Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks Quantifying national biocehanics day's impact on student perceptions toward biomechanics: a multisite pilot study Scott M. Monfort, Kimberly E. Bigelow, Srikant Vallabhajosula, Loribeth Q. Evertz, James N. Becker, Matthew W. Wittstein, Paul Gannon, Paul DeVita © This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Title Page & Abstract 1 December 6, 2021 2 3 Quantifying National Biomechanics Day’s Impact on Student Perceptions toward 4 Biomechanics: A Multisite Pilot Study 5 6 Scott M. Monfort1,2, Kimberly E. Bigelow3, Srikant Vallabhajosula4, Loribeth Q. Evertz1, James 7 N. Becker5, Matthew W. Wittstein 6, Paul Gannon2,7, and Paul DeVita8 8 9 1Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, 10 MT, USA 11 2Montana Engineering Education Research Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 12 USA 13 3Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, 14 USA 15 4Department of Physical Therapy Education, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA 16 5Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 17 USA 18 6Department of Exercise Science, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA 19 7Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 20 USA 21 8Department7Department of Kinesiology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA 22 23 24 Correspondence Address: 25 Scott M. Monfort, PhD 26 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 27 P.O. Box 173800 28 Bozeman, MT 59717 29 Phone: 406-994-6294 Email: scott.monfort@montana.edu 30 31 Running Title: Impact of NBD on Student Perceptions 32 33 Word Count: 3,532 34 35 Abstract 36 National Biomechanics Day (NBD) is an international celebration of biomechanics that seeks to 37 increase the awareness and appreciation of biomechanics among the high school community. 38 Initial research supports the positive effects of NBD on students’ attitudes toward the field of 39 biomechanics; however, quantitative evidence remains scarce. The purpose of this study was to 40 quantify changes in high school students’ perceptions toward biomechanics after participating in 41 NBD events to better understand the impact of NBD. Data were collected at two locations during 42 the 2019 NBD season. Surveys were collected before and after NBD events for 112 high school 43 students from Montana and North Carolina. Paired pre- versus post-NBD surveys for the 44 aggregate sample population suggest that students perceived biomechanics as more appealing (p 45 = 0.050), exciting (p = 0.007), and important (p = 0.018) following the NBD events. Students did 46 not report a change in whether they could see themselves in a biomechanics-related career (p = 47 0.49). These findings further support the ability for NBD events to positively impact students’ 48 perceptions toward biomechanics, although opportunities persist to increase student career 49 interest in biomechanics. This paper presents and discusses the study’s results, interpretations, 50 limitations, and implications for future research on biomechanics outreach activities. 51 52 Keywords: STEM outreach, education, biomechanics, high school STEM, NBD 53 Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 Introduction 2 Strengthening the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce is critical 3 to being competitive in an increasingly science and engineering intensive economy (National 4 Science Board, 2015, 2019). Early exposure to STEM concepts through diverse formal and 5 informal STEM learning environments can support this national priority by generating interest in 6 STEM topics and careers (Holdren et al., 2013; Tai et al., 2006). STEM experiences occurring in 7 informal learning environments hold particular promise, as they are not constrained by curriculum, 8 time, and assessment requirements in the way that formal classroom experiences generally are 9 (Drazan, 2020). Participation in informal STEM experiences leads to increased self-efficacy, 10 increased student interest in content covered, and more positive attitudes toward science (Ayar, 11 2015; Shah et al., 2018; Wiehe, 2014), even when the experiences are short-term events such as 12 science festivals or museum programs (Habig et al., 2020; Wiehe, 2014). 13 Although the study of biomechanics is often completely absent from the high school 14 curriculum (DeVita, 2018), it may be a particularly effective focus for STEM outreach for a 15 number of reasons. Biomechanics, by its very nature, incorporates and requires the integration of 16 each of the STEM pillars (DeVita, 2018). Further, an increased understanding of biomechanics 17 has the ability to improve students’ mastery of fundamental physics concepts such as Newtonian 18 mechanics (Coleman, 2001; Knudson, 2013), content which is commonly covered in the high 19 school curriculum. Additionally, the increased presence of biomechanics in aspects of popular 20 culture – such as sports training, video game creation, and movie animation – positions 21 biomechanics to leverage the natural connections between fundamental STEM principles and real- 22 world examples that naturally connect with aspects of students’ lives (Drazan, 2020). The 23 relatedness of topics to students is an innate psychological driver for their motivation and self- 24 determination for learning (Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education and American 25 Society for Engineering Education, 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Pliner et al. showed that when 26 biomechanics lectures during an informal STEM summer experience were tailored to students’ 27 interests, students self-reported via surveys that they were more engaged in the lectures and 28 demonstrated a small, albeit nonsignificant, increase in performance on a quiz of biomechanics 29 concepts (Pliner et al., 2020). Additionally, when evaluating components of the summer 30 experience, students rated laboratory tours the highest in terms of engagement in comparison with 31 other teaching methods, which motivates the value of hands-on experiences that connect to real- 32 world applications (Pliner et al., 2020). Notably, formal academic recognition of the field of 33 biomechanics has recently been bolstered by biomechanics being added as a new Classification of 34 Instructional Program (CIP) code (26.0913) in 2020 and as a STEM field by the United States 35 Department of Homeland Security. 36 National Biomechanics Day (NBD) is an annual, single-day, informal outreach learning 37 event where biomechanics professionals all over the world welcome their local community schools 38 or other organizations into their labs to introduce high school students to the STEM discipline of 39 biomechanics (DeVita, 2018; Drazan, 2020; Shultz et al., 2019; Teeter et al., 2020). Site-specific 40 programming may include lab tours, hands-on activities, and demonstrations related to the field of 41 biomechanics (Drazan, 2020; Shultz et al., 2019; Teeter et al., 2020). Since the inaugural NBD 42 event in 2016, over 32,000 high school students around the world have participated in NBD events. 43 The increase in student participation and geographical spread of participating biomechanics 44 laboratories over these years supports the potential for NBD to reach a large and diverse group of 45 students; however, quantitative evidence of the impact of NBD on students’ interests and 46 perceptions toward biomechanics is scarce. 47 Previous research on other informal biomechanics experiences have demonstrated positive 48 impact. For example, Marshall et al. found that a four-day summer camp experience rooted in 49 sports science resulted in increases in familiarity, perceived importance, and interest in STEM and 50 medicine (Marshall et al., 2021), which adds to the improved student engagement that was 51 observed by Pliner et al. when biomechanics topics tailored to students’ interests were integrated 52 into lectures (Pliner et al., 2020). However, to date, there is only one paper examining the impact 53 of NBD. This recent single-site study provided initial evidence that NBD was associated with 54 positive shifts in student interest, excitement, and perceived importance of biomechanics (Teeter 55 et al., 2020). However, additional assessment is needed to determine the extent that the positive 56 shifts in student attitudes extend across the many NBD events, which will provide important 57 support for the ability of NBD to excite students about biomechanics. 58 Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study was to quantify changes in high school students’ 59 perceptions toward biomechanics after participating in NBD events. To accomplish this, we 60 recruited NBD hosts to administer a survey to high school students before and after they attended 61 NBD events. Our hypothesis was that NBD would increase appeal, excitement, and perceived 62 importance of biomechanics. 63 64 Methods 65 High school classes were invited to participate in independent NBD events in biomechanics 66 laboratories at two institutions with different geographical and institutional characteristics 67 (Montana State University and Elon University). IRB-approved written informed consent and 68 assent were obtained for 112 high school students (Table 1) in coordination with students’ 69 teachers. Students predominantly attended as part of high school biology, anatomy, and science 70 classes where teachers had decided to bring their class to an NBD event (Table 2). Recruiting 71 through teachers was chosen independently at each NBD location due to prior success in using the 72 approach to improve turnout and navigate logistical challenges (e.g., transportation for students). 73 While both NBD locations had similar gender ratios, the students attending the Elon University 74 NBD event had fewer seniors, were attending as part of a career and technical school where they 75 took vocational courses but belonged to different high schools in the county, and were more 76 racially diverse compared to the students attending the Montana State University event. 77 To assess the effect of NBD on student perceptions toward biomechanics, a brief (~5 78 minute) survey was administered to students both before and immediately after the NBD event 79 that they attended (complete surveys provided in Supplemental Material). Anonymous study 80 identification numbers were used to pair pre- vs. post-surveys. The method for implementing this 81 process differed by student group, but included distributing paper bracelets with unique numbers 82 on them to students upon arriving for the NBD event. All surveys were administered via pen and 83 paper. 84 The activities at the NBD events were not coordinated between the two institutions. A 85 summary of the event structure, volunteer backgrounds, and activities for each event is provided 86 (Table 2). In general, both events followed a structured format that involved an introduction by 87 the host laboratory followed by groups of students rotating between activity stations on a schedule. 88 Each activity involved interaction with NBD volunteers and provided opportunities for hands-on 89 participation related to various biomechanics topics (see Table 2 and Supplemental Material). 90 University-themed handouts (e.g., T-shirts, prizes for winners of activity competitions) were also 91 provided to students at each event. 92 To quantify student perceptions, we adapted questions from the STEM Semantics Survey 93 (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.78 – 0.94) to be tailored to biomechanics (Tyler-wood et al., 2010). 94 Specifically, students were asked to respond to the question “To me, biomechanics is,” for four 95 pairs of adjectives: ‘appealing vs. unappealing’, ‘exciting vs. unexciting’, ‘unimportant vs. 96 important’, ‘boring vs. exciting’, with the last question serving as a reverse-coded validation check 97 (Figure 1). Responses were checked to ensure that the same student did not select both 98 ‘unexciting’ for the second question and ‘exciting’ for the reverse-coded fourth question. 99 Responses were on a 7-point Likert scale, and students were also given the choice of responding 100 with ‘I don’t know enough about biomechanics to answer’ (IDK), as we anticipated NBD may be 101 students’ first exposure to biomechanics. Students also answered questions about their interest in 102 biomechanics-related careers (‘I can see myself in a biomechanics-related career’), enjoyment of 103 the NBD event (‘I enjoyed today’s biomechanics experience’), and perceived learning (‘I feel like 104 I learned a lot from today’s biomechanics experience’) using a 7-point Likert scale between options 105 of ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. In addition to these questions, the survey contained 106 several short answer questions that were intended to support feedback and future development of 107 the survey instrument (see Supplemental Material). 108 A combination of Sign Tests and Chi-Squared tests were used to test our hypothesis for 109 our ordinal data. Our primary analysis was on the aggregate dataset from both NBD locations and 110 focused on questions regarding students’ perceptions toward biomechanics as: 1) appealing, 2) 111 exciting, and 3) important. Additionally, we tested for shifts in students’ responses regarding their 112 interest in a biomechanics-related career. Our decision to report on individual items resulted in our 113 analysis being on Likert-type data that warrant statistical analyses appropriate for ordinal data 114 (Boone and Boone, 2012). Sign Tests were used to assess whether the contrast of paired pre-post 115 data differed from a median of zero (i.e., was there a change in student responses after NBD 116 compared to before). Students with an IDK response for any of the four adjective pair questions 117 on the pre-NBD survey were omitted from the primary analysis to provide a more direct 118 assessment of trends. Post-NBD responses for students with IDK responses on the pre-NBD survey 119 are reported separately for comparison. Students who had a missing response were also excluded 120 from the analysis of the paired data due to the inability to calculate pre-post contrasts for these 121 cases. To complement the analysis of the paired data, Chi-Squared tests were used to identify 122 differences in the distribution of student responses for the Likert-type data to assess changes in 123 overall student responses. Statistical significance was set at α=0.05 for all analyses. To 124 contextualize the student responses, we also provide descriptive statistics for students’ enjoyment 125 of the NBD event as well as their perceived learning during the event. As a secondary analysis to 126 characterize the potential heterogeneity in effects between the NBD locations, we also calculated 127 descriptive statistics and repeated the statistical analyses separately for the two NBD locations. 128 129 130 Results 131 Combined across both NBD events, students’ initial responses were generally positive in 132 response to appealing, exciting, and importance (Table 3). Notably, these perceptions were 133 strengthened after the NBD events, where biomechanics was more appealing (Sign Test p = 0.050), 134 exciting (Sign Test p = 0.007) and important (Sign Test p = 0.018) following the NBD events 135 compared to their paired pre-event responses (Table 4). The effect sizes of the differences were 136 small, with paired differences having Cohen’s d effect size magnitudes of 0.24, 0.38, and 0.18, for 137 appealing, exciting, and importance, respectively. The small effect sizes are also corroborated by 138 positive shift in medians for these questions by one on the 7-point Likert scale (Table 3). 139 Chi-squared analyses echoed the positive impact of NBD, with significant changes in 140 responses between pre- vs. post-NBD surveys occurring for questions on appealing (p = 0.008) 141 and exciting (p = 0.006). The response distributions also qualitatively show a shift from more 142 normally distributed responses to being skewed toward positive responses (Figure 2). 143 Additionally, the number of students selecting at least one IDK response decreased from 18% of 144 students across the three primary adjective pair questions of interest to 0% for these three questions 145 following the NBD events. 146 While a decrease in IDK responses (16% to 1%) was observed after the NBD events for 147 the biomechanics-related career interest question, no change was observed in how strongly 148 students saw themselves in a biomechanics career (Sign Test p = 0.49; median = 4 for both pre- 149 and post-NBD surveys; see Figure 2). 150 Additional descriptive statistics of students’ NBD experience suggest that students enjoyed 151 the NBD events (mean = 6.3; SD = 1.1; median = 7 [7 being highest]) and felt that they had learned 152 a lot during the NBD event (mean = 6.0; SD = 1.2; median = 6 [7 being highest]) (Table 3). 153 Students who responded with IDK on the pre-NBD survey had similar post-NBD responses to 154 these questions (Enjoyed: median = 7; Learned: median = 6) (Table 3, Figure 3). 155 Isolating the paired analysis to each NBD event (Figure 2), a significant increase in 156 excitement regarding biomechanics was seen in responses at the Montana State event (n=55, Sign 157 Test p = 0.022) while a nonsignificant trend increase in perceived importance was observed for 158 responses from the event at Elon University (n=25, Sign Test p = 0.065). Chi-squared analyses 159 could not be conducted for the separate NBD events because the expected counts within the given 160 7-point Likert scale options were often less than one after accounting for the smaller site-specific 161 sample sizes and missing or IDK responses. 162 163 Discussion 164 The findings of our study further support that NBD can improve students’ appeal, 165 excitement, and perceived importance of biomechanics through interactive outreach events that 166 students enjoy. Although the persistence of these shifts in student perceptions must still be 167 quantified, the findings corroborate those from a previous study to collectively support the ability 168 for NBD to be leveraged as a mechanism for engaging students with STEM (Teeter et al., 2020). 169 Additionally, the tools and approach used in this study strengthen future opportunities for assessing 170 the impact of NBD more broadly in future NBD events. 171 NBD’s impact on student perceptions is supported by the positive effects reported in both 172 present and previous studies despite fundamental differences in the NBD event structures (Teeter 173 et al., 2020). Notably, both NBD locations for our study followed a structured station format in 174 which student groups rotated between stations on a schedule. In contrast, Teeter et al. reported that 175 an expo-style NBD format resulted in a positive impact on student attitudes, where students were 176 able to decide what activities they visited and when they attended them (Teeter et al., 2020). The 177 expo style was selected in the previous study based on support for improved learning in free-choice 178 environments (Falk, 2005). Both of the NBD locations in our study provided more structure with 179 set rotations between the activities in order to ensure all students were exposed to each 180 topic/activity. One reason that this more structured style was chosen was to maintain smaller group 181 sizes that can increase the opportunities to participate and engage in the activity and increase 182 learning and attitudes toward learning (Springer et al., 1999). Additionally, given that students 183 were often unfamiliar with biomechanics at the beginning of the NBD events, the structured style 184 ensured that all students were exposed to biomechanics activities/topics that they may not have 185 otherwise visited. 186 The consistent, albeit small, positive shifts that were observed across NBD events of 187 structured versus expo-style formats support that short-term changes in student 188 attitudes/perceptions generalize across diverse characteristics of NBD events. A driving force for 189 the positive impact across these NBD events may be the interactive nature of the events that 190 allowed students to experience biomechanics through hands-on activities (DeVita, 2018; Vennix 191 et al., 2016), although no data were collected to verify this speculation. Although we only assessed 192 student perceptions toward biomechanics in this study, prior work supports the association 193 between positive changes in biomechanics identity with more generalized increases in science and 194 engineering interest (Teeter et al., 2020). Therefore, generating interest through biomechanics may 195 be able to support larger educational efforts to initiate and sustain student interest in STEM 196 (Harackiewicz et al., 2016). 197 It is recognized that the magnitude of the positive shifts in student perceptions were 198 relatively small. While a number of factors may have contributed to this observation, it is 199 noteworthy that students entered the NBD events with a slight positive bias for biomechanics, 200 indicated by the positive-leaning means and medians for the three primary adjective pairs 201 (Table 3). This may have partly been due to some background to biomechanics being provided to 202 students by their teachers prior to attending or self-selection bias due to recruiting science classes 203 (Drazan, 2020); however, 18% of students still reported an IDK response on the pre-NBD survey. 204 Therefore, the small effect sizes may partly be due to students entering the NBD events closer to 205 the ceiling of our survey instrument and therefore having less opportunity for large positive shifts. 206 For example, the median for the question on importance of biomechanics was a 6 out of 7 before 207 the NBD events and increased to a 7 out of 7 in the post-event surveys. This premise suggests that 208 the greatest potential to achieve the largest positive shifts in perceptions is with students who have 209 lower perceptions entering the events. A post-hoc analysis of our data corroborates this point. 210 Spearman correlations between the pre-NBD response against the corresponding pre- vs. post- 211 NBD change in the response for the same question identified significant negative correlations for 212 exciting (ρ = -0.23, p = 0.036), importance (ρ = -0.45, p < 0.001), and career interest questions (ρ 213 = -0.25, p = 0.019). The negative correlation coefficients indicate that lower initial perceptions on 214 the pre-NBD survey were associated with larger improvements in student perceptions on the post- 215 NBD survey. It is noteworthy that students who entered NBD with little understanding of 216 biomechanics (i.e., selected IDK responses) largely showed similar distributions in the post-NBD 217 responses as students who felt informed about biomechanics at the start of the NBD events (Figure 218 3). Whether larger shifts in student responses would have been observed for student groups who 219 had a lower baseline perception regarding biomechanics is unknown. 220 In contrast to the positive changes that were observed for student perceptions of how 221 appealing, exciting, and important biomechanics is, we did not observe significant changes in 222 students seeing themselves in a biomechanics-related career. The mean and median for this 223 question was consistently 4 out of 7, and did not differ between before versus after the NBD events. 224 This finding should be considered alongside the observation that nearly all students felt informed 225 about biomechanics following NBD to provide a numerical response to the career-interest question 226 (IDK responses decreased from 16% to 1% after the NBD event). It is plausible that some students 227 who were initially unfamiliar with biomechanics became unenthusiastic about a biomechanics- 228 related career through the NBD events. Similar findings were observed for a freshman engineering 229 course designed to expose mechanical engineering students to what practicing mechanical 230 engineers do (Traum and Karackattu, 2009). As students learned more about the field, some 231 realized a different discipline was more fitting for them. Including targeted free-response questions 232 regarding career interest on NBD assessments could help elucidate opportunities to strengthen the 233 impact of NBD on students’ interest in biomechanics careers. 234 The findings of this pilot study provide additional support that even a single, two-hour 235 NBD event can have a positive impact on students’ perceptions of interest and importance of 236 biomechanics. There are several limitations that should be considered when interpreting our 237 findings, which also motivate future opportunities to expand this work. The survey we used in this 238 study was intentionally designed to be brief in order to maximize the time students were actually 239 engaging in the NBD content. The survey took ~5 minutes to complete, which supported its 240 feasibility, but resulted in limited scope of the questions. However, the focused scope of the 241 questions for this pilot study provides evidence for the value that can be gained from introducing 242 assessments into biomechanics outreach. Furthermore, although the validity and reliability of the 243 survey questions are supported from prior literature which our survey questions were based upon 244 (Tyler-wood et al., 2010), the validity and reliability of the questions for the constructs tested in 245 this manuscript are unknown. The multiple statistical comparisons used in this pilot study also 246 inflates the risk of Type I statistical error (Holm, 1979), and therefore confirming these results in 247 a larger study population that is conducive to correcting for multiple comparison is needed. It is 248 also worth noting that the surveys only characterized short-term changes in student perspectives 249 because they were administered immediately before and after the NBD events. Future longitudinal 250 assessments are needed to characterize the long-term impact of NBD on student perspectives 251 toward biomechanics. Impactful research questions remain unanswered regarding how 252 biomechanics outreach can positively impact young students to pursue and excel in STEM fields 253 (e.g., evaluate differences between gender, race, socio-economic status, etc.). Furthermore, 254 mastery of STEM or biomechanics-specific content was not a focus of our survey. The hands-on 255 activities at the core of NBD are aligned with active learning approaches, which consistently 256 demonstrates positive effects on learning (Hake, 1998; Knudson, 2013; Knudson et al., 2009; 257 Prince, 2004). Future efforts to characterize and optimize short- and long-term learning would 258 further demonstrate the positive impact of NBD on students. 