The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and

engagement through integrated STEM instruction

Gale M. Sinatra, Ananya Mukhopadhyay, Taylor N. Allbright, Julie A. Marsh &

Morgan S. Polikoff

To cite this article: Gale M. Sinatra, Ananya Mukhopadhyay, Taylor N. Allbright, Julie A. Marsh
& Morgan S. Polikoff (2017) Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and engagement
through integrated STEM instruction, The Journal of Educational Research, 110:3, 308-316, DOI:
10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178

Published online: 21 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 258

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2017, VOL. 110, NO. 3, 308–316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273178

Speedometry: A vehicle for promoting interest and engagement through integrated

STEM instruction
Gale M. Sinatra, Ananya Mukhopadhyay, Taylor N. Allbright, Julie A. Marsh, and Morgan S. Polikoff
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The curriculum, Hot Wheels Speedometry (Mattel, El Segundo, CA, USA), was designed to align with the Received 21 June 2016
Next Generation Science Standards for science and the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Revised 9 December 2016
Our objective was to develop, implement, and evaluate the impact of this integrated science, technology, Accepted 12 December 2016
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum on students’ knowledge, interest, and engagement. The KEYWORDS
authors conducted the study in a district where students were predominantly from communities under- Engagement; integrated
represented in STEM fields. The findings indicate that student individual interest developed. Furthermore, STEM; interest
students demonstrated affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement along their progression of
interest development. The study shows promise for the development of interest and engagement in
under-represented groups through the use of an integrated STEM curriculum.

Educators, researchers, and policymakers have expressed con-
cern about the declining quality of science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the U.S. for
quite some time (National Center for Educational Statistics,
2007). STEM students often report they are unmotivated and
disengaged (National Research Council & Institute of Medi-
cine, 2004). Over the course of K–12 schooling, STEM engage-
ment tends to decrease (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011, 2012),
which results in underenrollment and lack of persistence in
STEM majors in higher education. Gender and racial/ethnic
minority gaps persist in STEM career interest and engagement
(see National Research Council, 2011; Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari,
& Tai, 2012). This is most unfortunate because STEM careers
can have strong earning potentials for students from under-
represented groups (Melguizo & Wolniak, 2012).
A number of initiatives have been advanced to improve the state
of affairs in STEM education. The National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers
(2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead
States, 2013) have called for the integration of the STEM content
areas with a focus shifting toward engaging in the practices of doing
STEM (e.g., authentic inquiry) rather than learning science or
mathematics content in isolation. According to the Framework for
STEM Integration in the Classroom (Johnson, Peters-Burton, &
Moore, 2015), there are six key elements for the design of integrated
STEM learning environments. They must (a) be motivating and
engaging, (b) include engineering design challenges, (c) have stu-
dents learn from failure and redesign based on their learning, (d)
be standards based, (e) be student centered, and (f) emphasize
teamwork and communication skills.
There has been a call for improving teachers’ preparedness
to provide integrated STEM instruction (Stohlmann, Moore, &
Roehrig, 2012). For teachers, an integrated STEM approach
represents a significant shift in instructional practice (Furtak,
Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012; Minner, Levy, & Century,
2010). One major challenge is a lack of high-quality, engaging
integrated STEM curriculum materials that teachers can adopt
and use with minimal professional development. As noted by
Stohlmann et al. (2012), “issues related to supporting teachers,
teaching practices, teacher efficacy, and materials needed to
implement integrated STEM education are vital to consider”
(p. 29). Thus, our motivation was to develop an integrated
STEM curriculum that used Hot Wheels (Mattel, El Segundo,
CA, USA) cars, tracks, and other materials to teach science,
mathematics, and engineering in an integrated fashion in an
elementary school setting.
The curriculum, Hot Wheels Speedometry (Mattel), was
designed to capitalize on the features of an integrated STEM
curriculum as described above as well as align with the Next
Generation Science Standards for science and the Common
Core State Standards for mathematics. Our objective was to
develop, implement, and evaluate the impact of this integrated
STEM curriculum on students’ knowledge of and motivation to
engage with the content. Specifically, in regards to motivation,
we examined students’ interest, emotions, and engagement. We
next turn to a review of the interest and engagement literature
that informed our research.
Interest and engagement
Engagement and interest are two distinct, yet interrelated
aspects of student motivation that impact learning outcomes.
Engagement is a multidimensional construct including behav-
ioral, cognitive, and affective processes of learners interacting

CONTACT Gale M. Sinatra gsinatra@usc.edu Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Waite Phillips Hall, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-4036.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis

with their curricular environments (Fredricks, Blumenfield, &
Paris, 2004; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Sinatra, Heddy, &
Lombardi, 2015). Interest has been characterized as “the psy-
chological state of a person during engagement as well as the
cognitive and affective motivational disposition of that person
to reengage with particular content” (Renninger & Hidi, 2016,
p. 72). Although research on interest and engagement have his-
torically remained discrete in the scholarly landscape, recent
research suggests potential benefits of examining processes of
engagement through the lens of interest development (Larson,
2014; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Framed this way, interest
potentially serves as a mediator for engagement and other
related motivational and emotional factors such curiosity,
attention, and goal setting (Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Durik
& Harackiewicz, 2003; Hidi, Renninger, & Krapp, 2004).
Forms of engagement
Behavioral engagement
Behavioral engagement can be defined as involvement in one’s
own learning and academic tasks (Finn & Rock, 1997; Sinatra
et al., 2015). Various observational indicators of behavioral
engagement include demonstrated effort (e.g., neatness, timeli-
ness), attention (e.g., eye contact, leaning forward during dis-
cussions), and self-directed academic behavior (e.g., note
taking, asking relevant questions, and exhibiting resiliency
despite academic challenges).
Affective engagement
Affective engagement can be defined as students’ emotional reac-
tions to academic experiences (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia,
2012; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Pekrun’s (2006) taxonomy of
academic emotions posits that emotions function across a dual
axis of positive versus negative and activating versus deactivating
academic emotions. Emotions that are activating are associated
with increased engagement, whereas deactivating emotions may
lead to disengagement. For instance, excitement, which is both
positive and activating, leads to high engagement and attention
in the classroom. In contrast, relief, a deactivating emotion, may
result in disengagement with the material or context even though
it is a positive emotion. Theoretically both negative and positive
activating emotions could lead to engagement. However,
research to date has shown positive emotions promote engage-
ment, whereas negative emotions are more likely to promote dis-
engagement (Broughton, Sinatra, & Nussbaum, 2011; Heddy &
Sinatra, 2013).
Cognitive engagement
Once a student invests psychological and cognitive efforts to
understand, goes beyond the requirement of the activity, uses
flexible problem solving, and chooses challenging tasks, it is
assumed that a student is cognitively engaged (Fredricks et al.,
2004). Cognitive engagement is often associated with self-regu-
lated learning (which also relates to behavioral components of
self-directed learning) (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2013). Self-
regulatory processes include planning, monitoring, and evalu-
ating one’s own thinking and learning strategies (Skinner &
Belmont, 1993; Zimmerman, 1990) and can be considered a
metacognitive form of effort (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012).
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 309
Interest development
Multiple perspectives have been proposed describing interest as
it relates to learning. Hidi and Renninger (2006) described
interest as both a psychological state and a motivational vari-
able—thus both stable and shifting. Krapp, Hidi, and Ren-
ninger (1992) suggested three perspectives to categorize
interest, including personal interest (self or dispositional),
interestingness (curricular or environmental), and interest as a
cognitive state (situational interest). Individual interest occurs
when a student begins to relate to, find value in, and potentially
identify with content, which holds across time. Interestingness
refers to interest induced through features of the learning envi-
ronment. Situational interest refers to activities, content, or
events, which hook a student’s attention temporarily. Other
scholars have identified separately, topic interest in which,
interest is driven specifically due to the subject matter (Ainley,
2012).
Four phase model of interest development
Based on previous theoretical foundations, Hidi and Renninger
(2006) proposed a model that suggests interest develops
through four phases, including (a) triggered situational, (b)
maintained situational, (c) emerging individual, and (d) well-
developed individual interest.
Triggered situational interest
Triggered situational interest can be considered the initial hook
for a student to be drawn into a particular content area or topic.
In this first phase, interest is triggered by environmental factors
such as novelty, humor, personal relevance, interesting tasks,
and activities, as well as developmentally appropriate challenge
and intensity (Renninger & Hidi, 2002; Sadoski, 2001). Often,
triggered situational interest is related to environmental factors
such as instructional processes or the actions of the instructor
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006). That is, students may have their
interest triggered but if no support is provided interest will be
lost (Renninger & Su, 2012). Although temporary and fleeting,
triggering interest is the important step that may allow for
development into further more dispositional phases
(Renninger, 2000).
In the triggered situational interest phase, learner character-
istics often include fleeting attention to content and higher lev-
els of affect. Even after learners have their interest triggered,
they may still experience either positive or negative emotions.
For example, whether an activity makes students either happy
or sad, they may still find themselves interested. Having student
ideas heard and respected during this early phase is essential
because if a student feels undervalued then interest will be lost
quickly (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger & Su, 2012).
Maintained situational interest
Maintained situational interest is defined as a, psychological
state that involves focused attention and persistence over an
extended period, and/or reoccurs and persists (Hidi & Ren-
ninger, 2006). Interest may be maintained if tasks are person-
ally relevant and meaningful (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer,
Carter, & Elliot, 2000). This phase of interest is also generally
310 G. M. SINATRA ET AL.
externally supported by instructors and environmental factors
(Renninger & Hidi, 2002; Wolters, 1998). Instructional pro-
cesses to maintain interest include meaningful assignments,
inquiry, project-based learning, guided discovery opportunities,
and small group discussions (Heddy, Sinatra, & Seli, 2013;
Mitchell, 1993).
To maintain situational interest, instructors may connect
material to students’ prior knowledge and experiences. In con-
trast to triggered situational interest, learning in the maintained
phase is distinguished by experiencing positive emotions; initial
negative reactions have been replaced with positive emotions
and high task value due to guided meaning making.
Emerging individual interest
Emerging individual interest is the psychological state of a rela-
tively enduring disposition to seek reengagement with particu-
lar content (Renninger & Su, 2012). Knowledge, value, and
positive emotions are components of emerging individual
interest (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012). Students are
more likely to reengage with materials and content by generat-
ing their own questions as guided by their own sense of curios-
ity on the topics. These self-generated questions lead to
self-regulation and goal-directed behavior. Thus, emerging situ-
ational interest is not externally driven, but rather internally
guided and self-generated by learners.
When students transition from situational to individual
interest they begin to independently re-engage with content in
their own time. Also, as students build a solid foundation of
knowledge with regard to the topic of interest their emotions
subsequently remain and continue to become more positive. As
the information becomes increasingly personally relevant and
tied to one’s self-concept, value for the content increases as
well. Although individually directed, the subject may not be
infused with a student’s identity yet in this phase.
Well-developed individual interest
The fourth phase is characterized by high stored knowledge
(prior knowledge), perceived value, and positive affect around
content (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012; Renninger,
2000). Immersion is one descriptor to well-developed individ-
ual interest. In fact, students’ attention can become effortless,
entering a sense of flow, which is a loss of sense of time and
space because one is so cognitively immersed in the situation
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Students in this phase of interest are
almost entirely self-regulated in their pursuit of knowledge and
external support is not needed (Renninger, Bachrach, & Posey,
2008). Well-developed interest is the most sought after form of
interest but rarely occurs (Renninger & Su, 2012).
Self-generated curiosity questions become refined and spe-
cific. Learners may seek critical feedback from the instructor
for self-improvement, and rather than get upset, they are likely
to pursue improvement and expend effort to correct the mis-
takes. New positive emotions other than enjoyment begin to
arise such as hope and pride. Value is extremely high due to
the content becoming an integral component of one’s self-con-
cept and identity. For instance, students may identify with
other professionals in the field, and may even plan for a career
in similar fields to content area.
Research question
These theories of engagement and interest informed the
research question for this study: to what extent did an inte-
grated STEM curriculum impact learning, engagement, and
interest for students, particularly from communities tradition-
ally under-represented in STEM fields?
Method
Speedometry curriculum development and design
Our research team, along with in-service teacher consultants,
designed Speedometry to be an integrated STEM curriculum
for fourth-grade students with the goal of promoting knowl-
edge, interest, and positive emotions. The curriculum empha-
sizes active small group engagement in scientific practices such
as designing experiments, gathering and recording data, and
writing up and orally reporting results. Engineering practices
were embedded within the lessons as students had to design
and construct their own ramps and car combinations to test
their hypotheses, but also to compare different designs and pre-
dict differential outcomes. Grade 4 was chosen as there was
strong alignment between the curriculum content and the Next
Generation Science Standards for this grade level.
Speedometry was designed to be two units of five lessons
each.1 The incorporation of Hot Wheels cars and tracks was
intentional to trigger situational interest. The first unit, “Speed
Ramps,” has students explore potential and kinetic energy.
Unit 2, “Mini Collision Course,” engages students in exploring
the relationship between energy and force. Each lesson is
designed to last between 45 min and 1 hr, for a total of approxi-
mately 10 hr of instruction. The lessons can be done once a day
for two weeks on consecutive days or they can be spread over
more days as needed. The average time to complete both units
in our sample was 10 days.
Lessons were constructed using the 5E instructional model
as a guide. The 5 Es (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and
Evaluate) were well aligned with our objectives of providing
opportunities for teachers and students to participate together
in learning activities, building on prior knowledge and experi-
ence, to construct understandings (Bybee et al., 2006). Speed-
ometry was also designed to integrate science, mathematics,
and engineering content. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (2005)
describe 10 best practices for integrated STEM education.
These include, (a) the use of manipulatives and hands-on learn-
ing, (b) cooperative learning, (c) discussion and inquiry, (d)
questioning and conjectures, (e) justification of thinking, (f)
writing for reflection and problem solving, (g) a problem solv-
ing approach, (h) integration of technology, (i) teacher serves
as a facilitator, and (j) assessment is used as a part of instruc-
tion. With the exception of technology integration, Speedome-
try by design meets nine of these 10 best practices.
Speedometry was piloted in 16 classrooms in three schools.
Based on the pilot testing, the research team, in collaboration
with the expert in-service teacher consultants, revised Speed-
ometry into its current, final form. Once the curriculum was
finalized our research team partnered with a local school dis-
trict to conduct a district-wide randomized-control trial (RCT)
with nearly 2,000 students to assess the curriculum’s overall

