Research in Science Education

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 483–506 | Cite as

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

  • Daniel L. Dickerson
  • Angela Eckhoff
  • Craig O. Stewart
  • Shanan Chappell
  • Stephanie Hathcock
Article

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.

Keywords

STEM STEM education Underrepresented populations Urban Achievement gap Testing Standardized tests 

References

  1. Anderson, E. & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and technology. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  2. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Fratt, L. (2002). Less is more: triming the overstuffed curriculum. District Administration, 38(3), 56–60.Google Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.
  18. Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 60–65.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. McMillian, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: a closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy (CEP).Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Science and Technology Council. (2011). The federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio (Pub. L. No. 111–358). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  32. National Science Foundation. (2012). Education discoveries. http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=7. Retrieved 10 Aug 2012.
  33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Perlstein, L. (2007). Tested: one American school struggles to make the grade. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  35. Pillai, S., & Lightle, K. (2009). Opening the door to STEM careers. Middle Ground, 13(1), 28–29.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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)Google Scholar
  38. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  39. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  40. STARBASE Victory. (2010). STARBASE victory: launching futures, one child at a time. http://www.starbasevictory.org/. Retrieved 8 Oct 2013.
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Dickerson
    • 1
  • Angela Eckhoff
    • 2
  • Craig O. Stewart
    • 3
  • Shanan Chappell
    • 2
  • Stephanie Hathcock
    • 2
  1. 1.STEM Education and Professional StudiesOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  3. 3.University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations