Search for: All records

While youth derive much of their science learning and appreciation outside of the formal science classroom, educators in afterschool and other out-of-school time (OST) settings have received relatively little investment in their professional learning. One exception is ACRES, a program that provides professional learning modules for OST educators in STEM facilitation skills, including Asking Purposeful Questions. Educators who participate in these facilitation modules exchange feedback with one another in response to the evidence of practice they bring to the professional learning setting. Due to the diverse nature of OST settings and the unique demands OST educators experience in their work, the type of evidence of practice participants bring to these sessions varies. Using a framework of teacher noticing, we explore how peer feedback in Asking Purposeful Questions modules differentiates across these diverse forms of evidence, as well as how differential feedback aligns with outcomes the coaches of Asking Purposeful Questions modules hope to see realized. We explore common forms of evidence educators experience in these cohorts, including video of contrived practice; authentic video with youth; professionally produced videos the coaches provide; and lesson descriptions. We find that, while all forms of evidence elicit noticing and associated feedback exchange supporting the module’s desired outcomes, each may be expected to exhibit specific strengths and limitations. We suggest that coaches may build upon these features to direct educators’ noticing to aspects of the evidence that may be particularly fruitful for learning. 

Despite the wealth of learning youth experience outside formal classrooms, relatively little research has been invested in under- standing out-of-school-time (OST) educators’ professional learning (PL). We explore this need in the context of a STEM facilitation PL program (i.e. Afterschool Coaching for Reflective Educators in STEM, or ACRES) through their foundational PL module, Asking Purposeful Questions, by describing the development and use of the scripted animation survey (SAS) using the framework of educator noticing. First, we detail how we developed and validated an analysis approach to the SAS. Through iterative development with feedback from PL providers, we identified a delivery format; response pro- cess; and codebook that aligned with the program objectives and paralleled the feedback exchange structure familiar to participating educators. Second, we apply the educator noticing framework to illustrate a possible use of the SAS. In comparing pre- and post- administration of the SAS using the noticing framework, we identified a shift in respondents’ noticing to be more aware of youth activity relative to educator activity. We suggest that the SAS may be a useful tool to diagnose and respond to educator attention within a PL program, particularly when logistical and financial con- straints restrict access to longitudinal videos of practice and interviews. 

Abstract How individuals come to perceive themselves in STEM is predicated on their understanding of what it means to be a member of the STEM community. This association is consequential when considering the perpetuation of white male ownership of STEM knowledge and power that forces learners identifying with groups systemically marginalized by racial and gender discrimination to adopt particular norms, values, and behaviors to gain recognition. In effect, these expectations help to maintain masculinized Discourses as STEM professionals are encultured to apply the same recognition criteria to which they were judged themselves. We examine how these Discourses are maintained even as learners who identify with groups that carry histories of systemic marginalization by racist, sexist, and elitist practices gain access to STEM communities. Specifically, we explore how university STEM students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution in the United States articulate gendered expectations of STEM membership through their characterization of themselves and others as (not) STEM people. Drawing from theories in Discourse, social identity, and feminist critiques of science, we describe how students implicitly recognize STEM identity in gendered ways. We discuss how our findings illuminate the mechanisms by which STEM recognition is afforded by pointing to its dependence on masculinized displays of STEM performances, competence, and interests, leading to a cycle of marginalization as learners are encultured to perpetuate existing STEM Discourses in their recognition of others. We discuss research implications for measurements of STEM identity that do not account for gendered Discourses and offer practical implications for the design of learning experiences that co‐opt existing Discourses to inoculate gendered perceptions of a STEM person prototype. Lastly, we present a case for elevating the role of maternal caregivers and family immigration histories in STEM identity construction. 

This investigation examines the efficacy of multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) over fixed-effects models when performing intersectional studies. The research questions are as follows: (1) What are typical strata representation rates and outcomes on physics research-based assessments? (2) To what extent do MAIHDA models create more accurate predicted strata outcomes than fixed-effects models? and (3) To what extent do MAIHDA models allow the modeling of smaller strata sample sizes? We simulated 3,000 data sets based on real-world data from 5,955 students on the LASSO platform. We found that MAIHDA created more accurate and precise predictions than fixed-effects models. We also found that using MAIHDA could allow researchers to disaggregate their data further, creating smaller group sample sizes while maintaining more accurate findings than fixed-effects models. We recommend using MAIHDA over fixed-effects models for intersectional investigations. 

Despite the wealth of research exploring science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) identity and career goals in both formal and informal settings, existing literature does not consider STEM identity for undergraduate students pursuing health and medical careers through STEM pathways. We address this gap by examining the STEM identity of undergraduate STEM majors on pre-med/health tracks as it compares with that of other STEM majors, thus focusing on a population that is chronically understudied in STEM education research. We surveyed 440 undergraduate STEM students enrolled in entry-level STEM courses to assess their STEM identities and three identity precursors: interest, performance–competence, and recognition. Through regression analyses accounting for gender, major, and perceived home support around STEM, we found that pre-med/health students were more likely to have higher STEM identity and recognition scores than their peers; we did not detect a significant difference for performance–competence or interest in STEM. Although there is little tracking of pre-med/health students’ ultimate career attainment, the implications of our findings support a potential for sustaining pre-med/health students while simultaneously creating pathways to other STEM pursuits for the nearly 60% of those who do not enter medical school by offering participation in experiences that affirm their STEM identities. 

Abstract Identity development frameworks provide insight into why and to what extent individuals engage in STEM‐related activities. While studies of “STEM identity” often build off previously validated disciplinary and/or science identity frameworks, quantitative analyses of constructs that specifically measure STEM identity and its antecedents are scarce, making it challenging for researchers or practitioners to apply a measurement‐based perspective of participation in opportunities billed as “STEM.” In this study, we tested two expanded structural equation models of STEM identity development, building off extensions of science and disciplinary‐identity frameworks, that incorporated additional factors relevant to identity development: gender, ethnicity, home science support, parental education, and experiencing science talk in the home. Our models test theorized relationships between interest, sense of recognition, performance‐competence, and identity in the context of STEM with undergraduate students (N = 522) enrolled in introductory STEM courses at a Hispanic Serving Institution. Our findings support our measurement of STEM identity and its indicators, providing researchers with a predictive model associated with academic intentions across disciplinary domains in STEM. Further, our expanded model (i.e., Model I+) indicates significant contributions of participant gender, which has a larger indirect effect on STEM identity (β = 0.50) than the direct effect of STEM interest (β = 0.29), and of home support in relation to performance‐competence in academic contexts. Our model also posits a significant contribution of family science talk to sense of recognition as a STEM person, expanding our understandings of the important role of the home environment while challenging prior conceptions of science capital and habitus. We situate our results within a broader discussion regarding the validity of “STEM identity” as a concept and construct in the context of communities often marginalized in STEM fields.