Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Examination of a Pullout STEM Program for Urban Upper Elementary Students

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether a pullout STEM program (STARBASE) makes reading and math scores decrease and examine its impact on urban fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students’ attitudes and perceptions regarding STEM education and careers. We employed a mixed-methods, case study approach that involved two published and one indigenous instrument composed of Likert scales, semantic differential scales, and open-ended items, along with structured interviews. Results indicate that it is possible for reading, math, and social studies scores to be unaffected when implementing a STEM pullout program, as adjusted trends (for ethnicity and socioeconomic status) are not statistically different from those of non-STARBASE school divisions in the area. Additionally, the Black/White achievement gap, as measured by standardized test scores, was substantially closed over the last decade within STARBASE schools. Quantitative measures revealed few differences in student attitudes from pre- to posttest. Student qualitative responses were overwhelmingly positive. Students wanted more STARBASE time in the regular school year. Students, particularly Black students, also wanted an increase in career education opportunities. Implications regarding curricular changes aimed at STEM education and model adoption are addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Standardized testing for students in this state occurs in grades three through eight for mathematics and English-reading but only in grades three, five, and eight for science. To identify trends in performance before and during the STARBASE program and to retain consistency in reporting, we included only results from grades three, five, and eight for all three content areas.

  2. This section reports results from a descriptive analysis of STARBASE schools’ achievement gap only. Results from an inferential analysis of the achievement gap within STARBASE schools and between STARBASE and comparison schools are reported below.

References

  • Anderson, E. & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and technology. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

  • Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, R. W., & Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). The development of elementary-aged children’s career aspirations and expectations. American School Counselor Association Journal, 8(4), 322–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(91), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer Corporation. (2010). Planting the seeds for a diverse U.S. STEM pipeline: a compendium of best practice K-12 STEM education programs. http://www.bayerus.com/MSMS/web_docs/COMPENDIUM.pdf. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byars-Winston, A., Estrada, Y., & Howard, C. (2008). Increasing STEM retention for underrepresented students: factors that matter. http://www.cew.wisc.edu/docs/resource_collections/CEW_InSTEMRetention_UWMadison.pdf. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs: BSCS.

  • Custer, R.L. & Daugherty, J.L. (2009). The nature and status of STEM professional development: Effective practices for secondary level engineering education. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_cstudies/11/. Retrieved 8 Oct 13.

  • Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: challenging of reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J.S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education: a status report for The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • Fratt, L. (2002). Less is more: triming the overstuffed curriculum. District Administration, 38(3), 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, K., Ouyang, Y., Scinski, L., Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T. (2011). Increasing student interest and attitudes in STEM: professional development and activities to engage and inspire learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1). http://www.citejournal.org/vol11/iss1/science/article1.cfm. Retrieved 8 Oct 13.

  • Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. Long Grove: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, F. A. & Hurtado, S. (2012). Maintaining initial interests: Developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career aspirations among underrepresented racial minority students. http://heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/AERA%202011%20-%20Herrera%20and%20Hurtado%20-%20Maintaining%20Initial%20Interests.pdf. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 60–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Communications Research. (2011). Bayer facts of science education XV: a view from the gatekeepers—STEM department chairs at America’s top 200 research universities on female and underrepresented minority undergraduate STEM students. Media: Author.

  • International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy. Reston: Author.

  • Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the no child left behind act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. Rochkind, J. & Ott, A. (2010). Are we beginning to see the light? Public Agenda. http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/math-and-science-ed-2010. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • Kersaint, G., Borman, K. M., Lee, R., & Boydston, T. L. (2001). Balancing the contradictions between accountability and systemic reform. Journal of School Leadership, 11(3), 217–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Science Education, 9, 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in science instruction with nonmainstream elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Biotechnology Education Foundation. (2012). 500 Massachusetts high school students spend a day in biotech laboratories. Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. http://www.massbio.org/news/290-500_massachusetts_high_school_students_spend_a/news_detail. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • McMillian, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: a closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy (CEP).

  • National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science and Technology Council. (2011). The federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio (Pub. L. No. 111–358). Washington, DC: Author.

  • National Science Foundation. (2012). Education discoveries. http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=7. Retrieved 10 Aug 2012.

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlstein, L. (2007). Tested: one American school struggles to make the grade. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillai, S., & Lightle, K. (2009). Opening the door to STEM careers. Middle Ground, 13(1), 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95, 458–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saka, Y. (2007). Exploring the interaction of personal and contextual factors during the induction period of science teachers and how this interaction shapes their enactment of science reform (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3312780)

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • STARBASE Victory. (2010). STARBASE victory: launching futures, one child at a time. http://www.starbasevictory.org/. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • Taylor, A. R., Jones, M. G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry or accountability? Scientists’ and teachers’ perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 341–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • UMass Donahue Institute Research & Evaluation Group. (2011). Increasing student interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM): Massachusetts STEM pipeline fund programs using promising practices. http://digits.us.com/wp-content/themes/digits/Student-Interest-Programs-Using-Promising-Practices(P3).pdf. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.

  • VanFossen, P. J. (2005). “Reading and math take so much of the time…”: an overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Statistics & Reports: School Report Card, (2001–2011) [Data file]. Available from the Virginia Department of Education site, http://www.doe.virginia.gov/statistics_reports/school_report_card/. 24 Jan 2013.

  • Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Rear Admiral William Hayden (United States Navy, Retired) and Laura Nelson (Director of Science Education, Portsmouth Public Schools) for their assistance and insight, which led to the completion of this work. This work was funded by the non-profit, STARBASE Victory, Inc. (http://www.starbasevictory.org).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. STEM Education and Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, 256 Education Bldg, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Daniel L. Dickerson

  2. Old Dominion University, 256 Education Bldg, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Angela Eckhoff, Shanan Chappell & Stephanie Hathcock

  3. University of Memphis, 212 Art & Communication Bldg, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    Craig O. Stewart

Authors
  1. Daniel L. Dickerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Eckhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig O. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shanan Chappell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie Hathcock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel L. Dickerson.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 8 White/Black achievement gap of percent passing on Standards of Learning (SOL) achievement tests by grade level, subject, and school from 2001 to 2011
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dickerson, D.L., Eckhoff, A., Stewart, C.O. et al. The Examination of a Pullout STEM Program for Urban Upper Elementary Students. Res Sci Educ 44, 483–506 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9387-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9387-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation