april 12 tst

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

1/54

e Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 20121Ocial Publication o the Science Teachers Association o TexasSTAT

ASSOCIATION

TEACHERS

OF

TEXAS

S

CIE

NCE

Texas Science TeacherThe

Volume 41, Number1 April 2012

Letter rom the EditorNot Goodbye, but Until We Meet Again.

Engaging Elementary Studentsin Summer STEM Camp

Efects o Labs on At-Risk Studentsin a High School Environmental Science Program

Why Students Choose a College Majorin the STEM Fields

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

2/54

e Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 20122

The Texas Science TeacherVolume 41, Number 1 April 2012

e Texas Science Teacher, ocial journal of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, is published semiannually in Apriland October. Enumeration of each volume begins with the April issue.

Editorial contents are copyrighted. All material appearing in e Texas Science Teacher(including editorials, articles, letters,etc.) reects the views of the author(s) and/or advertisers, and does not necessarily reect the views of the Science Teachers

Association of Texas (STAT) or its Board of Directors. Announcements and advertisements for products published in thisjournal do not imply endorsement by the Science Teachers Association of Texas. STAT reserves the right to refuse any

announcement or advertisement that appears to be in conict with the mission or positions of theScience Teachers Association of Texas.

Permission is granted by STAT for libraries and other users to make single reproductions of e Texas Science Teacherfortheir personal, noncommercial, or internal use. Authors are granted unlimited noncommercial use. is permission does

not extend to any commercial, advertising, promotional, or any other work, including new collective work, which mayreasonably be considered to generate a prot.

For more information regarding permissions, contact the Editor: [email protected]

Cover Photo:Blue Bonnets and Honey Bee All Rights Reserved.

Image Credit:Retrieved on 4.10.12 from:http://haykulu.org/2012/03/09/blue-bonnets-and-honey-bee/

Letter from the Editorby Dr. Joel Palmer

Engaging Elementary Students in STEM Campby Dr. Tracy M. Walker, et. al.

Why Students Choose a College Major in STEM

Fieldsby Dr. Cynthia B. Powell and Erin Boyd

Effects of Labs on At-Risk Studentsby Dr. Gianluca Corsi

Contents

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

3/54


Letter from the Editorby Dr. Joel Palmer

In 1985, as a rst year teacher atAlex W. Spence Academy for the Academical-ly Talented and Gifted in the Dallas Indepen-

dent School District, I received an invitationfrom then science director Winston Hoskinsto attend the Conference for the Advance-ment of Science Teaching (CAST). I had noidea what this conference was, but I guredI would attend. At the orientation meeting,Winston said that a study had shown thatthere was one correlation among good sci-ence teachers. What was that one correla-tion? Attendance at science conferences!After my rst CAST, I agreed with this study.I also realized that by attending the confer-ence I had joined a statewide teacher organi-zation call the Science Teachers Associationof Texas. Over the next seven years, I at-tended CAST whenever possible (one time bycamping because I could not afford a hotel)and remained a member of the STAT. Afterall, the STAT yearly membership was only$20 (I think).

In the fall of 1989, I did my rst pre-sentation at CAST. It was at Texas A&Mand I had the privilege of being part of theOperation Physics program the previoussummer. At that CAST, all the OperationPhysics trainers in Texas met and I got tomeet, among others, Mrs. Virginia Woods.For those of you who do not know Virginia,she was a founding member of STAT andwent on to become the rst paid (part-timeand never paid enough) Executive Secretary

of STAT. Each year, STAT gives a VirginiaWoods Award for outstanding contributionto the organization. For many years, Virginiakept the organization going, never gettingpaid enough for all she did. Virginia is oneof the shining examples of the many scienceeducators who gave of themselves to keepthe organization going, teachers who have

served on the Board of Directors, as Presi-dent, on committees, editors of the newslet-ter and journal, on CAST committees andvolunteers at the conferences.

In 1996, as the new science coordi-nator for the Mesquite Independent SchoolDistrict, I attended the CAST in CorpusChristi and one of my physics teachers,Becky Gideon (then Becky Coker), was theVice President. Shortly after that confer-ence, the President-Elect of STAT movedout of state and Becky, who had agreed toserve a one-year term as VP, was suddenly

President-Elect and then President. Duringthat time the editor of the STATellite: the Of-cial Newsletter of STAT, Dr. Cynthia Led-better, decided to resign as editor and Beckyasked me if I was interested. So somewherein 1997, I took over as editor (since Cyn-thia and I worked on a few issues together Ido not remember the exact date). As EditorI was an appointed non-voting member ofthe STAT Board. During the last 18 years, Ihave had a unique insight into the workings

of STAT. In 2007 I gave up editorship of theSTATellite and became Editor of the TexasScience Teacher: the Ofcial Peer-ReviewedJournal of STAT.In 2009, I was elected President-Elect and,for the rst time, was a voting member ofthe Board. I then served as President for2010-11 and Past President for 2011-12. AsPast President, I was privileged to serve asConference Chairman for the CAST in Dallaslast fall.

Why, this has been a real trip downmemory lane! This will be my last issue aseditor of the Texas Science Teacher and atthe end of the STAT Board meeting on May19th, I will nish my long tenure on theBoard. For the rst time in 18 years I willnot be attending quarterly board meetings,

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

4/54


Lessons on Caring (contd.)

Twenty Ways to Teach Vocbulary (contd.)

Lessons on Caring (contd.)Letter from the Editor(contd.)

spending nights and weekends collecting,editing and desktop publishing articles,and working at CAST. But because I will bedisengaged, I will have time to really enjoy

CAST. I will be submitting workshop propos-als for the upcoming CAST in Corpus Christifor the rst time in years! Yea!!

I am not crawling in a hole. I will stillbe around. I am just moving onto otherthings. I am in my second year on the Edi-torial Advisory Board for the NSTA publica-tion The Science Teacher and am starting aone-year term as Chairman of that board.I just wanted to say to all my friends andcolleagues: it has been a great ride. Beingpart of STAT has introduced me to manyoutstanding individuals. Any attempt to listnames would surely leave out some deserv-ing individuals, so I will not try. But youknow who you are. For newbies and thosewho have never gotten involved in STAT orone of our afliates: it is time for you to stepup! We need new leaders and new ideas.Some of you are saying, I do not have time

or I have nothing to offer. Those are sorryexcuses! I can promise you that you havesomething to offer. No matter what you giveto STAT, you will be repaid a hundred timesover: I certainly have!

Not goodbye, but rather until wemeet again

Your friend and fellow science teacher,

Joel C. Palmer, Ed.D.

Get a free national STEM

report, download a free STEM

Whitepaper, nd out more about

STEM, why your students need it

and why implementing STEM is

easier than you think.

www.Learning.com/STEM-ready

STEM that

makes sense?Well make it a snap!

Ready-to-go units,full year curriculum, orcustom implementations.

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

5/54


To learn more, visit us online:

hmheducation.com/tx/science

WithHoughton Mifin Harcourt/Holt McDougal,every student can be a science star.

Texas Science Test PreparationBe Science STAARready with our practice workbooks

and professional development.

Texas Science

Leveled Reader LibraryScience Leveled Reader Kitsfor Grades K3 and Grades 45

are available in English and Spanish.

Texas ScienceEquipment KitsScience Equipment Kits are

available for Grades 58, and eachcontains materials for six groups

or lab stations.

Holt McDougal is a trademark o HMH Publishers LLC.

Houghton Mifin Harcourt Publishing Company.

All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. 04/12 MS47798

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

6/54


Engaging Elementary Students in Summer STEM Campby Dr. Tracy M. Walker, et. al.

Abstract

There has been an increasingdemand for K-12 students to have learningopportunities in science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM) eldsat an early age. Research shows that evenstudents in lower elementary grades areable to comprehend some of the more basicconcepts of STEM-related content. As oursociety changes, so does the need to beginincorporating inquiry-based learning in oureducational practices. Scientists and otherprofessionals are beginning to work in multi-

disciplinary teams, and thus, to prepareour future workforce, we must also teachour students to work in teams. This articlesuggests a format for a summer STEMenrichment camp for elementary students.The proposed activities integrate the FiveE approach to inquiry-based learning andutilize components of the National ScienceEducation Standards (1996) in order toprovide students with an engaging and funexperience to enhance learning over summer

vacation.Keywords: inquiry-based learning, STEM,elementary, summer school

Engaging Elementary Students in

Summer Science Enrichment ActivitiesEach year, students and teachers

alike count down the days until schoolends. At the beginning of the next schoolyear, teachers may ask their students Didyou forget everything you learned overthe summer? For many students, theanswer to that question may be Yes! Howcan students not only retain what theyvelearned over the summer, but add to whatthey already know in a way that is appealingor interesting? Participation in a summerenrichment camp or program can helpstudents with this.

A high quality summer program canengage students, teach them new skills,encourage them to expand hidden talents,fostering innovation and creativity. Summerprograms can be remediation tools forstudents, engaging them in science-relatedactivities that enhance their learning fromthe previous year, and further developstudents understandings of the scienticworld around them. These programs canbe an avenue for encouraging studentsto develop further interest in science,technology, engineering and mathematics(STEM) elds. Inquiry-based STEM

instruction can be easily integrated intoa summer elementary science curriculum(Brenner, 2009). Those not familiar withSTEM integration in the school curriculummay suggest that young students arentyet ready for an introduction to complexconcepts in the STEM elds. According toFrench (2004), young students are capableof gaining an extensive vocabulary relatedto science and are able to use higherorder cognitive skills for participating in

activities related to planning, predicting,and drawing inferences about the worldaround them. Charlesworth & Lind (2010)state in some ways, attitudes towards asubject or an activity can be as importantas the subject itself (p. 81). They furtheradd that research supports the notionthat participation in a science program ata young age can help students to improvetheir language and literacy skills.

National Science Standards

In July 2011, the National ResearchCouncil (NRC) published A Frameworkfor K-12 Science Education: Practices,

Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.

This framework was developed from acollaboration between four major agencies:National Academy of Science, National
http://www.summersciencecamp.net/http://www.summersciencecamp.net/

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

7/54


Engaging Elementary Students (contd.)

Academy of Engineering, Institute ofMedicine, and NRC, and represents therst step in a process to create new [science]standards in K-12 education (NRC, 2011, p.

viii). This framework incorporates not onlythe National Science Education Standards(1996) created by NRC, but also integratesScience for All Americansand Benchmarksfor Science Literacy(1993) developed by theAmerican Association for the Advancementof Science (AAAS) (NRC, 2011). It consistsof three dimensions including scientic andengineering practices, crosscutting concepts,and disciplinary core ideas.

According to NRC, K-12 scienceinstruction should include four main coreideas (NRC, 2011, p. 2-6):

1. Have broad importance acrossmultiple sciences or engineeringdisciplines or be a keyorganizing principle of a singlediscipline;

2. Provide a key tool forunderstanding

or investigating more complexideas and solvingproblems;

3. Relate to the interests and lifeexperiences of students or beconnected to societal orpersonal concerns that requirescientic or technologicalknowledge; and

4. Be teachable and learnable overmultiple grades at increasinglevels of depth andsophistication. That is, the ideacan be made accessible to youngerstudents but is broad enough tosustain continued investigationover years.

Using these four core ideas inplanning science instruction can bevaluable for students far beyond theK-12 environment. The four core ideas

represent ideas used across disciplines,thereby providing students with the toolsto better see how science and engineeringpertain to real-world problems and exploreopportunities to apply their scienticknowledge (NRC, 2011, p. 2-7).

Terzian, Anderson-Moore & Hamilton(2009) suggest that successful summereducational programs will balance

educational activities with engagingactivities, such as games and sports.The researchers also recommend theuse of interactive, hands-on projects andenrichment activities. Terzian, et al.,(2009) advise that if a summer program isto be successful, it must include severalkey practices. First, not only should thelearning experience be fun for the students,it should also ground [their] learning in areal-world context (Terzian, et al., 2009, p.

17). A successful summer program shouldprovide students with hand-on experiences,and the instructor should be experienced aswell as knowledgeable of the requirements ofthe content area(s).

Inquiry-Based Learning

The National Science EducationStandardsstate that student understandingis actively constructed through individualand social processes (NRC, 1996, p. 28).It is with this in mind, in addition to therecommendations from NRC, that a week-long summer STEM camp for elementarystudents was developed based on classroommodules conducted during the schoolyear. The camp is designed to motivatestudents in science and technology, developindividual inquiry skills and provide an

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

8/54


Notable High School Chemistry Concepts (contd.)

opportunity for social peer engagement inan authentic learning environment. Aninquiry-based method of instruction, theFive E approach, will be used. The inquiry

method allows students to take the lead intheir learning while the teacher serves as atrainer and facilitator.

The Five E approach to inquirylearning was developed by the BiologicalScience Career Study team, headed byRichard Bybee (Bybee et al., 2006). Five Eis a constructivist approach centered on thelearners building their own understanding ofa concept. This constructivist approach is

grounded in the works of Piaget, famous forhis research on cognitive development, andHoward Gardner, known for his theory onmultiple intelligences.

The Five E approach has vecomponents: engage, explore, explain,elaborate(or extend), and evaluate. Duringthe rst component, engage, teacherswill introduce a topic and stimulate thestudents interest in the topic. Second,

students will exploretheir topic throughhands-on activities and research toinvestigate a specic problem. Then,the students will explainthe problem byformally presenting the issues to the classand providing research-based solutions.During the fourth component, studentslearn to elaborate. They participate inactivities facilitated by the teacher in whichthey expand upon what theyve alreadydiscovered. This can also be achieved by

having students participate in constructivepeer feedback activities. Lastly, studentsprogress through the nal component,evaluate. In this phase, students will askeach other about what theyve learnedfrom theirresearch, observations, and nalproduct.

Program Components

The modules for this summer campare an extension of inquiry projects andactivities completed throughout the regular

school year by elementary classroom. Theindividual projects selected were expandedinto detailed modules which could beimplemented as a one week or two weeksummer camp. The summer STEM campruns on a ve-day schedule from 8:30 am 3:30 pm. If replicated, this camp couldalso be set up as either a one or two weekhalf day camp. Transportation and lunch/snacks are an additional consideration forthe timing of this camp. The camp willutilize collaboration from local universityengineering or science department and/or recruit community-based engineers forparticipation. This collaboration betweenthe teacher and professionals in the eldaids the student in developing an in-depth understanding of the real-worldapplications. Costs for conducting this campmay vary based on the number of studentsand length of the camp. Facilitators should

consider using materials that can be easilyfound in the school or at home, providingthe students with an opportunity to view thesimple machines around them in new anddifferent ways.

The summer STEM camp is designedto address the National Science EducationStandards(NRC, 1996) as well as therecently published framework for K-12science education. The National Science

Education Standards(NRC, 1996)addressedin this project are:

Science as Inquiry: By giving thestudents an opportunity to exploreand then create their own simplemachines, students are developing anappreciation of how we know whatwe know in science thus facilitating


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

9/54

e Texas Science Teacher Volume 41, Number 1 April 20129Vernier Software & Technology | Toll Free: 888-837-6437 | www.vernier.com

High-reslutin tuch screen

Built-in data-cllectin sftware

Quick respnse t tuch, curve ts,

and mdeling

5 built-in sensrsincluding GPS

100,000 samples per secnd

Wi-Fi and Bluetth cnnectivity

Cllect, view, and analyze data

n ANY device with a cmpatible

web brwser.

Shw students hw t use LabQuest

by prjecting yur LabQuest screen

in the classrm. (LabQuest Viewer

sld separately.)

Cllect, view, and analyze data

with Graphical AnalysisTM fr iPad.

Simultaneusly prvide access t

data fr the entire lab grup.

(Sld separately.)

Introducing LabQuest

2

The most powerful, connected, and versatile

data-collection device available for STEM education

The new Vernier LabQuest 2 interface puts scientic

data-cllectin technlgy int yur students hands and is

cmpatible with yur existing Vernier sensrs and sftware.

Explre science in the lab and in the eld with full-clr clarity,

tuch-screen ease, and breakthrugh, versatile technlgy.

Cllect, view, analyze, and anntate data n LabQuest 2 r

n any device with a cmpatible web brwseriPads,

AndridTM devices, iPhnes, and ther mbile technlgy

G to www.vernier.com/labquest2 fr cmplete details,

and t nd EE wrkshps in yur neighbrhd.

NEWoNLY $329

GraphicalAnalysisfr iPad

LabQuestViewer

EmailData

VernierData Share

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

10/54


the foundations of understanding thenature of science (National ScienceEducation Standards, p. 105).Physical Science: By observing the

properties of materials by identifyingsimple machines in everyday lifeand analyzing what causes theirmovements, students begin to explorethe fundamentals of physics (NationalScience Education Standards, p. 106).Science and Technology:Thisstandard is a perfect complementto the Science as Inquirystandard.Students rst identify what makeswork easier by identifying the simplemachine components in the simplemachines they rst explore, and thenidentify within their environments.This enables the child to distinguishbetween natural objects and humanmade objects. Students also begin toanalyze the abilities of the very basicsof technical design.

In order to link the concepts together,

the students must rst understand theconcepts of simple machines and how theyare applied to making work easier andfurthering their concepts with their ownapplication of the technology concepts. Thestudent not only identies and states aproblem, but they design and implementthe solution while associating costs to theirmodels and then improve the form andfunction of their designs as they collaboratewith their peers. (National Science Education

Standards, 2011, pp. 106-107).

Preparation Considerations for the

Facilitator

A review of the National ScienceEducation Standards (NRC, 1996)forphysical science, specically scienceand technology, will assist the facilitator

in understanding the components thatare addressed in this summer STEMcamp project. Other considerations forthe facilitator include the development

of required technical vocabulary for theproject. The vocabulary related to thisproject should use terminology easilyunderstood by the students and may varyby the school environment in which theprogram is conducted, taking into accountthe grade levels for which this program isimplemented. In addition, the facilitatorwill need to plan for evaluation tools, bothformative and summative. At the endof each day, the facilitator may collectinformation as to each student or groupsprogress as a formative assessment tool.Creating and sharing a simple rubric foreach activity allows the students to gainan understanding of the concepts thatwill be evaluated. On the nal day, theguest evaluators (engineers) will providea summative evaluation as to how thestudents were able to develop and presenttheir simple machine project, providing the

students with positive feedback. Finally,facilitators involved in the summer STEMcamp should be knowledgeable regardingthe Five E model of inquiry and understandhow it is used.

The modules for the implementationof the summer STEM camp are outlinedbelow. It is important to note that althoughthere are four modules, some modules maytake more than one day to complete. The

facilitator will determine when the groupsare ready to move to the next module.

Module 1: Introduction to Simple Machines(Engagephase)

Students are introduced to eachother through a warm-up activity

The facilitator begins the 5E method


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

11/54


by introducing the topic of SimpleMachines and engaging the studentsin open dialogue and assessing theirprior knowledge by asking:

o What is a simple machine?(discuss and give examplesof the six types of simplemachines: screw, pulley,wheel and axle, inclinedplane, levers and wedge)

o What do they each do?o Why are they important?o What benets are provided

by a simple machine?o

How have simple machinesmade work easier?The facilitator will provide a sample

of a compound machine (e. g. hand-held egg beater). The studentswill identify the simple machinecomponents of the egg beater andwill describe how each componentmakes work easier. The facilitatorwill divide the students into theirgroups/teams. The facilitator will

give each group a sample of differentsimple machines (samples mayinclude screws, scissors, pencilsharpener, mechanical pencils, gluesticks, chapstick). The students willthen work in groups to identify whatthe simple machine example does,name the simple machine in theproduct, and then describe how itmakes work easier.

The class then participates in asite-based eld trip. The facilitatordistributes to each student aclipboard with an observation reportattached and a digital camera ortablet computer. The class willnow walk around the school, takepictures and document as manysimple machines as they can, where

they were located, and how theymake work easier. The facilitatorshould ensure that various locationsare used so that students will have

an opportunity to nd all six typesof simple machines. The eld tripshould focus on outside and insidelocations of the school and mayinclude the playground.

The students will import thepictures to their computers and usea labeling program such as ComicLife, Label Maker, or MS Word tolabel the simple machines and write

about how they make work easier.Lastly, the facilitator will supply thestudents with a graphic organizerwhere each group will detail specicsabout the simple machines thatthey have located. The details of thesimple machines could include howthey are alike, how are they differentand how they can be used to do thesame type of work.

Each group will work collaboratively

to create a multimedia presentationof the simple machines they havefound throughout the school toformally present to their classmates(continued as part of Module 2).

By the end of Module 1, students should beable to answer the following questions:

1) What simple machines exist and howare they used?

2) How do you know?3) How have simple machines addressed

a particular need or want?4) Can the simple machine be made

better?


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

12/54


Module 2: Exploration and Research ofSimple Machines (Explorephase)Note: Module 2 may continue over two days

The students will present their

presentations of their simple machineeld trip to their classmates. Thefacilitator will guide the studentsto elaborate on how their simplemachines work and how they makework easier.

The facilitator will introduce the ideaof the design loop typically usedin engineering and technology. Adesign loop usually consists of vephases: 1) dening the problem, 2)brainstorming ideas for addressing theproblem, 3) creating a solution thatworks best to address the problem, 4)test the solution, and 5) evaluating thesuccess of their efforts. The facilitatorcan walk the students through anexample of using the ve-step designloop.

The facilitator will return the studentsback to their collaborative groups to

brainstorm ideas of a simple machinethey would like to invent to make workeasier. The facilitator will distributeto each student a concept map of adesign loop to help illustrate each stepof the project. The facilitator thentells the students that they will pickone of these inventions to design andcreate. The facilitator will presentstudents with a list of availablematerials, a cost list for the materials,

and the groups budget that must beused to purchase these materials.

The students will then work in theircollaborative teams to create a designof their simple machine invention.They will also determine what piecesthey will purchase that is in alignmentwith their budgets. The students will

select one group member to purchasetheir parts.

The students will continue in theplanning process of their products

documenting their design ideason paper to include materials andapproximate measurements.


1) What simple machines did you ndthat are in use in everyday life?

2) How are simple machines alike, howare they different?

3) How can you make a plan fordesigning a new simple machine byusing a design loop?

4) How could the students conceptualizeor design a model for a simplemachine?

Module 3: Design and ImplementationPhase (Explore/Explain/Evaluate)

The students work collaborativelybuilding their designs the rst half of

the day (on Day 3). The second half ofthe day each group will demonstratetheir simple machines to the group.They will present their inventionto the class, describing how theirinvention makes work easier, whichsimple machines they are using intheir design, how they made theirdesign, what they learned as they weremaking it, and what they would do ifthey could redesign it.

After each presentation, the class willbe invited to share comments abouteach teams design and providingrecommendations on how they canmake their design better.



8/2/2019 April 12 TST

13/54


1) Were you able to work on a team tocomplete your project?

2) What are some of the advantages toworking on team?

3) Were you able to synthesize what youlearned to develop a graphic organizercomparing and contrasting simplemachines?

4) Were you able to develop a model ofyour simple machine concept?

5) Did you receive feedback from otherstudents on how you could improveyour simple machine?

6) How did you use the feedback to

improve your simple machine?

Module 4: Finalization of Project and ExpertEvaluation (Elaborate/Evaluate):

During the morning of Day 5, studentswill work in their collaborative groupsto implement their improvementsas well as the improvements theygathered from their class. They willtest their inventions one last time.

In the afternoon, engineering

professionals and/or students-in-training visit the elementary students.Each group will share their inventionwith the professionals, which nowincludes any revisions they may havemade. Each group will explain whythey created that simple machine, whyit makes a specic job easier, and howthey improved it. The engineers willgive the students positive feedbackand recommendations on theirprojects. Students are then asked toself-evaluate their simple machineand to reect on their experience. Thefacilitator will ask each student howthey can use what they learned in thesummer camp in the real world.

The nal component of the day will

include the engineers telling thestudents about the design processesthey go through in their jobs. Theengineers will describe the type of

engineering they are involved in andhow what they do helps others. Bydoing this, the facilitator has alsoadded a career exploration componentto the program.


1) Were you able to solve a problem bydeveloping a new design of a simple

machine?2) Were you able to construct a model ofyour simple machine?

3) Were you able to collect data on thestrengths and weaknesses of yourmodel?

4) How could the students conceptualizeor design a model for a simplemachine?

Conclusion

The NRC states that there isample opportunity to develop scienticthinking, argumentation, and reasoning[in elementary school], and that is theexperience that will best support sciencelearning across the grades (NRC, 2011, p.2-8). This proposal for a summer STEMcamp for elementary students focuseson this reasoning as well as use of thenational science standards as a basis forits implementation. Engaging studentsat an early age in STEM-related learningand tasks is essential to increasing theprobability of students pursuing futurecareers in the STEM disciplines of science,technology, engineering and math. AsCharlesworth & Lind (2010) suggest, it isjust as important for students to have funwhile learning concepts related to STEM as


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

14/54


it is to learning the content itself. Students who are able to work collaboratively in teams,have opportunities to be engaged in their own learning, and have the opportunity to thinkoutside the box are those who will be most marketable in an ever-changing workforce.

References

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A, Scotter, P. A., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). e BSCS5einstructional model: Origins and efectiveness. Retrieved rom:http://science.education.nih.gov/houseoreps.ns/b82d55a138783c2852572c90045566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pd.

Brenner, D. (2009). STEM topics in elementary education. Technology & Children, 14(1), pp. 14 16.

Charlesworth, R., & Lind, K.K. (2010). Math & science or young children. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/CengageLearning.

French, L. (2004). Science as the center o a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 128-149.

National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

National Research Council (NRC) (2011).A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, CrosscuttingConcepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework or New K-12 Science EducationStandards. Board on Science Education, Division o Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: e National Academies Press.

Terzian, M., Anderson-Moore, K., & Hamilton, K. (2009). White paper. Eective and Promising Summer LearningPrograms and Approaches for Economically Disadvantaged Children and Youth. Retrieved rom:http://www.wallaceoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasoFocus/Out-O-SchoolLearn

ing/Documents/Efective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pd.

http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf.http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/Out-Of-SchoolLearning/Documents/Effective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pdfhttp://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/Out-Of-SchoolLearning/Documents/Effective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pdfhttp://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/Out-Of-SchoolLearning/Documents/Effective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pdfhttp://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/Out-Of-SchoolLearning/Documents/Effective-and-Promising-Summer-Learning-Programs.pdfhttp://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf.

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

15/54


Dr. Tracy Walker is an Assistant Proessor in the Department o Doctoral Studies at Virginia State University. She

has worked closely with colleagues in the Education department on projects related to the development o a STEMLab School, ocusing specically on increasing the interest o elementary-aged students in STEM-related oppor-tunities. Dr. Walkers K-12 school experience includes working as a school counselor, school counseling director,and division-wide testing director. Her areas o research interest include STEM, research methods, mentoring andassessment.

Dr. Trina Spencer is an Assistant Proessor o Elementary Education at Virginia State University. She has beenan educator or more than 20 years with teaching experience at both the university and public school levels. Herresearch areas include instructional methods, classroom assessment, and strategies or increasing pre-service teacherinterest and condence or science teaching.

Kim F. Powell is the Elementary Science Specialist in Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond, Virginia. Sheoversees the science curriculum in 45 elementary schools supporting 24,000 elementary students. Ms. Powell hasbeen a curriculum specialist or 2 years and has devoted my career to teaching children or over 22 years. She hostsa blog or my teachers that houses content to assist them in integrating STREAM (Science Technology ResearchEngineering Art and Mathematics) into their classrooms. Please visit her blog: http://blogs.henrico.k12.va.us/pb-science/. Ms. Powell is also keeping abreast o the Next Generation Standards and is working to implement changeto align to the common core with the current Virginia standards.

Olaniyi Lucas is a secondary school counselor and doctoral student at Virginia State University. Olaniyi is begin-ning her seventh year as a schol counselor. Within that time, she has served as a member and technology chair orthe Virginia School Counselor Association (VSCA) and presented at many conerences. Olaniyi completed herundergraduate degree at Virginia Commonwealth University (Psychology) in 2002 and her Masters o Educationdegree at Virginia State University (School Counseling) in 2006. Olaniyi is actively engaged in the learning processand seeks out new and innovative ways to help her students learn.


Author Biographies

Authors Note

Tracy M. Walker, Assistant Proessor, Department o Doctoral Studies, Virginia State University

Trina L. Spencer, Assistant Proessor, Department o Teaching and Learning, Virginia State UniversityKimberly F. Powell, Educational Specialist or Elementary Science, Henrico County Public Schools, Virginia

Olaniyi I. Lucas, Graduate Student, Department o Doctoral Studies, Virginia State University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tracy M. Walker:School Address: Department o Doctoral Studies, P.O. Box 9403, Petersburg, VA 23806.

Home address: 6153 Bootsie Blvd., Richmond, VA 23231. Contact email: [email protected].
mailto:twalker%40vsu.edu?subject=mailto:twalker%40vsu.edu?subject=

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

16/54


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

17/54


Why Students Choose a College Major in the STEM Fieldsby Dr. Cynthia B. Powell and Erin Boyd

Introduction

The National Research Councilhas just released its much-anticipatedrecommendations for K-12 science andengineering education (National ResearchCouncil 2011).Implicit in the arguments fora stronger and more focused approach toteaching and learning in these elds is therealization that fewer students are choosingto pursue degrees in science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM) thanwill be needed to ll workforce positionsin our ever advancing technology-driven

society. In light of this situation, researchon why students choose a college majorin the STEM elds and how students areinuenced toward a career in one of thesedisciplines is vital. We need to look at datafor the country as a whole, but also atdata from the state of Texas to help informeducators and other community members asthey make decisions that we hope will steerstudents toward STEM careers.

Current research literature identiesseveral factors that correlate with studentchoice of STEM major. These includeinuence of teachers and parents, gender,race, socioeconomic status, and scienceself-efcacy (Forrester 2010; Maltese2008; Lau & Roeser, 2002; Crisp, Nora &Taggart, 2009; Tai, Sadler & Loehr 2005).Many studies report that the inuenceof primary and secondary teachers is

the most prominent factor in directingstudents toward a college major or a speciccareer path (Hattie 2003; MacIntyre et al.;Dick & Rallis 1991; Forrester 2010; Tai,Sadler & Loehr 2005; Tytler 2010; Lau& Roeser 2002; Maltese 2008). Parentalencouragement is also a prominent factorthrough modeling of educational goals,

support through direct involvement witha school or learning activities, and verbal,emotional and nancial support before

and during college enrollment (Lau &Roeser 2002; Rowan-Kenyon 2007; Smith& Hausafus 1997; Herdon & Hirt 2004).Studies have focused on the studentvoice, methods of teaching science, theteacher voice and inuences of popularscience. Research from all of these areasmust be integrated to make informeddecisions about science education policies(Christidou 2011). Elucidating the studentreection of characteristics of teacher

interactions and teaching styles as wellas parental interactions is an importantstep to understanding what determinesthe success of a student within the STEMdisciplines and what piques student interestin pursuing advanced studies in these elds.(MacIntryre et al. 2010, Hattie 2003).

To give a richer, more detaileddescription of the pre-college factors that

inuence a students choice of STEM majoramong students in Texas, we undertooka case study comparing and contrastingpopulations of college-enrolled studentswho chose a STEM major with those whodid not choose a STEM major. The casestudy approach allowed for a qualitativeexamination of a smaller sample size sothat we could concentrate on speciccontext-dependent scenarios that mightenrich an understanding of the inuences

affecting students (Gerring 2004, Flyvbjerg2006). An article published by J. Kochin Science and Children (1990) describesthe use of a science autobiography tostimulate discussion among pre-serviceelementary school teachers enrolled ina science methods course. Ellsworth &Buss (2000) reported interesting research

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

18/54


focused on pre-service teachers that usedstudent autobiographies to track howeducational experiences affected feelingsand perceptions of math and science.

We decided to include similar student-generated science autobiographies inour research design that would allow thestudents in our STEM/non-STEM samplesto describe specic experiences, attitudes,and changes in opinions over time. Eachof our study participants wrote a uniquenarrative in response to an assigned promptthat described experiences from their pre-college science education. We read andcoded these autobiographies searching foremerging themes that might point towardcommon experiences (Maltese and Tai 2010).The results of this study are a descriptiveanalysis of factors contributing towardchoice of STEM major and attitudes towardscience and technology among studentsenrolled at a Texas university. Additionaldemographic data, a logic reasoningmeasure and a questionnaire on experiencesin science teaching and learning enrich the

comparison of the two student groups.

Research Questions

This study addressed four researchquestions:

1. Is there a correlation between studentlogic reasoning ability as measured by theGroup Assessment of Logical Thinking(GALT) test and experiences in teachingand learning science as measured by the

Experiencing in Teaching and Learning(ETL) questionnaire for students in oursample?

2. What are the differences in learningorientations between STEM studentsenrolled in an entry-level sciencemajors chemistry course and non-

STEM students enrolled in an entry-leveleducation majors physical science courseas determined by the Experiencingin Teaching and Learning (ETL)

questionnaire?

3. What are the major educationalinuences on students attitudestoward science as described in scienceautobiographies?

4. What are the differences between thescience education experiences andattitudes toward science of STEMstudents enrolled in an entry levelscience majors chemistry course andnon-STEM students enrolled in an entrylevel education majors physical sciencecourse based on information gleanedfrom science autobiographies?

Methodology

The samples chosen for this studywere students enrolled at a mid-size privateuniversity located in West Texas. The sample

population was all students enrolled in twoentry-level science courses during the fall2010 semester. The students self-selectedcourse schedules and all students in each ofthe chosen science courses were invited andconsented to participate in the IRB-approvedstudy.

The rst sample was comprised ofthe 22 students enrolled in Honors GeneralChemistry (CHEM H133), a chemistry

course covering the fundamental principlesof chemistry at an accelerated pace forhonors students with a math or sciencemajor or a pre-health professions emphasis.Only one section of CHEM H133 is offeredper semester. This course has the reputationfor being a very difcult course. Sciencemajors and pre-health professions students

Why Students Choose STEM (contd.)

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

19/54


2012 HEB, 12-2844

Be sure and visit

heb.com/education

for the complete list of finalists and to learn more about theH-E-B Excellence in Education awards program.

Over $160,000have been awarded to the H-E-B Excellence in Education awardsteacher, principal and district finalists and their schools. And atthe statewide competition on May 6th, they will compete to win

an additional $5,000 to $100,000!

CONGRATULATIONS!2012 REGIONAL FINALISTS

Foundations of Physics - Second Edition

Foundations of Physics, is a friendly,readable, conceptual approach tophysics that is accessible to everystudent. This program includessuccessful STAAR strategies anda focus on mathematics forconceptualized physics.

Physics, A First Course - Second Edition

Physics A First Course, is an idealapproach to physics at theintroductory, conceptual level. Thisprogram uses an inquiry-based

approach. Students discoverscience concepts by investigatingwith hands-on equipment.

Sally Dudley, Regional Sales Manager800-237-1371 or 972-825-6588

[email protected]

ExperiencingPhysicsIntegrated Teaching Solutions from

Features ofCPO Science Teaching

and Learning Systems

Student textbooks and Investigation manuals

High-quality equipment included

with minimum purchase

Teacher resources and

professional development

Digital and online

learning products

Like us

Follow us

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

20/54



are not required to enroll in the honorssection and most choose to enroll in oneof the non-honors sections. The universityhonors program has a strong humanities

component. Students who choose topursue an honors degree and are thereforeeligible to enroll in CHEM H133 must alsobe articulate writers. As a result of thesefactors, the students who elect to takeCHEM H133 are usually highly motivatedstudents who are condent in their scienceability, very interested in the subject matterand write well. This STEM major samplewas specically chosen because of theseexpected characteristics.

The second sample chosen forthis study was the group of 22 studentsenrolled in General Science for Pre-service Elementary School Teachers(CHEM 203). This course is an entry-level physical sciences course thatpresents the fundamental principles ofchemistry, physics, geology, astronomy andmeteorology for students preparing to teach

in elementary schools. Only one section ofCHEM 203 is offered per semester. Noneof these students have chosen to major inSTEM disciplines and CHEM 203 is usuallythe rst science course they have taken atthe college level. It is not unusual for thesestudents to postpone taking CHEM 203until their junior or senior year because theyare concerned about the science content ofthe course. Though some of the CHEM 203students are intimidated by science content,

they are usually creative and enthusiasticlearners who have spent time in educationcourses reecting on effective teaching.As a result of their previous educationtraining, their written analysis of teachingand learning situations might be expectedto be much richer than one written by astudent who is not an education major.

Once again the non-STEM major sample wasspecically chosen because of the expectedcharacteristics of this population.

The majority of the students who

participated in this study are Texasresidents who attended public schools inTexas. Four out of the 22 students in theSTEM sample received their high schooldiplomas outside of Texas, while 2 out ofthe 22 students in the non-STEM samplegraduated from high school in another state.The pre-service teachers enrolled in CHEM203 are in training to be certied and teachin the Texas school systems.

Demographic information wasretrieved from university databases.Two assessments were administered toall students in both samples during therst days of course enrollment to ensurethat the results indicated a reectionon previous experiences: the GroupAssessment of Logical Thinking (GALT)test and the Experiencing in Teachingand Learning (ETL) questionnaire

(Roadrangka 1986, Roadrangka, Yeany& Padilla 1986, Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments). The GALT testmeasures logic reasoning ability and hasbeen shown to have a correlation withsuccess in science coursework (Bird 2010;Bunce & Hutchinson 1993; Jiang et al.2010). The ETL questionnaire was usedto assess previous teaching and learningenvironments and student approaches tostudying, ways of thinking and practicing a

subject. Both assessments have been usedpreviously to study a variety of studentpopulations and have been shown to havehigh reliability and strong validity (Parpala2010; Xu 2004; Bird 2010).Data collectedusing these two tools were compared andstatistical analyses were performed using Rand SPSS.


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

21/54


The rst assignment in each coursewas to write the science autobiography.Instructors provided a written descriptionof the assignment with the prompt and

students were given one week to completethe work (Figure 1). Essays were submittedelectronically. All students were assuredthat their essays would be condential andthat the goal of the assignment was to learnabout their previous experiences in studyingand learning science that had inuencedtheir attitudes toward the discipline.Students were also informed that gradeswould be assigned based on thoroughcompletion of the task and not on positive,negative or indifferent content.

Figure 1: Science autobiography prompt

Assignment #1: Science

Autobiography

Respond to the followingprompt in essay form.Your response should

be at least 500 wordslong, but no longer than1000 words. Completedautobiographies should besubmitted electronically toyour course drop box.

When you think about

your science education

beginning in elementary

school, through middle

school and highschool what are your

dominant memories and

impressions from each

stage?

Think about thesequestions as you answer:

(1) Did you like science,hate science, or just feela bit neutral about it? (2)Who or what inuenced

your attitudes towardscience and how didthey inuence you? (3)When did you feel likeyou learned science mosteffectively? (4) Whattopics do you rememberstudying? (5) Do youremember times whenyour experiences withscience affected lifechoices? (6) Are theredifferences between in-school and out-of-schoolmemories?

Please be as specic aspossible in describingexperiences and includeexamples to support youranswers.

Respond to this promptat the conclusion of yourautobiography: Thinkingabout what youve just

written about your

science education,

describe an ideal

science teachers role

in a classroom and an

ideal science students

role in a classroom.

In this study, the scienceautobiographies were read by each author/researcher who independently coded andcategorized the content of the writingsamples by general attitude. Five attitudecategories were used: overall positive,


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

22/54


overall neutral, overall negative, positiveto negative, and negative to positive. Ifa student autobiography included onlypositive statements regarding their science

experiences, they were placed in the overallpositive category. If they wrote exclusivelyabout negative experiences, they wereplaced in the overall negative category.Students who were placed in the positive tonegative or negative to positive groupingstypically wrote about a transition periodwhen their opinion toward science changed.Students whose autobiographies expressedindifference toward science were placein the overall neutral category. Theseclassications were similar to those used inthe Ellsworth & Buss (2000) autobiographyanalysis. We independently analyzedeach autobiography and then comparedratings to reach and record a consensuscategorization.

We also analyzed the scienceautobiographies for evidence of expectedthemes by looking for evidence of several

non-demographic factors that previousresearch has shown to correlate withstudent success in and pursuit of STEMeducation. These categories were mentionof teacher impact, mention of parentalimpact, and allusions to student scienceself-efcacy. We recorded the number oftimes teachers or parents were mentionedas positive and negative inuences and thenumber of sentences dedicated to thesetopics. We looked for evidence of science

self-efcacy by looking for descriptions ofstudent condence or lack of condence inpreparation for a university level sciencecourse or in academic performance inscience courses taken during secondaryeducation. Finally, we looked for anyadditional emergent themes in the studentscience autobiographies that might

elucidate possible connections between earlyexperiences with science and choice of aSTEM major.

Quantitative DataComparison of demographics of STEM

and non-STEM samples

Table 1 lists the gender, major, andclassication distributions of the STEM andnon-STEM student samples. The studentparticipants enrolled in CHEM 203 wereall female and a majority of the studentswere classied as juniors and educationmajors. Three CHEM 203 students had adeclared major in a eld closely alignedwith education that also falls in the non-STEM category. Students in CHEM 203comprise the non-STEM sample. There were13 men and 9 women enrolled in CHEMH133 and most had declared a biology orbiochemistry major. The four students whowere not science majors had declared apre-health professions concentration thatincludes signicant undergraduate levelscience coursework and their career goal

requires enrollment in a graduate levelhealth science program. All CHEM H133students were classied as STEM studentsfor the purposes of this study. Thoughmany of the students in CHEM H133 weretechnically classied as sophomores, allbut one were rst-year university students;honors students often begin their collegecareers with over 30 hours of AP or duel-credit coursework and therefore may beclassied as sophomores before high school

graduation. The one senior enrolled inCHEM H133 had chosen to take the coursedue to a late-in-degree program decisionto take pre-requisites courses for medicalschool and declare a pre-health professionsconcentration.


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

23/54


Table 1: Sample demographics

STEM Non-STEM

Gender 13Males 0Males

9Females 22Females

Majors 9Biochemistry 17Education

9Biology 2AppliedStudies

2Bible 1SpeechPathology

1History 1FamilyStudies

1Psychology 1Psychology

Classication 1Senior 4Seniors

0Juniors 12Juniors

11Sophomores 4Sophomores

10Freshmen 2Freshmen

Comparison of GALT data for STEM and

non-STEM samples

The GALT test can be used to assesslogic reasoning ability and separatesstudents into three operational stagesthat correspond to Piagets developmentalmodel: the concrete stage, a transitionalstage and the formal stage (Roadrangka

1986, Roadrangka, Yeany & Padilla 1986).This test has particular relevance whenexamining data for STEM and non-STEMuniversity students as numerous researchstudies report a correlation between scienceability and development of logic reasoningability ( for example: Bird 2010; Bunce &Hutchinson 1993; Jiang et al. 2010). Weplanned to use this data to investigateconnections between logic reasoning abilityand experiences in learning and teaching

of science among our sample populations.We might expect higher GALT scoresfor students who have a track record ofsuccess in STEM disciplines at the highschool level and in turn expect a greaterproportion of students who choose aSTEM major to exhibit high GALT scores.During this administration of the GALT

test, reliability is indicated by a Cronbachsalpha of 0.71. Table 2 summarizes the meanperformance of each sample population oneach GALT item. One point is assigned for

correct completion of an item, and perfectperformance on the GALT test correspondsto a score of 12. Figure 2 is a representationof the stage distribution of students in eachsample as determined by GALT performanceMost students in both sections can becategorized in the formal operations stagebased on GALT score; however, 7 non-STEMstudents fell in the concrete and transitionalstages.

There is a statistically signicantdifference between the mean GALT scoreof the STEM sample (10.3 + 1.35) and themean GALT score of the non-STEM sample(7.8 + 2.21). Analysis of the sub-categoriesmeasured by the GALT test show that the


TST1203

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

24/54


cause of the overall statistical difference is a statistical difference in performance onquestions testing proportional reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, correlational reasoningand combinatorial reasoning (p< .05). The median overall GALT score for the STEM samplewas 11, 0.7 higher than the mean, and the median overall GALT score for the non-STEM

sample was 8, 0.2 higher than the mean. Four students in the STEM sample scored aperfect 12. No GALT data was collected for three of the students in the non-STEM sample.

Table 2: Results of Group Assessment of Logical inking Cronbachs alpha = 0.71

Logicalreasoningmode Question Meanscore p-value

STEM Non-STEM

Mass/Volumeconservation One 1.000 0.895 0.1628

Two 0.905 0.789 0.3292

Proportionalreasoning Three 0.809 0.632 0.2238

Four 0.905 0.474 0.003373

Experimentalvariablecontrol Five 0.952 0.842 0.2711

Six 0.667 0.789 0.3947

Probabilisticreasoning Seven 0.952 0.947 0.944

Eight 1.000 0.737 0.02072

Correlationalreasoning Nine 0.857 0.211 0.00000789

Ten 0.476 0.053 0.001867

Combinatorialreasoning Eleven 1.000 0.8947 0.1628

Twelve 0.952 0.579 0.006678

TotalGALTscore All 10.2650 7.7909 0.00004659

Figure 2: Operational stages determined using GALT


0

5

10

15

20

25

Concrete operational

0-4

Transitional stage

5-7

Formal operational

8-12

STEM

Non-STEM

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

25/54


GALT data can be further analyzed through examining any interaction effects bygender within the STEM sample. (The non-STEM sample does not include male students,limiting our analysis of this sample by gender.) Table 3 shows the mean GALT scores oneach item by gender and the results of t-tests comparing these. At thep< .05 level only

item ten (one of two questions testing correlational reasoning) is statistically signicantlydifferent for the male and female STEM students. Extending the limit top< .10 the femaleSTEM students performed at a statistically higher level on both correlational reasoningGALT items. All other mean GALT item scores for the STEM sample by gender show nostatistically signicant differences.

Table 3: Comparison of STEM sample GALT data by gender

LogicalReasoningMode Question MeanScore p-value

MALE-STEM FEMALE-STEM

Mass/VolumeConservation One 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

Two 0.9230769 0.8750000 0.7488

Proportionalreasoning Three 0.8461538 0.7500000 0.6287

Four 1.00 0.75 0.1705

Experimentalvariablecontrol Five 1.000 0.875 0.3506

Six 0.6153846 0.7500000 0.5413

Probabilisticreasoning Seven 1.000 0.875 0.3506

Eight 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

Correlationalreasoning Nine 0.7692308 1.0000 0.0821

Ten 0.2307692 0.8750000 0.00174

Combinatorialreasoning Eleven 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

Twelve 0.9230769 1.00000 0.337

TotalGALTScore All 9.9000 10.66667 0.2319


Hands-On Kits

STEMscopes Kits are available exclusively through

Just in time for your Spring & Summer Professional Development.

Contact your Texas sales reps for kit contents and pricing.

Dallas/Fort Worth [email protected]

Central/South Texas [email protected]

Houston/Texas Coastal Bend/El Paso [email protected]

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

26/54


Comparison of ETL data for STEM and non-STEM samples

The data collected using the ETL questionnaire and displayed in Table 4 showsstatistically signicant differences in the STEM and non-STEM student intrinsic reasonsfor taking the science course and extrinsic reasons for taking the science course. The

STEM student sample on mean reported having stronger intrinsic reasons for enrollingin the science course (p< .10) than non-STEM student sample. Likewise, the non-STEMstudent sample on mean reported stronger extrinsic reasons for taking the science course(p< .05). It is not surprising that students choosing a STEM major would express greaterpersonal motivation for enrolling in a science course than students who have not chosena STEM major and are required to take a science course for completion of their non-STEMdegree. The reliability data as expressed by Cronbachs alpha for the measures of intrinsicand extrinsic motivation are low perhaps indicating some conict of thought among thestudents about their reasons for enrolling in the courses or their level of interest in thescience content.

A statistically signicant difference is also evident in the reported measure of taking asurface approach to learning. Non-STEM students reported that they are more likely to takea surface approach to learning (p< .05, Cronbachs alpha =.863). The surface approachsubscales that contributed to the statistical difference were the memorizing withoutunderstanding subscale and fragmented knowledge and unthinking acceptance subscales.Non-STEM students more frequently agreed that in previous science courses they had oftenattempted to learn information that did not make sense to them and struggled to rememberthis information. The strong reliability of this data gives us condence in the accuracy ofthese self-reported learning tendencies.

When comparing data for organized study habits, on mean the non-STEM studentsreported a more systematic approach to studying and learning than the STEM students.The difference is statistically signicant at the at thep< .10 level (Cronbachs =.869).Again, the strong reliability of this measure indicates consistent student reporting of studyhabits.

Table 4: Results of the Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environment Questionnaire (ETL)

ETLsub-scales Cronbachsalpha t-testresults

STEM Non-STEM p-value

Intrinsiclearningorientation .588 4.712 4.807 0.436

Intrinsicreason .305 4.450 4.197 0.0894

Extrinsicreason .452 2.640 3.136 0.009602

Deepapproach .813 4.200 3.955 0.2183

Surfaceapproach .863 2.281 3.074 0.002043

Monitoringstudying .795 3.956 4.193 0.2164

Organizedstudying .869 3.842 4.253 0.07474

Effortmanagement .717 4.050 4.318 0.1480


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

27/54


In looking at evidence for gender differences that might be displayed among the STEMstudent sample we see a statistically signicant difference in the mean value of the measureof intrinsic reasons for enrolling in the course and in the deep approach to learning at thep< .10 level. The female STEM students reported a lower intrinsic motivation (p= .08206,

Cronbachs alpha = .305) and a lower tendency toward a deep approach to learning (p=.0744, Cronbachs alpha = .869) than the male STEM students.

Table 5:Comparison of STEM sample ETL data by gender

ETLsub-scales t-testresults

MALE-STEM FEMALE-STEM p-value

IntrinsicLearningOrientation 4.625000 4.777778 0.486

IntrinsicReason 4.633333 4.222222 0.08206

ExtrinsicReason 2.660000 2.666667 0.9816

DeepApproach 4.400000 3.902778 0.07447

SurfaceApproach 2.075000 2.638889 0.1325

MonitoringStudying 4.000 3.875 0.6335

OrganizedStudying 3.983333 3.851852 0.651

EffortManagement 4.200000 3.962963 0.3936

Qualitative Data

General attitudes toward science

General attitudes toward science as expressed in the science autobiographiesof students in both the STEM and non-STEM samples were analyzed and categorized.Five categories were used to group the student attitudes that resulted from pre-collegeexperiences: overall positive, overall neutral, overall negative, positive to negative, andnegative to positive. None of the students in either group had an overall negative attitudetoward science during their early education years. In the STEM sample, 15 students had anoverall positive attitude toward science, 6 students reported transitioning from a negative toa positive attitude through their primary and secondary education years, and one studentreported a transition from a positive to a negative attitude toward science during pre-college education (Figure 3). By contrast, the non-STEM sample included 9 students withan overall positive attitude toward science, 3 students were classied as overall neutral, 6

students reported transitioning from negative to positive attitudes and 4 students includedinformation in their autobiographies suggesting a shift from positive to negative attitudestoward science (Figure 3).

Examination of Figure 3 shows that the greatest proportion of students in bothsamples can be classied as having a positive attitude toward science before beginning theircollege educations (combining the positive and negative to positive categories). However,it is not surprising that slightly more than 25% of the non-STEM students expressed a


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

28/54


neutral or positive to negative transition of attitude toward science that resulted in either aneutral or a negative attitude before beginning their college career. It is surprising that oneSTEM student expressed a negative attitude toward science and still chose a career paththat included heavy science coursework.

Figure 3: General attitudes toward science

Themes in the science autobiographiesPrevious research suggests several common inuences on student pursuit of and

success in a STEM major in college. We began our analysis of the autobiographies bylooking for evidence of these inuences during the pre-college years to see if we couldgather more detail about how students in our samples were affected in either positive ornegative ways. Students discussed the inuence of teachers, family, school and out-of-school experiences. We saw evidence of student self-efcacy in both sample groups. Oneemergent theme that we did not initially target was prominent in writings collected fromboth sample groups: the importance of hands-on or laboratory learning in the classroom. Adiscussion of the data gathered under each of these themes follows.

Theme I: The positive inuence of teachers

Among all of the anticipated and emergent themes, students in both samplesdedicated the greatest number of sentences to discussing the inuences of primary andsecondary teachers on their attitudes toward science. All 44 students mentioned pre-college level teachers in their science autobiographies. Nine out of the 22 students inthe STEM sample specically mentioned high school science teachers who fostered apersonal relationship with their students and served as mentors. This is seen in the


68%

27%

5%

43%

27%

19%11%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Positive Negativeto

Positive

Positiveto

Negative

Neutral Negative

STEM Non-STEM

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

29/54


following statements from STEM sampleautobiographies:

It was a strange relationship at

rst; almost with a love for teachermore than a love for subject, butwith a great teacher comes anappreciation for what he or she ispassionate about.

She had a way of knowing us sopersonally, that she could discovereach individuals learning style andaccommodate it.

His classes were structured as30 minutes of lecture, 45 min oflab and 15 min to solve problems.During the entire time however,he would be talking to us, givingus life lessons, and being more ofa mentor/ fatherly gure than ateacher. That really inspired me topursue my goals, and just fortiedmy love of science.

Physics was a hard subjectfor me because it is unlike any

other science that I had grownaccustomed to, but (my teacher)helped me to be able to getthrough the class, and still enjoyscience. I am very grateful for hisfaith in actions, and his caringpersonality.

Something that is similar in everystage of my life is the fact that myattitude towards science usuallyreected that of my current science

teacher. The ideal science teacherwould be one that is interestedin their students as well as thesubject they are teaching.

Students in the non-STEM samplediscussed the importance of a teachersability to actively engage their students inlearning and did not stress the importance

of personal relationships or mentoringrelationships. They equally sited primaryand secondary teachers who were positiveinuences. The following excerpts from

autobiographies written by non-STEMstudents are examples of student belief inthe importance of creative and interestingteachers:

She always had a new and creativeway to help us learn hard conceptsand that quality made her one ofthe most effective teachers in mylife.

At the elementary age I enjoyedall my subjects because I hadgreat teachers who made it funand exciting no matter what wewere doing. My teachers denitelyinuenced my attitude aboutscience at the elementary age, andthey inuenced me by doing a lot offun and hands on activities.

My freshman year I had a physical

science teacher (whose) passionfor the subject was obvious fromthe rst class. He was extremelyupbeat and excited about science,and he made sure everything thathe taught us was engaging andfun. He would go very in depth inthe subjects he was teaching andnot just teach the words of thetextbook. He incorporated creative

hands-on learning experiences, andscience felt like less work.

In middle school I had a fantasticteacher that had a way ofmaking science interesting andunderstandable to everyone Shewas a great teacher because shenever made me feel like I was


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

30/54

8/2/2019 April 12 TST

31/54


autobiographies. Teachers impactedstudents in both positive and negative waysand the students in our sample who chose aSTEM major as they began their university

career reported a deeper connection withscience teachers as mentors than thestudents in our non-STEM sample. Thestudents in the non-STEM sample describedteacher interest in the subject matter andeffort to engage the students through activelearning strategies as key components forpositive teaching and pointed to absence ofthese attributes as contributors to negativeteaching.

Theme III: The positive inuence of familymembers

Undoubtedly family members have anenormous impact on student performancein school and attitudes toward educationincluding attitudes toward specicdisciplines (Lau & Roeser 2002; Smith& Hausafus 1997; Herdon & Hirt 2004;Hurtado & Carter 1997; Desmond & Turley

2009; Rowan-Kenyon 2007; Buchmann& DiPrete 2006). This theme was evidentin autobiographies written by students inboth the STEM and non-STEM samples.Twice as many students in the STEMsample (8) than in the non-STEM sample(4) described their parents or other familymembers as strong inuences on theirattitude toward science. Family membersimpacted students through discussion abouttheir own careers that included a science

component or through taking an active rolein their students science education. Thoughthe STEM students were more vocal aboutfamily inuences, there were not notabledifferences in the types of family inuencesdescribed by students in the two samples.The following excerpts drawn from a mixtureof STEM and non-STEM autobiographies

exemplify student views of the importanceof family inuence on their attitudes towardscience:

In an academic sense I learnedway more in the classroom, but ina far more signicant way my Dadhas taught me what science reallymeans in the real world.

My teachers were central todeveloping my love for science,but my Dad is responsible for myfascination with iteven frombefore I could write we were doingexperiments. When I was little weused the scientic method to testwhich cereals stayed crunchy thelongest, and when I got older hetaught me why the barbecue turnsthings to charcoal.

As a young child, our familiesshape many of our preferences andbeliefs. In this way, my interest inscience in elementary school wasgreatly inuenced by my father, a

physician, who has a great interestand understanding for sciences,and also by my older sister, whoalso loved science.

My mom started working as anurse in the cardiac cath lab at (ahospital) and her stories remindedme of my interest and love of theheart.

I feel like my family had thebiggest inuence on my opinion

on sciencemany of my familymembers have worked for NASA aslong as I could remember. When Iwas a young child, I always wantedto follow in my grandfathersfootsteps and become an aerospaceengineer.

My mother was a teacher and


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

32/54


taught biology for several years atour local high schoolShe did a lotof fun experiments and made herstudents write a daily notebook

When I think about my earliestmemories of science I think aboutmy mother and the effort she putinto planning and assessing herlessons at home.

Students who expressed a negativeattitude toward science did not includeany mention of family inuence in theirautobiographies. Of the students who wereclassied as having an overall positiveattitude toward science from both samples25% (6 out of 24)mentioned a positivefamily inuence.

