The Massachusetts Linking Experiences and Pathways Follow-on (M-LEAP2) is a three-year longitudinal empirical research study that is examining prospectively how early formal and informal STEM education experiences are related to gender-based differences in STEM achievement-related choices in middle and high school. M-LEAP2 serves as a complement to - and extension of - a prior NSF-funded study, M-LEAP, which was a largely quantitative research study that followed overlapping cohorts of 3rd - 6th grade female and male students for three years. M-LEAP surveyed over 1,600 students, 627 student-parent pairs, and 134 second parents in 8 diverse public schools across Massachusetts. In contrast, M-LEAP2 is a heavily qualitative three-year study using in-depth interviews with a diverse range of 72 of these students and their families to study how formal and informal science experiences shape the students' science-related beliefs, interests, and aspirations as they progress though middle and high school.
This paper draws on ethnographic data to bring equity to the fore within discussions of tinkering and making. Vossoughi, Escudé, Kong & Hooper argue that equity lies in the how of teaching and learning through specific ways of: designing making environments, using pedagogical language, integrating students’ cultural and intellectual histories, and expanding the meanings and purposes of STEM learning. The authors identify and exemplify emergent equity-oriented design principles within the Tinkering After-School Program—a partnership between the Exploratorium and the Boys and Girls Clubs of San
What is the relationship between experiences in informal settings and students’ understanding of and attitudes toward science? By analysing existing data sets, Suter finds that science museum attendance has an effect—albeit a small one—on student achievement.
The adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards means that many educators who adhere to model-based reasoning styles of science will have to adapt their programs and curricula. In addition, all practitioners will have to teach modeling, and model-based reasoning is a useful way to do so. This brief offers perspectives drawn from Lehrer and Schauble, two early theorists in model-based reasoning.
Many research interventions may show initial positive results, but studies show that these results tend to fade when research structures and supports are removed from the local contexts. In this paper, Gutierrez and Penuel make the case for rethinking what is meant by “rigor” in educational research. To drive truly meaningful and sustainable educational improvement efforts, there is a need for jointly negotiated research that integrates the perspectives, ideas, work, practical considerations, and analysis of educational practitioners. The authors argue that standards for rigorous research
This Barron and Bell article provides a foundational overview for how “cross-setting learning” can equitably engage all youth across formal and informal educational contexts. The paper offers: 1) a review of research; 2) descriptions of supports and challenges to cross-setting learning, including learner interest and identity; and 3) suggestions for research and assessments that capture learning for underrepresented youth.
The field of informal science education has embraced “making” and design activities as a powerful approach to engaging learners. This chapter by Blikstein finds that in order to create disruptive spaces where students can learn STEM, design and build inventive projects, educators . This paper provides theoretical background and concrete cases that illuminate program design and implementation issues related to making.
Petrich, Wilkinson, and Bevan (2013) explore three areas of design principles related to tinkering. The authors share their thinking related to the activity design, environmental design, and facilitation practices involved in creating and supporting rich tinkering experiences for museumgoers. They wrote a chapter on tinkering, which describes how the group initiated, cultivated, and facilitated a making and tinkering space on the floor of a museum. Specifically the chapter outlines principles for the activity design, the tinkering space, and the facilitation practices. The authors conclude by
This Stocklmayer, Rennie, and Gilbert article outlines current challenges in preparing youth to go into science careers and to be scientifically literate citizens. The authors suggest creating partnerships between informal and formal education to address these challenges in school.
Vossoughi and Bevan (2014) conducted a literature review of educational research on making and tinkering. They considered what was known about learning opportunities for young people afforded by high-quality tinkering and making experiences. Specifically they reviewed the historical roots of making, the emerging design principles that characterized tinkering and making programs, the pedagogical theories and practices that lead to supportive and collaborative learning environments, as well as the possibilities and tensions associated with equity-oriented teaching and learning.
As part of a grant from the National Science Foundation, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is conducting regional STEM workshops, entitled NFB STEM2U, for blind youth [youth], grades 3 – 6. During this first regional workshop in Baltimore, the NFB operated three different programs simultaneously: one program for youth, a second program for their parents/caregivers, and a third program for a group of teachers who work with visually impaired students. A fourth program, for Port Discovery museum staff, was conducted earlier to prepare the museum staff to assist with the youth program
As providers of informal STEM education, including libraries, grapple with the issue of offering inclusive programs and meeting the needs of their specific communities, potential program facilitators seek knowledge and guidance to develop and deliver effective STEM programming for underserved populations. Key questions that might be asked include: Have best practices been identified for effectively engaging underserved audiences? What key strategies, if any, have emerged from previous informal science education efforts that can inform new program development? Over the past 10 to 20 years