effectiveness. The quantitative results of the RCT are presented
elsewhere (Polikoff, Le, Danielson, Sinatra, & Marsh, 2016).
To answer our research question here, we drew on quali-
tative case study data collected during the RCT. Our instru-
mental case study approach uses a single bounded system of
the Speedometry intervention to further our understanding
of the broader issue of student engagement in STEM (Stake,
2005). We used qualitative methods of observations, inter-
views, and focus groups to gain insights on students’ subjec-
tive experiences and perceptions regarding the curriculum
intervention.
Teacher professional development
Teacher professional development (PD) was provided in a dis-
trict-wide in-service PD workshop where teachers were intro-
duced to the Speedometry curriculum through a brief
PowerPoint presentation delivered by the research team. Then,
teachers watched a series of 14 prerecorded brief (a few minutes
each) videos describing the learning goals of each lesson and a
step-by-step guide to lesson implementation. The PD was
intentionally very minimal with the entire session lasting
around 60 min. The purpose of the brief PD was to ascertain if
teachers could enact Speedometry effectively with only the
online resources provided free on the website, thus increasing
the chance of broader impact.
Site selection
We partnered with a midsized, urban Southern California
school district of nearly 30,000 students, of which, approxi-
mately 2,000 were enrolled in the Grade 4. The students of this
district represent communities that currently experience bar-
riers to accessing STEM majors and careers: over 90% of the
students in our district identify as Hispanic or Latino, and over
85% qualify for free or reduced-price meals due to low family
income. Roughly half of all fourth-grade students are classified
as English language learners. Moreover, high school course
completion in our case study district suggests low rates of col-
lege attainment: in the 2014–2015 school year, less than a third
of graduating seniors had completed the minimum course
requirements for admission into a four-year California state
university.
Study sample
District administrators asked all fourth-grade teachers to
implement the Speedometry curriculum and participate in the
RCT. In this article, we focus on case study data collected from
a sample of seven participating teachers and their students.
During an initial professional development session, we invited
teachers to volunteer to participate in the qualitative case study
by expressing interest on a written survey. Teachers were
offered a small honorarium for their participation and were
assured anonymity. Of the teachers who expressed interest, we
selected a sample of 10 participants using criterion sampling.
We drew from a presurvey administered to teachers to build a
sample that included both men and women, and that repre-
sented a range of self-reported confidence with science, teach-
ing experience, and familiarity with inquiry science instruction
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 311
Table 1. Characteristics of case study teachers.
Teaching Comfort with Familiarity with
Teacher Gender experiencea science inquiry
1 M Low Low Low
2 M Low Moderate Low
3 F High High High
4 M Moderate High Moderate
5 F High Moderate Low
6 F Moderate Low Low
7 F Low Low Low
Note. Only teachers 1 and 2 came from the same school.
a
Low D less than 15 years of teaching experience; moderate D 15–30 years of
teaching experience; high D 30 or more years of teaching experience. The distinc-
tion of low years of teaching is relative. The case study sample—and the overall
sample for the study—is made up of experienced teachers. Only one teacher in
the overall sample was truly early-career.
and the 5E model. Seven of these 10 teachers agreed to partici-
pate in the study; Table 1 presents the characteristics of our
case study sample.
From these seven classrooms, we asked students to partici-
pate in focus groups. Ultimately, focus groups were conducted
in five of the classrooms with 4–6 student participants selected
by their teachers using criteria we provided. We asked teachers
to select a sample of students that represented variation in aca-
demic ability, affect, participation level during the lessons, and
gender. In total there were 28 students who participated in
focus groups. Of the student focus group participants, 13 were
boys and 15 were girls.
Data collection
To understand student engagement, interest, and emotions
regarding the Speedometry curriculum, we conducted class-
room observations, student focus groups, and semistructured
interviews with teachers. The use of multiple data sources
allowed researchers to triangulate our findings across multi-
ple perspectives (Creswell, 2007). In each participating class-
room, we observed three 60–90 min Speedometry lessons,
visiting once at the beginning of the curriculum intervention,
once in the middle, and once near the end. We recorded the
behavior of teachers and students as they experienced the
curriculum using an observation protocol, allowing us to
interpret what was observed, rather than relying solely on
secondary accounts (Merriam, 2009). We also took informal
notes and memos throughout the data collection process,
and, after each observation, researchers wrote an analytic
memo to capture their experience and begin preliminary
analysis (Salda~na, 2013).
For the focus groups, which lasted from 15 to 50 min, we
used a semistructured protocol to explore students’ experiences
and perceptions of the Speedometry curriculum. We also inter-
viewed each of the seven case study teachers prior to, during,
immediately after, and three months after implementing the
curriculum, for a total of four interviews per teacher. Teacher
interviews were conducted in person, ranged from 20 to 60 min
in length, and included questions regarding teacher perceptions
of student behavior, content knowledge, engagement, and
interest. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and
subsequently transcribed.
312 G. M. SINATRA ET AL.

Data analysis posttest data were gathered). Finally, students who experienced
the Speedometry curriculum reported greater interest than the
We coded transcripts and observation notes using NVivo quali-
control students and less negative emotions about learning sci-
tative data analysis software (QSR International). Our coding
ence and math as measured with two self-report surveys
was a cyclical process; we refined our understanding of the data
designed by the research team (full details of the interest and
through multiple phases of analysis (Salda~ na, 2013). In our first
emotions survey results can seen elsewhere, Polikoff et al.,
phase, we used descriptive coding (Salda~ na, 2013) to categorize
2016). Interaction models showed the treatment was equally
the data corpus by the basic topics that emerged in the notes
effective in terms of knowledge, interest, and emotions regard-
and transcripts. Our initial codes included background, instruc-
less of gender, ELL status, and disability status.
tional processes and experiences, factors mediating learning
and enactment, and how implementation affected students.
Then, within these broad categories, we engaged in further Qualitative findings on engagement and interest
descriptive coding: for example, we subcoded data under how
We began our analysis by first independently identifying
implementation affected students for student engagement and
whether and how each of the four phases of interest develop-
interest, student learning, and the role of student gender. Mem-
ment manifested in the data as well as the three forms of
bers of our research team collaboratively developed our coding
engagement. During a secondary level of analysis using matri-
tree and, to ensure inter-researcher reliability, two researchers
ces to identify emerging themes and patterns we found that
double coded and compared codes across eight randomly
much of our engagement data corresponded categorically with
selected documents (15% of the total number of documents).
our interest data. This finding supports Hidi and Renninger’s
Of the 331 codes compared, 97% were at 80% agreement or
(2006) discussion of viewing interest as a mediator of engage-
higher, and 99% were at 70% agreement or higher. We assessed
ment and learning. Thus in reporting the findings we laid out
differences among the codes that fell below 70% agreement and
engagement and learning outcomes across the four phases of
recoded until reaching that threshold.
interest development as identified in the data. Although they
In our second phase of analysis, we returned to the data
are distinct constructs they are related in terms of student expe-
under the descriptive codes that were relevant to our current
riences and outcomes.
inquiry, including (a) factors mediating learning and enact-
ment and (b) how implementation affected students. Using a
Triggered situational interest and affective engagement
provisional coding approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994;
We saw multiple instances of triggered situational interest
Salda~na, 2013), we developed a coding tree using our theoreti-
where students were drawn in by anticipating the fun they
cal frameworks for engagement (behavioral, cognitive, affec-
expected to experience from interacting with toys that were
tive) and the four phases of interest development (triggered
familiar to them. This stage of interest development was also
situational, maintained situational, emerging individual, and
closely aligned with affective engagement. Researchers catego-
well-developed individual). The data were classified across the
rized student emotions based on observations and field notes as
categories of engagement and interest as characterized within
primarily positive activating emotions (chiefly—excitement).
the literature. A secondary matrix analysis (Miles, Huberman,
Echoing others, one teacher described her students’ reactions
& Salda~ na, 2013) was conducted to identify and categorize the
to the lessons in this way: “Oh, just the kids are so excited. I
instructional practices from the curriculum to coded data on
mean, I haven’t really even unpacked anything yet, but they
engagement and interest.
just see the Hot Wheels sign, and they’re all excited.”
A different teacher described her own motivation to teach
Findings increasing due to positive student response to the lessons:
“Again I’m not enthusiastic about teaching science because I
Brief report of RCT findings
struggle with it myself, personally. I have been excited to use
Before turning to the qualitative data presented here to answer this curriculum in the classroom because I see how excited the
our research question, we briefly summarize the overall results students are about it.” Similarly, students described their own
from the quantitative analysis of the large scale RCT to provide reactions during the focus groups. One explained, “Yes…well,
context for our findings. Details of the analyses and results sometimes we do learn in fun ways, but this was different
from the RCT can be seen in Polikoff et al. (2016). The RCT because we actually got to touch the cars and make ramps.”
was conducted in 17 schools with 57 teachers and over 1,900 Affective engagement results were in some cases indistinguish-
students as participants. Nine teachers were dropped (for vari- able from instances of triggered situational interest. One
ous reasons), leaving a total of 48 in the final analytic sample. teacher said, “[the students] found joy. They found excitement
Results based on an observational protocol indicated that in themselves. Learning on their own without somebody telling
Speedometry was implemented with high fidelity with over them.”
90% of curriculum elements implemented as intended. Student
knowledge, as assessed by a 20-item knowledge assessment Potential impact on learning. It seemed that the early trig-
developed by an external assessment company, revealed a 0.41 gered situational interest might in fact have influenced the
standard deviation increase in content knowledge assessment learning process quite a bit. Teachers clearly valued students’
scores from pre to post, which was a significant gain over the immediate attention and affective engagement toward the les-
business-as-usual control group (those classrooms randomly sons. However, teachers at points also viewed this added
assigned to delay implementation of Speedemetry until after dimension of excess excitement about the materials to be a

distraction from students accomplishing set tasks. Teachers
often noted the higher volume in each lesson, which was both a
sign of engagement and potentially disruptive toward learning.
The curriculum was designed to initially allow students to pur-
sue their triggered interest and explore in a less structured
way—what students viewed as play. However, several teachers
distinguished between playing for fun and playing for learning,
which presented an ongoing potential tension in interest devel-
opment and its impact on student outcomes. In some cases
teachers were concerned that playing for fun may interrupt stu-
dents reaching lesson objectives.
The highly social nature of Speedometry meant much
more interaction between students as well as between the
students and their teacher. At some points students would
disengage if social interactions created negative emotions.
In one classroom observation, we noted frustration arising
from a teacher trying to persuade students to follow a spe-
cific process. One student ended up disengaging and putting
her head down on the desk. While this was an anomaly, it
is important to note that the social aspect of learning cre-
ated situations much more dependent on teacher and stu-
dent affect. Furthermore, as the literature on interest
development repeatedly notes, students must feel respected
and heard in these early stages of interest building in order
to move forward to more advanced phases.
Maintained situational interest and behavioral engagement
Triggered interest gave way to maintained situational interest.
In this phase, evidence of both affective and behavioral engage-
ment emerged in the data. Not only did we find data supporting
ongoing positive activating emotions, but additional behavioral
data suggesting effort, persistence, and participation. In one
classroom observation a researcher described:
Students are going into their backpacks and desks to find things to
use as bumpers (evidence of initiative). Students are writing in their
notebooks. Students are creating their ramps and using books to
elevate the ramps—all on their own. Teacher does not need to assist
students in setting up ramps, books, and cars. Students rearrange
chairs to create the optimal environment for experimentation.
Observation data additionally depicted descriptions of stu-
dents actively participating in groups, asking questions, talking
to one another, and engaging in the scientific inquiry process
in a multitude of other ways. The interaction of each of the 5E’s
in the curriculum allowed students to move between exploring
and explaining, meaning students could continue to follow
their own curiosity, thus maintaining their active interest in the
lessons. One teacher noted:
The kids were really excited every single lesson. I thought, wow.
After ten days of Hot Wheels that some of them might get bored,
but they didn’t. Every day was a new investigation, a new discovery,
some new learning. They loved it. I think they could probably go
on.
Whereas another teacher reflected,
It came alive. A lot of dialogue versus just sitting there quietly and
perhaps being bored to death with just reading the dry material
from the textbook. They got to work hands-on and try to design
their ramps and all that. I think it was very engaging and very
powerful.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 313
Potential impact on learning. Students demonstrating main-
tained interest attests to the nature of the integrated curriculum
at this point. The students were having fun even though there
were some academic challenges associated with the activities.
They had to do mathematics in order to do science, but even
so, students were drawn in. Persistence and risk taking emerged
as themes at this phase of interest development. One teacher
described: “I feel like the kids maybe have more confidence in
trying things that don’t work because of this, [because] they
realize it’s okay if it doesn’t work. [They are saying] “Let’s try
it, and if it doesn’t work, what are we gonna change?”” She
described an example of how one student group had a problem
with their track, in that the cars would not stay on it. The stu-
dents finally discovered that there was a bump half way
through and they problem solved ideas on how to fix the track
issue.
Students also noticed that their teachers taught differently,
and these new interactions with their teachers also made the
lessons more fun. One focus group conversation between stu-
dents illustrates this outcome:
S1: Well, I think he said he was being fun, and instead of when
we’re doing our Cornell Notes and telling us to hurry up, and stuff,
he had fun with it. He would tell us how ta do it, get books, and he
wasn’t really mean, like mad and stuff.
S2: Well, yeah, and he didn’t really care what we did with the tracks.
He said, “Be creative. Do loops. Do something to make it go faster.”
Emerging individual interest and cognitive engagement
We saw several instances of students moving deeper into their
own individual interest by showing engagement and pursuing
questions on their own. In describing the role her students
played during Speedometry, one teacher said, “Students are sci-
entists. They are creating their own plan/experiment and carry-
ing it out. Students document the procedures for their
experiment.” The planning, problem solving, and follow
through that students were involved in on their own suggests
that students were cognitively engaged.
Individual interest and cognitive engagement were also
demonstrated through repeated examples of student transfer of
knowledge and clearer direction in their self-concept develop-
ment toward STEM careers. One student described his experi-
ence trying Speedometry on his own at home in an example of
out of school transfer: “I’m actually experimenting. One time
from the table I put books up, and I just built the ramp and I
was like, “Dad, look what I did.””
Students conversing during focus groups discussed other
questions that were developing that they could not pursue dur-
ing class but wanted to find out more about in the future. One
student stated: “We want make our own stuff, like the tracks.
We want to know how to make some cars that could stay on a
mountain that won’t fall over and all that.” Another student
described other interests with which he was identifying as a
result of enjoying Speedometry: “I’m really interested in robot-