Theme IV: Science experiences outside ofschool

The science autobiography promptasked students to consider whether therewere differences between in-school and

out-of-school memories with respect toscience. Family impact could fall underthe category of an out-of-school memoryso we anticipated some overlap in studentresponses. Despite the fact that theydedicated more sentences to their discussionof the inuence of teachers than out-of-school inuences, 11 out of the 22 STEMstudents (50%) described experiencesoutside of the school setting as the primaryreason for their interest in pursuing a career

in science. These experiences includedinternships, science projects, interactionwith doctors, and visits to museums inaddition to family interactions. The followingquotes are illustrative of the breadth ofout-of-school experiences STEM studentsdescribed as being highly inuential:

I was able to experience science

on a deeper level than most whileworking at an oral surgeons ofcelast summer. It was there that Iwas able to observe and participate

in surgeries at a minor level andrealize that this eld of study isfascinating to me.

I volunteered at thezoo as ajunior mammal keeper during thesummers of my sophomore andjunior year.

For me, the in-class experiencesand memories helped to cultivatemy interest and love in science, butit was the out of class experiencesthat really led to my passion forbiology that I have today.

I was a part of an internshipthat enable me to learn hands onmedicine. This is when I truly fellin love with science and what it hasalready accomplished with endlesspossibilities for the future.

I began to get really badmigraineswe discovered that (it)

was a benign cyst that only onesurgeonwould even considersurgically removing. It was at thatmoment that I knew (I wanted) tobe a neuro researcher.

My earliest recollection ofexploring the creationwas at athe Science Place. There they hadall sorts of exhibits to show howthings worked in the universe,how things were in the past,

pools of water showing how wavesworkedand giant animatronicsof everything from dinosaurs tohuman thumbsI was probably 6or 7 when this happened, but it lefta lasting impression on me abouthow much life there is all aroundus.


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

33/54


By contrast, only one student in thenon-STEM sample described an outside ofschool experience as theprimaryinuence

on her attitude toward science and oneadditional student listed out of schoolexperiences as being important. In both ofthese cases, the out-of-school experiencethey discussed was family inuence.

Theme V: The science self-efcacy

Low self-efcacy is frequentlysuggested as a limiting factor in studentsuccess (Forrester 2010; Lau & Roeser

2002; Schoon & Boone 1998). We examinedthe student autobiographies for evidenceof attitude toward the ability to succeedin learning science content materials.Interestingly, the STEM students dedicatedfewer sentences to any discussion of theirscience ability than the non-STEM students.This may be due to a tacit assumptionamong students enrolled in an honorschemistry course that they are capablescience scholars. Many of their statementsabout future careers in science or medicineincluded statements that implied condencein their ability to achieve their post-graduategoals. They also made statements abouttheir roles in learning or in courseworkthat indicated they considered themselvessuccessful science students. The followingexcerpts are indicative of the STEMstudents condence.

After serious considerations I madeone of the greatest decisions in my life,I decided to follow my heart and takethe harder route.

I am very condent that with thescience background that I have, thismajor is not far off and well within mygrasp.

The ideal science students role in a

classroom (is) to be able to learn someof it on your own. It really is the bestway to retain information. To realizethat the goal is not for teachers to

teach everything they can, but forstudents to learn everything they can.

I remembered how much I had lovedbiology and so I chose to take APbiology last year. Not only is it themost challenging class I have evertaken, but it is also the class I havegotten the most out ofI have neverlearned so much in one course before.I was not the best in the class by anymeans, but I sure gave it my all.

In order to truly learn, students mustnd the answers themselves.

Junior high was when my love forscience truly took ight. By then I hadmastered the scientic method, andthought I can do anything.

The non-STEM students morefrequently directly described their sciencecondence levels as younger students. Like

students in the STEM sample, studentsfrom the non-STEM sample referred to thecondence gained from learning challengingmaterials.

When I think back to my elementaryclassrooms, however, I can rememberbecoming excited about the scienceexperiments we conducted, and Iremember going to great lengths toask questions about what we were

studying. I knew that I liked the ocean and

sea creatures, but until I took thisclass I did not realize how much Ienjoyed learning about marine biologyI started to go further in depth withwhat we studied in class on myown time, and I started to seriously


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

34/54


consider becoming a marine biologist. I always liked science. In elementary

school, as much as I can remember, Ialways had fun, enthusiastic teachers.

It was something that I was good at soI did not mind doing it.

I think the time in which one ofmy science classes most affected alife choice was simply that I knew Icould learn and handle anything, andtherefore could do anything.

I did struggle with some of thetopics discussed between chemistry,biology, and physics but I seemed towork through it and understand thematerials to the best of my ability.

Completely absent from any of theautobiographies is any discussion of studentlack of ability to understand or do science.Students with positive to negative overallattitudes did express lack of interest, butattributed this to poor science teaching, notto the subject matter.

I had a very different experiencein high schoolthe teachers Ihad were a different breed thanthe ones I had formerly. My tenthgrade biology teacher was less thansatisfactory. She failed to challengethe minds of her studentsMyinterest in science grew weakerand weaker because I lacked gooddirection in my classes.

But after some of my experienceswith science (teachers) the idea(of studying science) becameless appealingI feel a bitintimidated by science, and I donot feel condent with my sciencefoundation.

My physics class was by far

the worst class I have everexperienced(my teachers) lessonsplans never differed much; weeither did activities on a computer

program of he put in a DVD ofa college professor teaching alessonIt was a struggle to dowork in that class, and care aboutmy grades.

Theme VI: The effect of teaching usingactivities and experiments

Discussion centering on activitiesand experiments that were part of school

science curriculum is an emergent themein autobiographies written by students inboth sample groups. Students state thatsuch active, hands-on approachesgreatly inuenced their interest in andunderstanding of science and made sciencea lot more fun. STEM students (13 out of22) and non-STEM students (16 out of 22)discussed this topic. Non-STEM studentsdedicated 140 sentences to describingspecic science activities in contrast to

79 sentences written by students in theSTEM sample. This is not a surprisingtheme for a science autobiography, but itsprominence emphasizes that experientialclassroom curriculum is very memorableand inuential! Students from both samplesarticulated this idea:

The science classes that I lovedand remember the most are the

classes that I had incrediblelearning experiences because of funactivities or experiments.

I feel like overall I learnedscience most effectively when wepreformed activities to go alongwith the lesson, instead of justdoing worksheets and listening tolectures.


8/2/2019 April 12 TST

35/54


What made my 6th grade scienceclass so exciting was that the wholeclass seemed to be participatingin experiments or other hands-on

work. I dont think we even had atext book.

In one of my chemistry classes,the teacher allowed us to performa burn test lab where we burnedcertain chemicals and saw whatcolor their ames were. It is duringthis period that my neutralitytoward science turned into more ofa fondness for the subject.

My most memorable thoughtsabout science in elementary schoolwas when we learned about thedigestive system in the sixthgrade. We did an activity where wepretended to be our favorite type offood and we had to draw what thefood was like as it went through thedigestive system.

It was hands-on, self-paced anddiscovery based. We learned about

astronomy, electricity, and simplemachines that year. I had a betterunderstanding of electrical currentthan most of my friends for yearsbecause of that science class.

We made our own periodic table.We made shirts and posters ofendangered animals. We madevideos of different groups ofelements. Everything really mademe love science.

Conclusions

Previous research into themotivations for pursuing a STEM disciplinein undergraduate and even graduateeducation identify several demographic andenvironmental factors that are correlatedwith pursuit of and success in advanced

STEM education. In this case study wehave attempted to investigate some Texasstudents perceptions of the inuences intheir pre-college education that have affected

their attitudes toward science to provide aricher description of how students might besupported toward higher education goals inthe STEM disciplines. We chose a sampleof students who are enrolled as STEM andnon-STEM majors at a Texas university andinvestigated their pre-college experiencesin the sciences. Most students completedtheir high school educations at a Texashigh school. We planned to try to answerfour research questions that we hope willhelp Texas educators identify methods ofcontinuing to improve our encouragement ofstudents in science, technology, engineeringand mathematics.

The rst question we wished toaddress was whether we saw a correlationbetween student logic reasoning ability asmeasured by the GALT test and experiencesin teaching and learning science as

measured by the ETL survey. Comparison ofthe GALT data for the STEM and non-STEMsamples indicates that the STEM samplehad a signicantly higher mean GALT score.This is not a surprising result since manyprevious studies have shown a correlationbetween logic reasoning ability andperformance in STEM discipline coursework.Grouping of the GALT scores by Piagetsstages of development for each sample showthat all students in the STEM sample would

be placed in the formal reasoning categorywhile 61% of the non-STEM sample wouldbe categorized in the formal reasoningstage. The remaining 39% of the non-STEMstudents would be placed in the transitionalor concrete stages.