Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 248–255 | Cite as

After-School and Informal STEM Projects: the Effect of Participant Self-Selection

Article
First Online:

Abstract

This research represents an unforeseen outcome of the authors’ National Science Foundation Innovation Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) program grant in science education. The grant itself focused on the use of serious educational games (SEGs) in the science classroom, both during and after school, to teach science content and affect student perceptions of science and technology. This study consists of a Bayesian artificial neural network analysis, using the preintervention measures of affect, interest, personality, and cognitive ability, in members of both the treatment and comparison groups to generate the probabilities that students would opt into the treatment group or choose not to participate. It appears, from this sample and the sampling methods of other related studies within the field, that despite sometimes profound results from technology interventions in science, interventions are affecting only those who already have a strong interest in STEM due to the manner in which participants are recruited.

Keywords

Equity Experimental design Serious educational games Informal science 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Adkins, R.C. (2012). American desperately needs more STEM students: here’s how to get them. Forbes 7/05/2012. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/07/09/america-desperately-needsmore-stem-students-heres-how-to-get-them/.
  2. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2010). Erratum to: relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 19(4), 387–407.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9220-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barko, T., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Learning outcomes associated with classroom implementation of a biotechnology-themed video game. American Biology Teacher (University Of California Press), 75(1), 29–33.  https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2013.75.1.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byars-Winston, A., Estrada, Y., Howard, C., Davis, D., & Zalapa, J. (2010). Influence of social cognitive and ethnic variables on academic goals of underrepresented students in science and engineering: a multiple-groups analysis. J Couns Psychol, 57(2), 205–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: science identity as an analytic lens. J Res Sci Teach, 44(8), 1187–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. J Soc Issues, 67(3), 469–491.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D'Angelo, C. M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Comput Educ, 57(3), 2178–2195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Comput Educ, 57(3), 2054–2067.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimitrov, D. (2009). Quantitative research in education: intermediate and advanced methods. Oceanside: Whittier.Google Scholar
  10. DiSalvo, B., Guzdail, M., Mcklin, T., Meadows, C., Perry, K., Steward, C., Bruckman, A. (2009). Glitch game testers: African American men breaking open the console. Proceedings of DiGRA.Google Scholar
  11. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 7–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  13. Feinstein, N. W., & Meshoulam, D. (2014). Science for what public? Addressing equity in American science museums and science centers. J Res Sci Teach, 51(3), 368–394.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green, M. & Ohlsson, M. (2007). Comparison of standard resampling methods for performance estimation of artificial neural networks. Third Annual Conference on Computational Intelligence in Medicine and Healthcare.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, L.K. (1987). The Career Key. Raleigh, NC: Author. (Originally published by Ferguson in Chicago).Google Scholar
  16. Ketelhut, D. J. (2010). Assessing gaming, computer and scientific inquiry self-efficacy in a virtual environment. In L. A. Annetta & S. Bronack (Eds.), Serious educational game assessment: practical methods and models for educational games, simulations, and virtual worlds (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Lamb, R., Annetta, L.A., Meldrum, J., & Vallett, D. (2012). Constructing and validating the science interest survey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 643–688.Google Scholar
  18. Lamb, R. L., Vallett, D.B., & Annetta, L. (2014). Development of a short form measure or science and technology self-efficacy using Rasch analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 641–657.  10.1007/s10956-014-9491-y.
  19. Lamb, R., Cavegnetto, A., & Akmal, T. (2016). Examination of the nonlinear dynamic systems associated with student cognition while engaging in science information processing. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(Suppl 1), S187–S205.Google Scholar
  20. Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention selection bias: an underrecognized confound in intervention research. Psychol Bull, 130(2), 289–303.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, J., Liu, X., Amo, L. C., & Wang, W. L. (2013). Multilevel linkages between state standards, teacher standards, and student achievement: testing external versus internal standards-based education models. Educational Policy, 0895904813475708.Google Scholar
  22. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. Am Psychol, 35(11), 1012–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mutegi, J. W. (2013). “life’s first need is for us to be realistic” and other reasons for examining the sociocultural construction of race in the science performance of African American students. J Res Sci Teach, 50(1), 82–103.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Science Foundation (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  25. Palmer, R. T., Maramba, D. C., Elon Dancy, I. I., & T. (2011). A qualitative investigation of factors promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in STEM. Journal Of Negro Education, 80(4), 491–504.Google Scholar
  26. Salto, L. M., Riggs, M. L., Delgado De Leon, D., Casiano, C. A., & De Leon, M. (2014). Underrepresented minority high school and college students report STEM-pipeline sustaining gains after participating in the Loma Linda University Summer Health Disparities Research Program. PLoS One, 9(9), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Comput Educ, 57(3), 1943–1952.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schifter, C. C., Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. C. (2012). Presence and middle school students’ participation in a virtual game environment to assess science inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 53–63.Google Scholar
  29. Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modeling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educ Stud Math, 79(2), 215–237.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9341-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simpson, J. C. (2000). Segregated by subject: racial differences in the factors influencing academic major between European Americans, Asian Americans, and African, Hispanic, and Native Americans. J High Educ, 72, 63–100.Google Scholar
  32. Slovacek, S. P., Peterfreund, A. R., Glenn, D. K., Whittinghill, J. C., Tucker, S., Rath, K. A., & Reinke, Y. G. (2011). Minority students severely underrepresented in science, technology engineering and math. Journal Of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 12(1/2), 5–16.Google Scholar
  33. Wang, S.-C. (2003). Artificial neural network. In S.-C. Wang (Ed.), Interdisciplinary computing in Java (pp. 81–100). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0377-4_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M., & Barab, S. A. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. J Res Technol Educ, 41(1), 113–140.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2008.10782525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yerrick, R. K., & Gilbert, A. (2011). Constraining the discourse community: how science discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal Of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 67–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2010.510909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zarrett, N., Malanchuk, O., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. (2006). Examining the gender gap in IT by race: young adults’ decisions to pursue an IT career. In J. M. C. W. Aspray (Ed.), Women and information technology: research on underrepresentation (pp. 55–58). Cambridge: MIT Press.  https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033459.003.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningUniversity of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.State University of New YorkUniversity at BuffaloNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations