the students to have a visual context and understand what

was happening in the movie.15

Thursday, June 28th

Morning 9am - 12pm

Thursday morning was scheduled to allow the campers time to design and begin

testing if they had yet to do so. Two groups had tested their seabin prototype the day

before and were able to work through the engineering design process cycle of testing,

improving, and testing again.

Some of our groups finished building and testing much earlier than we had

expected, so we had to make adjustments to our schedule. We ended up using a

popular educational game called Kahoot to maintain engagement and test what they

had learned this week. There was a freshwater game already made in the system with

25 questions and was relevant to our topic. The majority of our campers correctly

answered questions about the water cycle, watersheds, and pollution. We were able to

identify some misconceptions this way as well. One surprising commonly missed

question was about the precipitation. Many selected that it was the process by which

water changes from a liquid to a gaseous state, when in fact it is the opposite. This

15
DIfferentiation: By providing subtitles in spanish for the EL students, we provided them with the option
to focus on their written language or to focus on the audio of the english language.
 22

could be due to the competitive nature of the game, whoever answers first gets the

most points, and they could have read it incorrectly. To be sure, we reviewed the

answers and discussed why each choice was correct or incorrect.16

Afternoon 1pm - 4pm

We had planned to take the campers to Lake Russell to test their prototypes in

an actual lake. This was important to us not only because the experience would be

beneficial for the students but also because when we did our testing the week before we

noticed the performance of our Seabin was much better in an open lake than in a trash

bin or the STEM Center pool. Unfortunately, we were at the mercy of the weather which

did not cooperate. There were lightning storms in the area and we were unable to go on

our trip. We had to continue working inside and test at the pool during times when there

were breaks in the weather.17 All parties were disappointed, but understanding and we

adjusted our schedule to allow for more time to start working on presentations.

Friday, June 29th

Morning 9am -11am

Showcase Prep

All of our groups made a powerpoint presentation that we printed for them to

paste on their tri-fold boards and they displayed their prototype next to their board.

16
Misconception: After reviewing the correct answer, students seemed to understand the concept and
flow of the water cycle in general, but confused the two vocabulary terms Precipitation and Condensation.
17
Planning: Had to make a last minute adjustment due to weather, which left us with an increased
amount of time to fill. We used it to complete more modifications to prototypes and begin making final
presentations.
 23

Some groups opted to have a chromebook18 at their table to show the videos they took

during their testing trials at the pool. All four of our camper groups set up their tables in

our BioEngineering room in the back of the STEM Discovery Center at Piedmont

College. They had plenty of time to set up and prepare what each group member would

present to the parents and family members when they arrived. We periodically checked

in with each group and when they were all finished, we asked each group to practice

presenting to our whole group to make sure they were prepared and the listening

groups were encouraged to ask questions for the presenters to answer about their

design and what changes they would make if they could. This was a great way to help

students think critically about their own models as well as others to help support

problem-solving and relevant questioning and reasoning. Their final products turned out

very nice and they all appeared to be knowledgeable and ready to share their ideas to

others.

Parents and family members arrived around 11am for the showcase. They came

in and listened to what campers had to say about their pollution cleaning devices, and

then asked them some really good thought-provoking questions. Questions we heard

parents ask included: “Would this model work at a lake, or would it need to be made on

a larger scale?” and “Were you given these materials or did you get to choose?”

Students provided sufficient answers and even expanded on them by suggesting next

steps to further their projects. This was a good indicator of how well they could make

predictions and show off their public speaking skills.