259 Although this pilot study initially recruited hosts of five NBD events, only two NBD 260 locations ended up administering the survey during their NBD events due to timing and logistical 261 challenges. Primary obstacles to implementing the survey during NBD events included late- 262 evolving NBD logistics at several of the candidate sites along with added logistical hurdle of 263 consent/assent that was required for the initial institutional review board approval. Subsequent 264 IRB amendments have approved a waiver for written consent/assent with adequate information 265 regarding the surveys sent to parents and students ahead of the event. Lessening this obstacle along 266 with early incorporation of pre/post surveys into NBD designs is expected to support the successful 267 integration of assessment into future NBD events. 268 Including assessments during biomechanics outreach enables researchers to evaluate its 269 efficacy at impacting its participants. Assessment also provides opportunity for biomechanics 270 outreach to intersect with scholarly productivity (Shultz et al., 2019). Recognizing this overlap 271 may increase participation by research laboratories and further grow the positive impact of 272 biomechanics outreach, as well as better characterize the nature and extent of the impact of 273 outreach events on students. 274 275 Conclusion 276 This study identified positive effects of NBD on student perceptions toward 277 biomechanics that support the positive impact of NBD on high school attendees. Significant but 278 small shifts were observed in students’ perceptions on how important, exciting, and appealing 279 biomechanics is, although opportunities exist to strengthen the impact of NBD on students’ 280 interest in pursuing a biomechanics-related career. A number of future directions for 281 biomechanics outreach were identified to further strengthen the impact that NBD and other 282 biomechanics outreach activities have on students. 283 284 Acknowledgements 285 We would like to thank the many administrators and volunteers that contributed to vibrant 2019 286 NBD events at Montana State University and Elon University, including: Mark Jankauski, 287 Chelsea Heveran, Bernadette McCrory, Cambrie Monfort, Susan Chinworth, Joyce Davis, 288 Shefali Christopher, and the NeuroCAVE Collaborative. 289 290 Conflict of Interest Statement: Paul DeVita is the founder of National Biomechanics Day and 291 the Biomechanics Initiative, although no financial conflicts of interests in these initiatives exist. 292 The authors have no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose. 293 294 References 295 Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education, American Society for Engineering 296 Education, 2020. Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning: A Defined and Cohesive 297 Educational Foundation for P-12 Engineering. American Society for Engineering Education. 298 Ayar, M.C., 2015. First-Hand Experience with Engineering Design and Career Interest in 299 Engineering: An Informal STEM Education Case Study. Educational Sciences: Theory and 300 Practice 15, 1655-1675. 301 Boone, H.N., Boone, D.A., 2012. Analyzing likert data. Journal of extension 50, 1-5. 302 Coleman, S.G.S., 2001. Misunderstanding of Newtonian mechanics - a problem for 303 biomechanics teaching?, in: Blackwell, J., Knudson, D. (Eds.), Proceedings: fifth national 304 symposium on teaching biomechanics in sports (pp. 49-52). San Francisco: University of San 305 Francisco. 306 DeVita, P., 2018. Why National Biomechanics Day? Journal of Biomechanics 71, 1-3. 307 Drazan, J.F., 2020. Biomechanists can revolutionize the STEM pipeline by engaging youth 308 athletes in sports-science based STEM outreach. Journal of Biomechanics 99, 109511. 309 Falk, J.H., 2005. Free‐ choice environmental learning: framing the discussion. Environmental 310 Education Research 11, 265-280. 311 Habig, B., Gupta, P., Levine, B., Adams, J., 2020. An informal science education program’s 312 impact on STEM major and STEM career outcomes. Research in Science Education 50, 313 1051-1074. 314 Hake, R.R., 1998. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student 315 survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 316 66, 64-74. 317 Harackiewicz, J.M., Smith, J.L., Priniski, S.J., 2016. Interest Matters: The Importance of 318 Promoting Interest in Education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 319 220-227. 320 Holdren, J., Marrett, C., Suresh, S., 2013. Federal science, technology, engineering, and 321 mathematics (STEM) education 5-year strategic plan. National Science and Technology 322 Council: Committee on STEM Education. 323 Holm, S., 1979. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scand J Statist 6, 65- 324 70. 325 Knudson, D., 2013, Physics and biomechanics education research: Improving learning of 326 biomechanical concepts. In T-Y, Shiang, W-H, Ho, C.F., Huang, & G.L. Tsai (Eds.) 327 eProceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports. 328 pg. 72-76. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/5525 329 Knudson, D., Bauer, J., Bahamonde, R., 2009. Correlates of learning in introductory 330 biomechanics. Perceptual and Motor Skills 108, 499-504. 331 Marshall, B., Loya, A., Drazan, J., Prato, A., Conley, N., Thomopoulos, S., E. Reuther, K., 2021. 332 Developing a STEM+M Identity in Underrepresented Minority Youth Through 333 Biomechanics and Sports-Based Education. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 143. 334 National Science Board, 2015. Revisiting the STEM workforce: a companion to Science and 335 Engineering Indicators 2014. National Science Foundation, Arlington, pp. vi, 36 p. 336 National Science Board, 2019. The Skilled Technical Workforce: Crafting America's Science & 337 Engineering Enterprise, National Science Foundation,. 338 Pliner, E.M., Dukes, A.A., Beschorner, K.E., Mahboobin, A., 2020. Effects of Student Interests 339 on Engagement and Performance in Biomechanics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 36, 340 360-367. 341 Prince, M., 2004. Does Active Learning Work ? A Review of the Research. Journal of 342 Engineering Education 93, 223-231. 343 Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic 344 Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. The American Psychologist 55, 68-78. 345 Shah, A.M., Wylie, C., Gitomer, D., Noam, G., 2018. Improving STEM program quality in out‐ 346 of‐ school‐ time: Tool development and validation. Science Education 102, 238-259. 347 Shultz, S.P., Carpes, F., Furlong, L.A., Landry, S., DeVita, P., 2019. The Internationalization of 348 National Biomechanics Day. Journal of Biomechanics 88, 1-3. 349 Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., Donovan, S.S., 1999. Effects of Small-Group Learning on 350 Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. 351 Review of Educational Research 69, 21-51. 352 Tai, R.H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A.V., Fan, X., 2006. Career choice. Planning early for careers in 353 science. Science 312, 1143-1144. 354 Teeter, S.D., Husseini, N.S., Cole, J.H., 2020. Assessing Changes in Attitudes toward 355 Engineering and Biomechanics Resulting from a High School Outreach Event. Journal of 356 Biomechanics 103, 109683. 357 Traum, M., Karackattu, S., 2009. Early Exposure to Engineering Practice Provides Informed 358 Choices for Students Continuing Engineering Programs. ASEE Paper Number AC 432, 14- 359 17. 360 Tyler-wood, T., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., 2010. Instruments for Assessing Interest in STEM 361 Content and Careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 18, 341-363. 362 Vennix, J., den Brok, P., Taconis, R., 2016. Perceptions of STEM-based outreach learning 363 activities in secondary education. Learning Environments Research 20, 21-46. 364 Wiehe, B., 2014. When science makes us who we are: Known and speculative impacts of science 365 festivals. Journal of Science Communication 13, C02. 366 367 Figure Captions 368 369 Figure 1. Format of the four adjective pair survey questions asked to students before and after 370 National Biomechanics Day events. The full pre- and post-NBD surveys are provided in the 371 Supplemental Material, for reference. 372 373 Figure 2. Survey responses from students attending National Biomechanics Day events. Each 374 row indicates a separate survey question. Columns reflect responses organized by 1) combining 375 responses from both locations (i.e., our primary analysis), 2) only Montana State University 376 responses, and 3) only Elon University responses. Both pre- and post-NBD responses are shown 377 in each subfigure, with pre-NBD responses indicated by diagonal lines and post-NBD responses 378 shown by the transparent gray bars in the foreground. Students with ‘I don’t know enough about 379 biomechanics to answer’ responses on the pre-NBD survey are omitted from these figures, and 380 missing responses are not shown. Significant differences between pre-NBD vs. post-NBD survey 381 response distributions of unpaired surveys (Chi-Squared) are indicated by asterisks (*). 382 Significant pairwise differences in pre-NBD vs. post-NBD responses (Sign Test) are indicated 383 for the combined dataset (a) and the Montana State dataset (b). No significant differences existed 384 for the isolated Elon University dataset. 385 Figure 3. Comparison of post-NBD survey responses for students with and without IDK 386 responses on pre-NBD survey. Responses from students with IDK responses on the pre-NBD 387 survey are indicated by diagonal lines and responses from students who had numeric values for 388 both pre- and post-NBD responses are shown in the transparent gray bars in the foreground. 389 Distributions were largely similar, with the most notable difference seeming to be a larger 390 proportion of IDK-response students having more ‘Strong Disagree’ responses for career interest 391 in biomechanics. 392 TFoig mure ,1 b (iroemviseecdh)anics is: Click here to access/down load;Figure;SurveIy _dAodnj’Pt aknir_oQws enough about biomechanics to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 answer appealing ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ unappealing ○ exci�ng ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ unexci�ng ○ unimportant ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ important ○ boring ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ exci�ng ○ Figure 2 (revised) Click here to Combined Montaacncesas/do wSnlotaad;Ftiguere;NBD2019_FigureE2_lRo1_vn2.eps Appealing*a 45 30 12 Pre-NBD Pre-NBD Pre-NBD Post-NBD Post-NBD Post-NBD 15 20 6 0 0 0 Appealing Unappealing Appealing Unappealing Appealing Unappealing Exci!ng*ab 45 30 12 6 20 15 0 0 0 Exci!ng Unexci!ng Exci!ng Unexci!ng Exci!ng Unexci!ng Importancea 45 30 12 15 620 0 0 0 Unimportant Important Unimportant Important Unimportant Important I Can See Myself in a Biomechanics-Related Career 45 30 12 20 15 6 0 0 0 Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree # Students # Students # Students # Students Figure 3 (new) Click here to Appealing access/download;Figure;NBDE201x9_Fciguire 3_R1n_v1g.eps 35% 30% Pre-IDK Baseline 15% 15% 0% 0% Appealing Unappealing Exci ng Unexci ng Importance Career 50% 30% 25% 15% 0% 0% Unimportant Important Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Learned Enjoyed 45% 60% 30% 20% 0% 0% Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree % Students % Students % Students Tables (revised) Click here to access/download;Table;NBD2019_StudentAttitudes_Tables_R1_ Table 1. Participant Characteristics NBD Event Characteristics Combined Montana State University Elon University Age (years) 16.5 ± 1.0 16.8 ± 1.0 16.1 ± 0.8 Gender (f/m) 65/38 42/25 23/13 Grade 9 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 10 35 (36%) 19 (29%) 17 (49%) 11 38 (38%) 24 (37%) 14 (40%) 12 24 (24.5%) 22 (34%) 2 (6%) Race/Ethnicity American Native 2 (2%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) Asian 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (6%) Black/African 6 (6%) 0 (0%) 6 (18%) American Hispanic/Latino 13 (13%) 3 (5%) 10 (29%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Islander White 77 (77%) 61 (92%) 16 (47%) Students were able to select multiple races/ethnicities, as applicable. Some students did not provide some or any demographic data. Table 2. National Biomechanics Day (NBD) characteristics NBD Characteristics Montana State University Elon University Format Structured (8 stations) Structured (3 stations) Welcome Presentation to Introduce Students to Yes Yes Biomechanics Bone mechanics, balance, locomotion, motion capture, isokinetic (muscle force properties), Balance, jumping, motion capture, running IMUs, biomechanics of hearing, NeuroCAVE Content Faculty, graduate students, undergraduate Faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students in engineering and health and human students, and DPT students across physical development working in diverse areas of therapy, exercise science, dance science biomechanics programs NBD Volunteers Total NBD Duration 2 hours 2 hours Time per Station 10 minutes 20 minutes Anatomy, Biology, and Sciences Classes at Health Science Students from a Career and High School Student Cohort traditional high schools Technical School Biomechanics Career Mentioned, but not emphasized Mentioned, but not emphasized Discussion Some students (~15) from one of the two high school classes at the NBD event had attended None expected Returning Students an NBD event the previous year IMUs: inertial measurement units NeuroCAVE: interactive art exhibit utilizing brain waves measured by electroencephalography (https://www.montana.edu/cave/) Table 3. Descriptive statistics for survey responses before (Pre) and after (Post) the NBD events. Combined MSU Elon Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Survey Question n (SD) (IQR) n (SD) (IQR) n (SD) (IQR) (1) Appealing-Unappealing (7) 84 3.1 (1.4) 3 (2) 56 3.1 (1.5) 3 (2) 28 3.1 (1.3) 3 (2) (1) Exciting-Unexciting (7) 83 3.1 (1.5) 3 (2) 55 3.2 (1.6) 3 (2) 28 3.1 (1.2) 3 (1.75) Pre (1) Unimportant-Important (7) 83 5.4 (1.9) 6 (2) 55 5.6 (1.8) 6 (2) 28 4.9 (2.0) 5 (3.75) Biomechanics Career Interest (7 Strongly Agree) 78 4.1 (1.5) 4 (2) 52 4.0 (1.5) 4 (2) 26 4.3 (1.5) 4 (1) (1) Appealing-Unappealing (7) 81 2.7 (1.8) 2 (3) 56 2.7 (1.7) 2 (2.75) 25 2.9 (2.1) 2 (3.25) (1) Exciting-Unexciting (7) 80 2.6 (1.7) 2 (2) 55 2.6 (1.6) 2 (2) 25 2.8 (1.9) 2 (3) (1) Unimportant-Important (7) 79 5.7 (1.9) 7 (2) 54 5.9 (1.8) 7 (1.25) 25 5.4 (2.1) 6 (3) Post Biomechanics Career Interest (7 Strongly Agree) 80 4.2 (1.6) 4 (2) 55 4.1 (1.5) 4 (2) 25 4.4 (1.8) 4 (3) Enjoyed NBD (7 Strongly Agree) 81 6.3 (1.1) 7 (1) 56 6.4 (1.0) 7 (1) 25 6.3 (1.4) 7 (1) Learned during NBD (7 Strongly Agree) 81 6.0 (1.2) 6 (2) 56 6.1 (1.1) 6 (1) 25 5.9 (1.3) 6 (2) Post-NBD responses for students with an IDK response on pre-NBD survey (1) Appealing-Unappealing (7) 26 2.8 (2.0) 2.5 (4) 13 2.6 (1.4) 3 (2.5) 13 3.1 (2.4) 2 (4) (1) Exciting-Unexciting (7) 27 3.0 (2.0) 2 (3) 13 2.7 (1.4) 3 (3) 14 3.2 (2.4) 2 (5.25) (1) Unimportant-Important (7) 26 5.6 (2.1) 7 (2) 13 5.8 (1.8) 7 (2) 13 5.3 (2.4) 7 (2.5) Post Biomechanics Career Interest (7 Strongly Agree) 27 3.7 (1.9) 4 (3) 13 3.2 (2.1) 3 (4) 14 4.1 (1.6) 4 (1.75) Enjoyed NBD (7 Strongly Agree) 27 6.1 (1.6) 7 (1) 13 5.9 (1.7) 6 (1.5) 14 6.3 (1.6) 7 (1.25) Learned during NBD (7 Strongly Agree) 27 6.0 (1.4) 6 (1) 13 5.8 (1.8) 6 (2) 14 6.2 (1.0) 6.5 (1.25) n: Number of surveys included MSU: Montana State University Table 4. Results of Sign Tests for paired pre- vs. post-NBD surveys. P-values for significant differences are bolded. Combined MSU Elon Survey Question # Pairs P-Value # Pairs P-Value # Pairs P-Value Appealing-Unappealing 81 0.050 56 0.082 25 0.481 Exciting-Unexciting 80 0.007 55 0.026 25 0.21 Unimportant-Important 79 0.018 54 0.153 25 0.065 Career Interest 74 0.486 51 0.663 23 0.774 # Pairs: Number of contrasts for paired surveys included in the analysis MSU: Montana State University Students who had an IDK on the pre-NBD survey were omitted from these analyses. Supplementary Material Click here to access/download Supplementary Material NBD2019_SupplementalContent_R1.pdf