ics now, so what I would wanna do is create some kind of thing
that at the same time [I can] have fun and also help people.
You know how people are born without some [body] parts and
314 G. M. SINATRA ET AL.
all that, but to make it easier [for them] to actually move
around.”
Potential impact on learning. Students that we observed who
reached the individual interest phase indicated that aspects of
play initially triggered their situational interest. This then may
have facilitated personal curiosity and independent questioning
and exploration even as the curriculum progressed to more
structured activities and objectives. It is important to keep in
mind that individual interest development can have particularly
positive implications for under-represented students’ learning
in STEM. However, this phase of self-regulated and self-
directed interest, which has shown to promote learning, does
not always emerge in more traditional STEM classroom
settings.
Well-developed individual interest
The final phase of interest development did not appear as
clearly as the other phases of interest development (as would be
expected) during this intervention. Well-developed individual
interest takes months or even years to develop. However, prom-
ising indicators that these students may move toward this phase
can been seen in the way they discussed their futures during the
focus group interviews. When asked, students across several
classrooms discussed similar sentiments.
S1: Well, I wanted to be a cardiologist and it kind of deals
with math and science and stuff because you need to
know how much medicine to give the person, and you
need to add it the way in their age, and then give it.
S2: Because I think science and math, I really like both, and
they’re both fun. I got entertained with all the experi-
ments, all the data. It has math in it, which it, it’s one of
my favorite subjects in school, and also science. It’s fun. I
wanna go in NASA.
S3: I wanna be engineer and architect where I can design,
like, new robots to find life on different planets and—I
think I wanna be a engineer too cuz by doing Speedome-
try, I learned that you can make things and do different
ways how to make it work. Maybe I could be an
engineer.
However, in terms of other classroom behavioral character-
istics such as creative flow and individual expertise, not surpris-
ingly, we found no data to support full development of the
fourth phase. The intervention lasted only a couple of weeks,
and there were not opportunities or sufficient time to become
totally immersed. The subject matter was limited to basic phys-
ics, and, given their resources, students at this age level cannot
be expected to pursue advanced concepts in STEM on their
own. However if Speedometry, or other integrated STEM activ-
ities, were presented in the following grades, well-developed
individual interest could certainly emerge in some of these
students.
Potential impact on learning. Although observationally we did
not see evidence of well-developed individual interest, what did
emerge is what theoretically has been described as an aspect of
identity development—possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986;
Oyserman & Markus, 1990). When STEM careers are aligned
with hoped-for future selves, this may have positive
implications for STEM identity development for historically
under-represented students in STEM fields.
Under-represented students in STEM
As previously discussed, the highly diverse population of stu-
dents at the school district of implementation at times meant
that students in most classrooms had encountered a range of
challenges pertaining to their academic experiences. These
challenges could include English language learner needs, Indi-
vidualized Education Plans (IEPs), and sometimes lack of
home support.
From our analysis, themes of familiarity and accessibility as
mediators for learning emerged from the data. The Hot Wheels
toys have a familiar association with playing at home, and
some students that normally felt disconnected from STEM
started making connections to STEM topics that were already
in their everyday lives. The curriculum, driven by exploration
and play, continued the positive familiarity associations and
extended to a fun accessible experience of low stakes interaction
with STEM. It was also an opportunity for students to feel suc-
cessful. This outcome cannot be over stated for students that
do not experience familiarity and accessibility toward STEM on
a more frequent basis. One teacher recalled: “I can’t remember
what it was, but a student, said, “Oh, that’s an example of
potential and kinetic energy”—it just was so powerful because
he’s one of those kids where it’s sometimes hard to get him to
focus, but he was focused.”
Another teacher described:
I like their enthusiasm, just watching their faces. Even the students
that have IEPs have really engaged. I have one student who has not
been yet labeled being an autistic child or student, but we know
that that’s coming up. They’re testing her outside. She’s even
become so verbal. I see her very engaged and participating, and try-
ing to remind the kids, or bringing them together. “Okay, now wait
a minute, you’re not doing it. Let’s all work together. We all need to
work together, guys.” I’ve seen that.
The familiarity component could be viewed as related to
triggered situational interest, whereas the accessibility poten-
tially mediated maintained situational interest. In other words,
as students felt more comfortable in the lessons and experi-
enced success they moved forward and remained engaged. As
one teacher explained,
Because they saw it as playing, for the most part. I think a lot of the
students figured, I can do this. One little guy, he’s getting speech
support and has an IEP, and I saw him really—getting involved in
building the ramp. I felt like I could see his confidence growing
because he felt like, this is mine—I’m good at this, and I can do it.
Teacher instructional processes fostering interest and
engagement
Teachers are integral to the development of student interest
and engagement. In our observations and interviews, we identi-
fied several key processes that teachers employed in the Speed-
ometry curriculum that shaped the way students interacted
with the activities, including grouping, modeling, scaffolding,
and questioning. The Speedometry curriculum design required

teachers to assemble students in groups, yet teachers themselves
were free to determine group composition and selection pro-
cesses. Student groups varied in their learning needs and the
speed of progression through activities, presenting challenges
for whole-class instruction. As a result, many teachers differen-
tiated their modeling and scaffolding differently to accommo-
date the unique needs of each group. Finally, teachers often
took on a facilitation role by raising new questions to each
group, shifting the initiative of determining next steps and pri-
mary decision-making back on to the students. For a more
thorough examination of teacher practice and learning during
the intervention see Marsh et al. (2016).
Teacher affect was also instrumental in facilitating student
engagement. While it is difficult to attribute all positive teacher
affect with student engagement, it was often clear that negative
teacher emotions and reactions led students to disengage and
thus falter in their progress of interest development. As shown
in a previous example, frustrated teachers were sometimes an
indicator for disengaged student groups and students showing
less value toward the activities over the course of the lesson
(e.g., student with head on her desk).
Limitations
Instrumental case studies yield insights into complex and
nuanced processes, but they are not intended to be generaliz-
able (Stake, 2005); thus, this study is not representative of all
integrated STEM engagement efforts. Given that this is an
exploratory study, further research may build upon our find-
ings to help us understand how STEM engagement may vary
across contexts. In addition, the students who participated in
our focus groups were selected by their teachers. It is very pos-
sible that the focus group students differed in notable ways
from others in the classroom; for example, teachers may have
unintentionally chosen students who showed particularly
enthusiastic responses to Speedometry. However, based on the
results of the RCT, we are encouraged that our findings here
may have also emerged in other groups.
Conclusion
Speedometry was designed as an integrated STEM curriculum
to promote learning, interest, and engagement in fourth-grade
students. Our quantitative results from the large-scale RCT
were promising, but they did not reveal how teachers and stu-
dents reacted to the curriculum. Neither were those results able
to show the specific development of interest and engagement
across the weeks of implementation. Because our goal was to
promote interest and engagement, the qualitative data we pre-
sented here were key to providing evidence that an integrated
STEM curriculum designed to be engaging can promote learn-
ing and interest that could be sustained over time.
Our findings confirmed interest development was taking
place, but also demonstrated the limitations of that develop-
ment. While some students were able to reach individual inter-
est development, almost none reached the well-developed
phase. Thus, a longer, more sustained effort likely would have
to be undertaken to promote interest at that phase.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 315
We also found clear alignment of the forms of engage-
ment with each phase of interest development. As such, this
study is one of few to specifically map interest and engage-
ment theories together as a singular conceptual framework.
This integrated conceptual framework potentially could be
used to support future studies on interest and engagement
development for learning.
Speedometry was not intended to transform the way STEM
is taught, or even replace entire specific units. It was intended
primarily as a vehicle to draw in and promote integrated STEM
engagement with students and to help students connect to
STEM subjects through the scientific method of inquiry. Our
results were promising in showing that students who have his-
torically felt disconnected toward STEM showcased evidence of
interest development as well as multiple forms of engagement.
This is particularly relevant for considering how to promote
STEM for other under-represented students.
Note
1. The curriculum is available in both English and Spanish on the
Speedometry website (http://hotwheels.mattel.com/en-us/explore/
Speedometry/index.html). Teachers can request a free kit of materials
to use in their classroom. In addition to these free downloadable
documents and materials, 14 professional development videos are
available on the website to assist teachers who wish to use the curricu-
lum in their classrooms.
References
Ainley, M. (2012). Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activi-
ties. In S. J. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 283–302). New York, NY:
Springer.
Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). Profiling the differences in stu-
dents’ knowledge, interest, and strategic processing. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 90, 435–447.
Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). “Pluto has
been a planet my whole life!” Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual
change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto’s reclassification.
Research in Science Education, 43(2), 1–22.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C.,
Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model:
Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Retrieved from
https://bscs.org/sites/default/files/_media/about/downloads/BSCS_5E_
Full_Report.pdf
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account
of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In S.
J. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research
on student engagement (pp. 237–258). New York, NY: Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing
among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. Theories of Creativ-
ity, 4, 61–91.
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2003). Achievement goals and intrin-
sic motivation: Coherence, concordance, and achievement orientation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 378–385.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk
for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engage-
ment: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 74, 59–109.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012), Experimental
and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329.
316 G. M. SINATRA ET AL.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J.
(2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement: Pre-
dicting continued interest and performance over time. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 92, 316–330.
Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions:
Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and con-
ceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science
Education, 97, 723–744.
Heddy, B. C., Sinatra, G. M., & Seli, H. (2013). Transforming college success:
Making learning meaningful to at-risk students. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest
development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (1992). The present state of interest
research. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of inter-
est in learning and development (pp. 433–446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational var-
iable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative
perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–115).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (2015). STEM road-
map: a framework for integration. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Larson, S. C. (2014). Exploring the roles of the generative vocabulary
matrix and academic literacy engagement of ninth grade biology stu-
dents. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 287–325.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41,
954–969.
Marsh, J. A., Mukhopadhyay, A., McKibben, S., Le, Q. T., Polikoff, M., &
Sinatra, G. M. (2016). Teacher learning for inquiry science instruction:
The centrality of self-reflection on instructional role. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association at
Washington DC.
Melguizo, T., & Wolniak, G. C. (2012). The earnings benefits of majoring
in STEM fields among high achieving minority students. Research in
Higher Education, 53, 383–405.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and interpre-
tation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Salda~ na, J. (2013). Qualitative data anal-
ysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minner, D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruc-
tion—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis
years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474–
496.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the
secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 85, 424–436.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
timss/results07_science07.asp
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards.
Washington, DC: Authors.
National Research Council. (2011). Expanding under-represented minority
participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states,
by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1990) Possible selves and delinquency. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 112–125.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control–value theory of achievement emotions:
Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research
and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and stu-
dent engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282).
New York, NY: Springer.
Polikoff, M., Le, Q. T., Danielson, R., Sinatra, G., & Marsh, J. (2016). The
impact of a NGSS-aligned curriculum on students’ science knowledge.
Presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness,
Washington, DC.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for under-
standing intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz
(Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal moti-
vation and performance (pp. 375–407). New York, NY: Academic.
Renninger, K. A., Bachrach, J. E., & Posey, S. K. (2008). Learner interest and
achievement motivation. Social Psychological Perspectives, 15, 461–491.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement:
Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield & J. S.
Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In E. Ryan
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 167–187). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z, & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatil-
ity of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Edu-
cation, 96, 411–427.
Sadoski, M. (2001). Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, com-
prehension, and learning important ideas from text. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 13, 263–281.
Salda~
na, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2013). Motivation in educa-
tion: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Springer.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of
defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational
Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom:
Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across
the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lin-
coln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 443–462). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for
teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineer-
ing Education Research, 2, 28–34.
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation
to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 48, 199–216.
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation
to learn science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 49, 1057–1095.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regula-
tion of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: New standards
for teaching and learning in America’s school (3rd ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.