18
Differentiation: Students were given choices on how to design and present in conjunction with their tri-
fold posters. This allowed us to differentiate for interest and have the students work towards a
presentation they wanted to produce and be a part of.
24
 25

References

Elachee Nature Science Center https://www.elachee.org/school-programs/field-trips/aquatic-

studies-programs/

Engineer Definition:
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/engineer

Engineering Design Process: https://theworks.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/01/EDP_The_Works_Museum_2016_web-600x513.jpg

Environmental Protection Agency: https://epd.georgia.gov/georgia-water-quality-

standards

Georgia Performance Standards (Environmental Science Curriculum):

https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performance%20Stand
ards/EnvironmentalScienceStandards-Approved2006.pdf

Georgia Performance Standards (Mathematics Curriculum):

https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Frameworks/Coordinate-
Algebra-Unit-1.pdf

Good Bacteria Article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-microbes-helped-

clean-bp-s-oil-spill/

Good Bacteria Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_HWlFzgQiM

Lab Safety video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRDApYgvDqQ

Pollution Intro Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qT-rOXB6NI

Seabin Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLZdKm-1tA

Seabinproject.com
 26

Appendix A
27
 28

Appendix B

STEP 1: Get prepared: put on your lab coat, gloves, and get your goggles ready.

STEP 2: Check your lab station and make sure you have the following:
If you are missing an item, circle it and raise your hand.

Erlenmeyer Flask Graduated Cylinder Beaker

Forceps x 2 Petri Dish and Pad

Squirt Bottle with Sterile Water BacDown cleaning solution

STEP 3: When all supplies are present read all steps before you begin.
 29

PUT YOUR GOGGLES ON NOW :)

STEP 4: Label your petri dish with the following:

(Group Number, Sample Source, Date)
*There will be tape and sharpies

STEP 5: Place pad on petri dish w/ sterile forceps

BE SURE TO CLOSE YOUR PETRI DISH WHEN YOU ARE NOT USING IT.

STEP 6: Invert the ampule 2-3 times to mix. Break ampule and pour into dish.

WE WILL BE SHARING THE AMPULE BREAKER.

DISCARD THE AMPULE INTO THE BROKEN GLASS BIN!!!!!

STEP 7: With Sterile forceps, get a filter from the central lab station. It is the white
piece between two blue pieces.

STEP 8: Place the filter in the funnel using the sterile forceps

STEP 9: Shake your water sample to mix. Prepare 50 mL of your water sample
into a graduated cylinder.
*Be sure to cap your water sample
We are sharing the funnel and vacuum pump. When it is your turn to use it, do the following:
 30

STEP 10: Attach the pump tubing to the nozzle on the erlenmeyer flask.

*It will be VERY tight. You may need your Group Leader to help.

STEP 11: Pour the 50 mL water sample through filter and vacuum using the
hand held pump

STEP 12: Rinse the funnel two to three times with sterile water while using the vacuum

STEP 13: Transfer filter to petri dish using sterile forceps (w/rolling motion)
*Make sure there are no air bubbles! You may need to use your forceps to gently press the filter
to the absorbent pad.

STEP 14: Incubate @ 35 degrees for 24 hours (top side up)

*Let your Group Leader know when you are done so we can put the petri dishes in the incubator.

STEP 15: Clean all of your lab equipment with the Bacdown solution and warm water.
*Lay out to Dry on paper towels

STEP 16: Answer the post lab questions from the whiteboard. Feel free to discuss these with your group
mates but also be sure to write in your lab notebook!
 31

Appendix C

Post Lab Questions

1. Considering that E. Coli comes from mammal guts, which of the following water samples
do you expect to test positive for E. Coli?

Control Sample (Tap Water)

Piedmont Creek
Ocean Sample
Lake Russell
Waterfall
Lake Lanier

2. Looking at the first question, what water sample listed would be alarming if it contained E.
Coli? Why would that be bad?

3. Tomorrow, we will analyse our water samples to see if E. Coli is present. Predict the samples
from least to greatest amount of E. Coli colonies present.

Least 1. ________________

2. ________________

3. ________________

4. ________________

Greatest 5. ________________

4. Poisoning from E. Coli can happen from ingesting a very small amount. How does the lab
mimic what happens when E. Coli enters the human body?
 32

Appendix D

Bioengineering Group - Camp Reflection Mini-Task

Students will break up into teams of 2. Each pair will receive 3 pieces of paper with a
word relating to our overarching theme such as Pollution, Human Activity, Water
Quality. They will have 2 minutes to brainstorm as much as they know about each word
on their paper to activate prior knowledge. Facilitators will keep up with timing, and
inform students when to switch to the next word. Repeat until they’ve had 2 minutes to
brainstorm with each word.

Then each pair will receive two documents related to water pollution. They will be
asked to analyze each and perform a see-think-wonder to help them break it down.
Afterwards, students will have an opportunity to add more information to their mind
maps in a different color. As a whole group, we will discuss the themes and link the
concepts to what we will be doing during camp week.

Basic steps / times:

1. Students get into pairs.
2. Individual Mind Mapping. (6 min)
3. Group Article Analysis. (10 min)
4. Edit Mind Map with new facts / ideas. (4 min)
5. Whole group discussion. (5 min)

Example:

Sm Ozo
Envi W

Oil P
H Po

To
xic
R

H T Rec
33
34
 35

Appendix E

https://theworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/EDP_The_Works_Museum_2016_web-600x513.jpg
 36

Seabin Challenge!

You are a team of engineers who have been given the challenge to design a device that can
clean up the pollution in local freshwater lakes! The device must include a bin structure to
collect trash and at the same time allow for water to flow through it. Your device also needs to
have a pump so it can promote water movement and filtration.

Meet as a team and discuss the problem you need to solve. Then develop and agree on a name
for your water pollution cleaning device.

Driving Question:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Name of device:
______________________________________________________________

Group Members:
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM

What is the challenge?

What are the limits?

How can you solve it?

 37

Explore

Find out what others have done.

Gather materials and play with them.

You'll need to determine what materials you want to use. Write your
material list below.

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

DESIGN
Think up lots of ideas. Pick one and make a plan. Make a drawing or a
model.

Draw your design in the box below and be sure to indicate the
description and number of parts you plan to use. Present your design
to the whole group. You may choose to revise you team’s plan after
you receive feedback from the group.
 38

CREATE
Use your plan to build your idea.
 39

Build your water pollution cleaning device. During construction you

may decide you need additional materials or that your design needs
to change. This is ok – just make a new sketch and revise your
materials list.

TRY IT OUT
Test your idea.

Each team will test their water pollution cleaning device by placing it
in the STEM Discovery Center testing pool. In your lab journal, make
notes on what you observe. Indicate what you see, think, and wonder
about your Seabin.

See Think Wonder

 40

MAKE IT BETTER
Think about how your design could be improved. Modify your design
and try again.

Each team member will share their thoughts to their small group.
Then evaluate your Seabin’s overall performance together and make a
list of the pros and cons to your design. We will come back together
as a whole group to present your findings and listen to what other
groups have concluded.

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
 41

Questions to consider as a group:

1. Did you succeed in creating a water pollution collection device? If not, why did it fail?

2. Did you decide to revise your original design or request additional materials while in the
construction phase? Why?

3. Did you negotiate any material trades with other teams? How did that process work for you?

4. If you could have had access to materials that were different than those provided, what would
your team have requested? Why?

5. Do you think that engineers have to adapt their original plans during the construction of
systems or products? Why might they?

6. If you had to do it all over again, how would your planned design change? Why?

7. What designs/methods did you see other teams try that you thought worked well?

8. Do you think you would have been able to complete this project easier if you were working
alone? Explain…

9. What type of particulate pollution did you find the largest quantity of? Why do you think that
is?

10. What do you think can be done to reduce particulate pollution around your school?
 42

Appendix F

Camper #3 Design Notes

Seabin Challenge!

DESIGN
Think up lots of ideas. Pick one and make a plan. Make a drawing or a model.

Draw your design in the box below and be sure to indicate the description and number
of parts you plan to use. Present your design to the whole group. You may choose to
revise you team's plan after you receive feedback from the group.
 43

Appendix G

Camper Journals

Camper #1
44
45
46
47
48
 49

Camper #2
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
 58

Appendix H

THE SCIENCES

How Microbes Helped Clean BP's Oil Spill

The microscopic organisms bloomed in the wake of the Macondo well disaster
By David Biello on April 28, 2015
Véalo en español
 59

Like cars, some microbes use oil as fuel. Such microorganisms are a big reason why BP's 2010 oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico was not far worse "The microbes did a spectacular job of eating a lot of the
natural gas," says biogeochemist Chris Reddy of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The
relatively small hydrocarbon molecules in natural gas are the easiest for microorganisms to eat. "The
rate and capacity is a mind-boggling testament to microbes," he adds. As Reddy suggests, the microbes
got help from the nature of the oil spilled—so-called Louisiana light, sweet crude mixed with natural
gas, as opposed to bitumen or other heavy, gunky oils. "It's a whole lot easier to degrade," says
Christopher D'Elia, a biologist at Louisiana State University and dean of the School of the Coast and
Environment. "The bacteria had something that was more tractable." More than 150 different
molecules make up the toxic stew of hydrocarbons that spewed from BP's Macondo well on the Gulf of
Mexico seafloor. The microbes chewed through the smaller, dispersed hydrocarbons (and the
dispersants themselves) relatively quickly, helped by the fact that these molecules can dissolve in
water. "I give them a 7 out of 10," says biogeochemist David Valentine of the University of California,
Santa Barbara, of the microbes’ performance eating the oil spill. Ocean currents, in addition to keeping
the spilled oil offshore, spurred microbial activity amidst the oil spill. That continuous mixing of the
waterallowed a bacterial bloom to turn millions of barrels of oil into an estimated 100 sextillion
microbial cells of ethane-consuming Colwellia, aromatic-eating Cycloclasticus, alkane-eating
Oceanospirillales, oil-eating Alcanovorax, methane-loving Methylococcaceae and other species,
including at least one previously unknown to science. But even the ravenous microbes could not clean
it all—and much of what they consumed (natural gas components like methane, ethane, butane,
propane and pentane) does not legally count as part of the oil spill. Plus, plenty of tarlike
hydrocarbons—which are far too big for microbes to chew up—spilled, too. Reddy and his colleagues
still head down to the Gulf of Mexico as often as possible to walk the beaches and collect samples.
"We're trying to see who's the toughest kid on the block," he says of the spill’s components, in an
attempt to figure out why these hydrocarbons cannot be biodegraded or even broken down by sunlight.
In fact, sunlight alone can transform the oil that made it to the surface uneaten. "Nature has a vast
toolbox to combat oil," he adds, although it remains unclear whether sunlight-transformed
hydrocarbons are worse or better from a toxicology perspective. The bacterial blooms also seem to be
 60

at least partially responsible for the oily marine snow that coated the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico in
the wake of the Macondo blowout—again, an unexpected after-effect with unknown impacts. "The
stuff is almost everywhere you look," says biogeochemist Samantha Joye of The University of
Georgia, describing her surveys of the sediments under 1,000 meters or more of water with
submersible Alvin, among other tools. "Up to 15 percent of what was discharged is on the seabed.
That's a pretty remarkable number, given that it wasn't initially thought of as a potential fate for oil."
Even the smaller molecules cannot be consumed if there are not enough nutrients in the water as well,
like nitrogen or phosphorus. "Nutrients regulated biodegradation," Joye says. "That could be why so
much oil sedimented out, they degraded as much as they could." In fact, the microbes may have been
hampered not only by limited nutrients because the microbial population boom may have meant an
accompanying boom in their predators or in the various viruses that can infect these spill-eaters.
Moreover, one of the biggest requirements for these microbes to eat hydrocarbons—oxygen—is not
present at all in the sediments of the deep or the muck of Louisiana marshes. That is why oil from the
Macondo well persists in those places five years later—and perhaps for eons to come. "Microbes are
like teenagers," Reddy says. "You can ask them to clean the garage over the weekend. Can they do it?
Yes. Will they do it? Maybe. Will they do as good a job as you want? Probably not."