Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining fidelity of program implementation in a STEM-oriented out-of-school setting

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States and many other countries there is a growing emphasis on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education that is expanding the number of both in-school and out-of-school instructional programs targeting important STEM outcomes. As instructional leaders increasingly train teachers and facilitators to undertake new STEM focused programs, it will become especially important for these leaders to understand the concept of program fidelity, which seeks to examine the alignment between how a program is designed to be implemented and how that program is actually implemented in the field. This article discusses an exploratory study examining program fidelity within the geospatial and robotics technologies for the twenty-first century (GEAR-Tech-21) project, which is an out-of-school program teaching educational robotics and geospatial-related STEM concepts, across more than 20 different states, as funded by the National Science Foundation. The study results identified relationships related to program fidelity that were identifiable across various instructional modules, and associated with specific training and content characteristics.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barker, B., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredin, S., Parker, C., Peterson, K., Goddard, K., Rivenburgh, W., & Streit, T. (2010). Defining an after school research agenda. Newton, MA: EDU. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://afterschoolconvening.itestlrc.edc.org/sites/afterschoolconvening.itestlrc.edc.org/files/TESTAfterschoolConvening-Report-FINAL.pdf.

  • Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM. Available from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce website: http://cew.georgetown.edu/STEM.

  • Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design; choosing among five traditions. London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 17(2), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2012). Educational robotics theories and practice. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 1–30). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussar, K., Schwartz, S., Bioselle, E., & Noam, G. (2008). Toward a systematic evidence-base for science in out-of-school time. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://www.pearweb.org/research/pdfs/Assessment%20of%20Science%20in%20OST.pdf.

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). In O. Eugene (Ed.), National educational technology standards for students. SITE.

  • Jukes, I., & Dosaj, A. (2004). Understanding digital kids: Teaching and learning in the new digital landscape. Kelowna, British Columbia: InfoSavvy Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, M. (2010). Flourishing clubs stress the E in STEM. Prism, 19(8), 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Available from McKinsey & Company website: http://www.mckinsey.com/Client_Service/Social_Sector/Latest_thinking/Worlds_most_improved_schools.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.

  • National Science Board. (2009). National Science Board STEM Education Recommendations for the Presiden-Elect Obama Administration. NSB-0901. Available from www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2009/01_10_stem_rec_obama.pdf.

  • Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., et al. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). The impact of educational robotics on student STEM learning, attitudes, and workplace skills. In B. Barker, G. Nugent, N. Grandgenett, & V. Adamchuk (Eds.), Robots in K-12 education: A new technology for learning (pp. 186–203). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S., & Harl, I. (1991). Constructionism. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, D.C. Retrieved July 30, 2012 from http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework.

  • Pence, K., Justice, L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Preschool teachers’ fidelity in implementing a comprehensive language-rich curriculum. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., & Johnston, D. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums. Science Education, 88, S4–S16. doi:10.1002/sce.20017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rideout, V., Roberts, D. F., & Foehr, U. G. (2005). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8–18 Year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Available from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm.

  • Sanchez, V., Steckler, A., Nitirat, P., Hallfors, D., Cho, H., & Brodish, P. (2007). Fidelity of implementation in a treatment effectiveness trial of Reconnecting Youth. Health Education Research, 22(1), 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, S. M., Swanger-Gagne, M., Welch, G. W., Kwon, K., & Garbacz, S. A. (2009). Fidelity measurement in consultation: Psychometric issues and preliminary examination. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 476–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • SurveyMonkey. (2012). Palto Alto, CA. Retrieved July 30, 2012. Available from http://www.surveymonkey.com/.

  • van Langen, A., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Cross-national differences in participating in tertiary science, technology engineering and mathematics education. Comparative Education, 41(3), 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, J. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design, expanded (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woffinden, S., & Packham, J. (2001). Experiential learning, just do it! The Agriculture Education Magazine, 73(6), 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 4-H Youth Development, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 114 Ag Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68516, USA

    Bradley S. Barker

  2. Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 216 Mabel Lee Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0342, USA

    Gwen Nugent

  3. Dr. George and Sally Haddix Community Chair of STEM Education, Teacher Education, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Roskens Hall, 406, Omaha, NE, USA

    Neal F. Grandgenett

Authors
  1. Bradley S. Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gwen Nugent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neal F. Grandgenett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley S. Barker.

Additional information

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (DRL 0833403).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barker, B.S., Nugent, G. & Grandgenett, N.F. Examining fidelity of program implementation in a STEM-oriented out-of-school setting. Int J Technol Des Educ 24, 39–52 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9245-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9245-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation