Out of School Time (OST) STEM Activities Impact on Middle School Students’ STEM Persistence: A Convergent Mixed Methods Study by David Christopher Taylor, B.S., M.Ed. A Dissertation In Curriculum and Instruction Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Jerry Dwyer, Ph.D. Co-Chair of Committee Rebecca Hite, Ph.D. Co-Chair of Committee Warren DiBiase, Ed.D. Mark Sheridan, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School May, 2019
288
Embed
Out of School Time (OST) STEM Activities Impact on Middle ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Out of School Time (OST) STEM Activities Impact on Middle School Students’ STEM Persistence: A Convergent Mixed Methods Study
by
David Christopher Taylor, B.S., M.Ed.
A Dissertation
In
Curriculum and Instruction
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Jerry Dwyer, Ph.D. Co-Chair of Committee
Rebecca Hite, Ph.D.
Co-Chair of Committee
Warren DiBiase, Ed.D.
Mark Sheridan, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2019
Copyright 2019, David Christopher Taylor
Texas Tech University, David Taylor, May 2019
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This process has helped me grow as a researcher, an educator, and a person. I
have learned so much about myself and gained a better understanding of the world.
Without my family, friends, and colleagues, I would not have been able to complete this
journey.
I want to thank my wife, Bri, for all her support, love, and understanding
throughout this process. Without her, I would have been lost. Her constant support has
provided me the strength I need when times were tough. You are my everything and I
love you!
I am truly grateful for my committee’s support, feedback, guidance, and help.
Thank you, Dr. Jerry Dwyer, Dr. Rebecca Hite, and Dr. Warren DiBiase. You all are
amazing educators!
Finally, I hope my children, David and Ryan, are proud of my work as an
educator and proud to know that I have earned my PhD. I want them to always know that
education opens doors. This lesson was taught to me by my parents, David and DeLila. I
am gratefully for everything that they have done for me and I hope I have made them
proud.
Texas Tech University, David Taylor, May 2019
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Need for the Study ....................................................................................................... 3
Background of the Problem ......................................................................................... 4
Growing a Global STEM Workforce .......................................................................... 5
Needs to Grow a Global STEM Workforce ...........................................................6
OST as a Strategy to Grow a Global STEM Workforce ........................................7
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 8
V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH...................................... 167
Discussion of the Results ......................................................................................... 168
Research Question #1: Change in Perceptions of and Actions Toward STEM Persistence ..............................................................................................168
Research Question #2: Alter 21st Century Learning Skills, Motivation, and Interest In STEM Careers ...........................................................................174
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ......................................... 189
Activity Questionnaire (descriptive statistics; Appendix G), and selected items from the
S-STEM Survey (Appendix H).
The mixed methods data were also analyzed using a side-by-side comparison
approach by which the quantitative statistical results were first reported and then the
qualitative findings were discussed (Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Clark, 2011). Next, the
quantitative results and qualitative findings were merged for a final interpretation; by
merging of the data and comparing the qualitative findings and quantitative results, the
researcher grasped a more robust understanding of the findings (Creswell, 2013; Creswell
& Clark, 2011).
Pseudonyms have replaced the names of the student participants throughout this
chapter; the pseudonyms were used to substantiate the findings (via the audit trail), while
protecting the participants’ privacy with regard to confidentiality.
Quantitative Results
The quantitative results were gathered using a pre-post survey model. First,
responses to Likert-scale items were transformed into numerical data for parametric
analysis. Then the pretest and posttest data results were compared. A paired-means t-test
was used to determine if participating in the OST STEM activity(ies) made a statistically
significant difference in the students’ attitudes and interests to pursue STEM studies. A
Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pretest and posttest data at the item level
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
86
The results of the findings were reported at the construct level by STEM subject areas
(i.e., Math, Science, Engineering and Technology, respectively), 2lst Century Learning,
About Yourself and Your Future. The data tables (A.1-A.13) for each category for the
paired-means t-test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the reliability statistical results
can be found in Appendix P.
Paired-Means t-Test
The paired-means t-test was used to determine if participation in OST STEM
activity(ies) made a statistically significant difference in the students’ attitudes and
interests to pursue STEM studies by comparing means of the pretest and posttest scores
of the entire survey. Among the 61 total questions on the survey, 59 questions were
analyzed using the paired-means t-test; two of the questions were open-ended. The data
were then analyzed by subject (Table A.1), gender (Tables A.2-A.3), and by grade level
(Tables A.4-A6). Results of the quantitative paired-means t-test for all students showed
no significant change in the students’ STEM persistence with respect to the two points in
time (before participation in the OST activity and after the OST activity).
All subjects paired-means t-test. A second paired-means t-test was used to
determine if participation in OST STEM activities made a statistically significant
difference in the students’ attitudes and interests to pursue STEM studies by the
construct. The results from Math, Engineering and Technology, 21st Century Learning,
and Your Future categories of the S-STEM Survey (FI, 2012) indicated no statistically
significant difference (i.e. no p values less than 0.05, see Table A.1). However, the
Science and About Yourself sections each were statistically significant with p values less
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
87
than 0.05 (see Table A.1). The Math section could not be computed; the standard error of
the difference was zero.
The Science section had a statistically significant difference (t[36] = -2.697, p <
0.011) between the pretest mean (M = 31.05, SD = 4.31) and posttest mean (M = 32.72,
SD = 4.57). The 95% confidence interval for the difference was [-2.94, -0.42] (see Table
A.1). The OST STEM activities influenced the students’ affect towards science.
The About Yourself section had a statistically significant difference (t[36] = -
2.057, p < 0.047) between the pretest mean (M = 20.83, SD = 4.85) and posttest mean (M
= 21.48, SD = 4.72). The 95% confidence interval for the difference was [-1.28, -0.09]
(see Table A.1). The OST STEM activities influenced the students’ awareness of their
academic performance in their formal courses and their knowledge of STEM
professionals that they know personally.
All subjects paired-means t test conclusion. Overall, the results suggest that the
OST STEM activities did not have a statistically significant effect on the participating
middle school students’ STEM persistence. The results suggest that the collection of
middle school participants’ STEM persistence was not affected, except for an increase in
their science attitude, and their awareness of their academic performance in their classes
and who they knew in their lives that are STEM professionals.
Gender paired-means t-test. The boys’ (N= 21) and girls’ (N = 16) mean
differences between pre and post survey administrations were compared. The boys’
survey responses that were analyzed using the paired t-test at the construct level and only
were statistically significant in the About Yourself section (t[20] = -2.359, p < 0.029) (see
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
88
Table A.2). The girls’ survey responses were analyzed and were only statistically
significant in the Science section (t[15] = -2.578, p < 0.021) (see Table A.3). This implies
that the OST STEM activities influenced the girls’ attitudes towards science, while the
boys’ became more aware of their academic performance in their formal courses and
STEM professionals they know in their lives after participation in an OST STEM
activity.
Girls’ paired-means t-test. The Science section was statistically significant at the
construct level. There was a statistically significant difference in the scores from pretest
(M = 32.125, SD = 4.44) to posttest (M = 34.5, SD = 3.88) for a p value less than 0.05
(t[15] = -2.578, p < 0.021) (see Table 8). The 95% confidence interval for the difference
is [-4.338, -0.411]. These OST STEM activities influenced the middle school girl
participates’ attitude towards science.
Boys’ paired-means t-test. The About Yourself section was statistically significant
at the construct level. The results in this section showed a p-value less than 0.05 (t[20] = -
2.359, p < 0.029) and a statistically significant difference in the scores from pretest (M =
23.71, SD = 3.87) to posttest (M = 24.86, SD = 2.48). The 95% confidence interval for
the difference is [-2.15, -0.1323] (see Table 9). The OST STEM activities influenced the
boys’ awareness of their academic performance in their formal courses and their
knowledge of STEM professionals that they know personally.
Gender paired-means t-test conclusion. In conclusion, data for the girls and boys
showed that there was very little significance at all between the OST STEM activities on
the middle school students’ STEM persistence at the construct level. The boys’ data
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
89
suggested positive statistically significant changes in the About Yourself section,
demonstrating increased awareness of their academic performance in their classes and
knowledge of STEM professionals. The girls reported statistically significant changes in
their attitudes toward science after participating in their OST STEM activities.
Grade 6, 7, and 8 paired-means t test data. The paired-means t test data were
separated into grade levels for analysis to be able to compare the sixth-, seventh-, and
eighth-grade levels. The scores provide insight into each grade level. The eighth-grade
students were the only grade-level to show any statically significant results at the
construct level.
6th grade. There was no statistically significant change between the pretest and
posttest scores at the construct level for the sixth-grade students (see Table A.4). This
may be due in part to the small number of sixth graders (n = 5) in this study.
7th grade. The seventh-grade student data (n = 18) had no statistically significant
changes to any of the sections at the construct level (see Table A.5).
8th grade. The paired-means t-test for the eighth-grade students’ data (n = 14)
showed statistical significance from pretest to the posttest for the Science section at the
construct level (see Table A.6). The paired-means t-test had a p-value less than 0.05
(t[13] = -3.13, p < 0.008). There was a statistically significant difference in the scores
from pretest (M = 32.21, SD = 3.59) to posttest (M = 34.5, SD = 4.24) as seen in Table
A.6. The 95% confidence interval for the difference is [0.729, -0.709]. Based on these
results, the eighth-grade students’ attitude towards science had changed positively from
participation in an OST STEM activity.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
90
Conclusion for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade paired-means t-test data. In review, there
was no statistically significant change between the pretest and posttest scores for the
sixth-grade or seven-grade students. The eighth-grade students’ data showed a significant
positive change in students’ attitudes toward science after participating in an OST STEM
activity.
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the pretests’ and posttests’
data at the item level. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a nonparametric test, which does
not assume normality and may be used for ordinal (e.g. Likert) type data. The Wilcoxon
signed-rank test was conducted to measure students’ STEM persistence, which is a
complex construct, through the use of the factors of changes in students’ confidence and
efficacy in STEM subjects, 21st Century learning skills, and interest in STEM careers on,
based on their responses on the S-STEM survey (FI, 2012). The data was analyzed by
looking at all of the subjects as one large group, at individual grade level breakdowns,
and at gender breakdowns. Furthermore, the test was used to analyze each of the
participants individually. There are 61 total question items on the survey, but only 59
questions were analyzed; two of the questions were open-ended.
All students’ Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results of the Wilcoxon sign-rank test
at the aggregate level suggests that there is no statistically significant change between the
OST activity and the students’ STEM persistence (see Table A.7). At the item level, only
five questions demonstrated statistical significance.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
91
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test did suggest a statistically significant change in
students’ attitude towards the question “Math is hard for me” (Z = -2.399, p = 0.016) (see
Table A.7). The median student response rating was 3.0 (Neither Agree or Disagree) for
both pre- and post-tests; two of 37 middle school students reported an increase in attitude,
19 students reported a decrease in attitude, and 22 students reported a consistent attitude.
The second reference that the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statistically
significant change in students’ attitude towards the question of, “If I learn engineering,
then I can improve things that people use every day” (Z = -2.121, p = 0.034) (see Table
A.7). The median student response rating was 4.0 (Agree) for both pretests and posttests;
one of 37 middle school students reported an increase in attitude, seven students reported
a decrease in attitude, and 29 students reported a consistent attitude.
The third reference that the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statistically
significant change in students’ attitude towards the question “I am confident I can work
well with students from different backgrounds” (Z = -2.500, p = 0.012) (see Table A.7).
The median student response rating was 4.0 (Agree) for both pre- and post-tests. Eleven
of the 37 middle school students reported increases in their attitude towards their
confidence that they can work with other students of different backgrounds, whereas two
participants reported decreases, and 24 participants’ viewpoints remained the same.
The final two items that the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the OST
STEM activities did elicit a statistically significant change in students came from the
About Yourself section. The question, “How well do you expect to do this year in your:
Science Class?”, had a statistically significant change, Z = -2.111, p = 0.035 (see Table
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
92
A.7). The median student response rating was 3.0 (Very Well) for both pre- and post-
tests; five of the 37 middle school OST STEM students reported a positive change in
viewpoint, whereas four participants reported a negative change to their viewpoint and 28
participants reported no change in their viewpoint. Lastly, the question, “Do you know
any adults who work as mathematicians?”, had a statistically significant change, (Z = -
2.299, p = 0.022) (see Table A.7). The median student response rating was 3.0 (Not Sure)
for both pre- and post-tests. The OST STEM activities affected nine of the 37 middle
school students’ perception towards knowing adults that are mathematicians (increased),
whereas two participants decreased and 26 participants remained unchanged.
All subjects paired-means Wilcoxon signed-rank test conclusion. Overall, the
OST STEM activities had a minimal statistically significant effect on the students’ STEM
persistence between the pre and posttests. Furthermore, only students’ attitudes towards
learning engineering to improve things to people use every day and their confidence that
they can work with other students of different backgrounds have a statistically significant
positive affect. Lastly, the students’ perception of math being hard for them became
negative, as well as student perceived they were doing very well in science class and
knew more adult mathematicians (see Table A.7).
Gender Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Pre and posttest data were analyzed based on
the participant’s gender (16 girls and 21 boys). The male students’ data showed no
statistically significant changes (see Table A.8-A.9) whereas the female students’ data
had a total of two questions show significance, both of which were from the Science
section (see Table 14).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
93
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the OST STEM activities did elicit a
statistically significant change in girl students’ perception towards the tenth question
from question ten in the Science section that stated, “I would consider a career in science”
(Z = -2.126, p = 0.033) (see Table A.9). Seven of the 16 girl students responded with an
increase in their perception towards considering a career in science, one participant
responded with decreased perception, and eight participants remained constant.
Additionally, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the OST STEM
activities did elicit a statistically significant change in female students’ perception
towards the question, “Science will be important to me in my life’s work.” (Z = -
2.121, p = 0.034) (see Table A.9). Five of the 16 female students reported an increase in
attitude and the remaining eleven students reported no change.
Gender Wilcoxon signed-rank test conclusion. In conclusion, Wilcoxon signed-
rank test data for gender (girls compared to boys) showed that there was very little
significance at all between the OST STEM activities on the middle school students’
STEM persistence. The boys’ data showed no statistically significant changes between
the pre- and posttests, and the girls only showed statistically significant changes towards
their perceptions on science with regards to considering a career in science and science
being important in their future work.
6th, 7th, and 8th grade Wilcoxon signed-rank data. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test
data were separated into grade levels to compare participants by grade. The majority of
the data showed that there was no statistically significant change between the pre- and
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
94
post-tests form the OST STEM activities (see Tables 16-18). However, there was some
item-level significance for each grade level.
6th grade Wilcoxon signed-rank data. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that
there were no statistically significant changes between the pretest and posttest scores at
the item level for the sixth-grade students (see Table A.10). Once again, this may be
related to the small number of sixth graders students (n = 5) in this study.
7th grade Wilcoxon signed-rank data. The seventh grade students’ data showed
significant differences for four items. The first significant question was, “I would
consider choosing a career that uses math” (Z = -2.179, p = 0.029) (see Table A.11). Nine
of the 19 seventh grade students reported an increase in attitude after participating in an
OST STEM activity, two of the seventh grade participants reported a decrease in attitude,
and eight of the seventh grade participants reported no change in their attitude. The next
significant question was in the Science section that stated, “I would consider a career in
science” (Z = -2.070, p = 0.038) (see Table A.11). Seven of the 19 seventh grade students
reported an increase in consideration after participating in an OST STEM activity, one of
the seventh-grade participants reported a decrease in consideration, and 11 of the
seventh-grade participants reported no change in their consideration. The third significant
question was question 11 (question number 37 of the survey) in the 21st Century Learning
section that stated, “I am confident I can work well with students from different
backgrounds” (Z = -2.111, p = 0.035) (see Table A.11). Seven of the 19 seventh grade
students reported an increase in confidence after participating in an OST STEM activity,
one of the seventh-grade participants reported a decrease in attitude, and 11 of the
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
95
seventh-grade participants reported no change in their attitude. The fourth and last
question with statistical significance was, “Do you know any adults who work as
mathematicians?” from, the section About Yourself (Z = -1.994, p = 0.046) (see Table
A.11). Five of the 19 seventh grade students reported an increase in awareness after
participating in an OST STEM activity, four of the seventh-grade participants reported a
decrease in awareness, and 10 of the seventh-grade participants reported no change in
their awareness.
The data suggested that the seventh-grade students’ perceptions changed with
regards to considering a science-based career, a positive attitude towards working with
others with different backgrounds, and becoming aware of adults who are
mathematicians. Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed there was no other significance on
the seventh-grade students’ STEM interests and persistence.
8th grade Wilcoxon signed-rank data. The eighth-grade students’ data indicated
statistical significance for two items only. The first question to demonstrate statistical
significance was, “I am sure I could do advanced work in science” (Z = -2.000, p =
0.046) (see Table A.12). Four of the 14 eighth grade students reported an increase in their
attitude after participating in an OST STEM activity whereas ten participants reported no
change in attitude. The second question that demonstrated a statistically significant
change was, “If I learn engineering, then I can improve things that people use every day”
(Z = -2.000, p = 0.046) (see Table A.12). Four of the eighth-grade student participants
reported a negative shift in perception and 10 participants reported no change in
perception.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
96
Overall, only two questions were significant; the rest of the questions showed that
the activities were not drivers of statistically significant change.
Conclusion for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade Wilcoxon signed-rank data. The eighth-
grade students both had statistically significant affects towards the question “If I learn
engineering, then I can improve things that people use every day”. This means 20 of the
students from the study experienced a shifted perception in regards to engineering’s
ability to improve things people use every day. Furthermore, the seventh and eighth
graders had similar statistically significant change towards considering science as a
career option, meaning that over half of the students (19 seventh and 14 eighth graders)
are considering possible work related to science.
Summary of the Quantitative Findings
At the construct level, the OST STEM activities had a statistically significant
impact on the students’ attitudes toward science and their awareness of the academic
performance in their class, as well as their awareness of people they know who are STEM
professionals. The OST STEM activities’ impact of the students’ attitudes toward science
were significant for the eighth-grade students and the girls. Furthermore, the OST STEM
activities impact of the students’ awareness towards their academic performance in their
classes and their increased awareness of STEM professionals they knew were found in
the results of the boys.
The analysis of the item-level survey data evidenced there were few areas of
significance, including students’ consideration of science as a future career option and
perception that learning engineering can help the students improve items people use
every day all changed positively. The difficulty of advanced math changed negatively
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
97
between the pretests and posttests. Lastly, the boys’ item-level data showed no
statistically significant changes between the pre- and posttests, and the girls’ item-level
data only showed statistically significant changes towards their perceptions of science
with regards to considering a career in science and science being important in their future
work.
Qualitative Findings
Data from interviews and observations completed during the middle school OST
STEM activities were coded into categories. This coding informed the creation of
specific themes with coded instances (see Chapter 3, methodology section for qualitative
data). This analysis led to the identification of five major themes: Supporting Student’s
STEM Persistence (N=203), Developing STEM Skills and Content (N=111), Experience
Levels (N=59), Not Sure About a STEM Future (N=52), and Sources of Motivation
(N=428). Each of the five major themes from the findings was built from related
categories (N=16) from the coded data, including common interests, experiences,
concepts, and outlooks.
The theme of Supporting Student’s STEM Persistence was developed by the
following subthemes: Promoting STEM Persistence in Middle School (N=130);
Enjoyment, Engagement, and Focus (N=44); and Involved in Multiple STEM Activities
(N=29). The theme of Developing STEM Skills and Content was developed by the
subthemes of Soft Skills (N=46) and Technical Skills (N=65). The theme of Experience
Levels was developed by the subthemes of Prior Experiences and Skills (N=56), and No
Prior Experience (N=3). The theme of Not Sure About a STEM Future was derived from
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
98
the subthemes of Lack of Interest or Source of Frustration in STEM (N=24), and
Indecisive About Choosing a Pathway (N=48). Lastly, Sources of Motivation was
developed form the following subthemes: Friends (N=41), Family (N=48), Teacher
(N=81), Supporting Others (N=3), STEM Activities and Content (N=75), Outside of
School Organization or People (N=8), and Self-Motivation and Internal Interest (N=134).
All themes are included in Table 4.1 along with how each theme connects to the research
questions, data source (i.e. interviews, descriptive statistics, and observations), and the
constructs (i.e. interest, persistence, 21st century skills, and motivation) from the
conceptual framework (see page 10).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
99
Table 4.1
Qualitative Themes and Subthemes Breakdown
Theme(s)
Open Coding
Count by Theme(s)
Subtheme(s) and Open Coding Count by
Subtheme(s)
Research Questions (RQ)
Addressed
Data Sources: Interviews (I), Descriptive Statistics
(DS), & Observations (O)
Related to the Constructs
Supporting Student’s STEM Persistence
203 Promoting STEM Persistence in Middle School (N=130) Enjoyment, Engagement, and Focus (N=44) Involved in Multiple STEM Activities (N=29)
R1 Sub. 1 R1 Sub. 2 R2
I, DS, & O Persistence, Motivation, 21st Century Skills, & Interest
Developing STEM Skills and Content
111 Soft Skills (N=46) Technical Skills (N=65)
R1 R2
I, DS, & O Interest & 21st Century Skills
Experience Levels
59 Prior Experiences and Skills (N=56) No Prior Experience (N=3)
R1 Sub. 1 R2
I, DS, & O Interest, Motivation
Not Sure About a STEM Future
52 Lack of Interest or Source of Frustration in STEM (N=24) Indecisive About Choosing a Pathway (N=48)
R1 Sub. 2 R2
I, DS, & O Persistence & Interest
Sources of Motivation
428 Friends (N=41), Family (N=48), Teacher (N=81), Supporting Others (N=3), STEM Activities and Content (N=75), Outside of School Organization or People (N=8), Self-Motivation and Internal Interest (N=134).
R2 I, DS, & O Motivation, Interest, & Persistence
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
100
The concept map in Figure 4.1 shows the five major themes and the subthemes.
The table models the breakdown of the subthemes that create the five major
themes. The table functions as the model for the discussion of each theme and their
subthemes.
Figure 4.1. Themes and subthemes developed from qualitative analysis.
Supporting Student’s STEM Persistence
The theme of Supporting Student STEM Persistence is comprised of three
subcategories: Promoting STEM Persistence in Middle School; Enjoyment, Engagement,
and Focus; and Involved in Multiple STEM Activities. Supporting Student STEM
persistence had the second most instances among the five identified themes (N=203).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
101
Data showed that the STEM activities were providing students a source for engagement
and enjoyment in STEM learning as well as a platform for promoting STEM persistence.
Multiple students reported being involved in various informal STEM activities at the
school which provided students with an outlet and opportunity for their STEM learning.
The interviews, observations, and questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data suggested
students attributed OST STEM activities with impacting their engagement and enjoyment
for learning STEM as well as supporting their learning and persistence in STEM.
Promoting STEM persistence in middle school. The subtheme of Promoting
STEM Persistence in Middle School was rooted in the observation notes (N=78) and
interview responses (N=15). The data implied that the individual OST activities (e.g.
Sumo-bots, eCYBERMISSION, and Girls Who Code) supported students’ STEM
persistence. Students reported that participation in OST STEM activities led to
enjoyment, exposure, and general learning of STEM content. Students described that the
environment of these informal STEM activities offered new learning opportunities and
enriched their classroom learning. The interview data supports this claim. For example,
Paul (a seventh-grade male) stated during his interview, “It’s a challenge but it’s good to
be able to learn because there’s so much you can learn from it. So, if you do something
wrong, you can just do it better next time” (Sumo.I1.2). This indicates that the STEM
activity (i.e. robotics) promoted STEM learning by challenging him to grow and improve.
Furthermore, Paul spoke about how his STEM activity (i.e. robotics) was supporting his
future, when he explained,
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
102
I do! I think with the new technologies, as I said before, there are so many career
opportunities with this kind of stuff, that having experience with this through
school is going to open up a lot of job opportunities. (Sumo.I1.17)
During the interviews, the 15 interviewees were asked, “Do you see yourself continuing
with these types of things, classes, activities in high school and in the future?” Helen
(eighth-grade female) responded to this question by stating, “Actually, I do. I signed up
for engineering in high school and plan on it in college...It’s fun for me. It interests me.
And I like to do it—would like to do it as a career” (ScOl.I2.111). Emmitt (sixth-grade
male) shared a similar thought, “Yes, I do,” and went on to explain, “I’m just really
interested in this. . . . It’s just that we’re coding robots and we can tinker with the code”
(Sumo.I3.174). Lastly, the Emmitt stated, “It’s got me really interested because it’s like
the first real-world competition coding thing” (Sumo.I3.184). For these students,
participation Science Olympiad and Sumo-bots promoted students’ STEM persistence by
providing exposure and creating interest.
The student subjects were aware of the need to think about their own future,
success, and educational paths. Their awareness was seen when future possibilities for
pathways, college, and careers were explained to them. This was evident in a statement
by Christopher (eighth-grade male) when doing robotics: “I think it’s, well first off, it
always looks good on your college resume when colleges look at what activities you do.
They’re also fun to do” (Sumo.I4.244). Furthermore, students were asked about if and
how the activity affected their decision to continue to pursue STEM activities in the
future. Their responses indicated that a majority of the interviewed students wanted to
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
103
continue their STEM learning in middle and high school. For example, Jennifer (seventh-
grade female) who participates in Science Olympiad stated, “I am taking engineering
next year. I definitely like STEM, and I like math and engineering” (ScOl.I5.318).
Christopher explained why he has continued to pursue STEM learning when he stated, “I
realized how much fun it was in sixth grade and what it’s like to work on a team and go
to a competition where you had to put what you worked on against other people’s
projects” (Sumo.I4.215).… I think it made me more open to doing more activities with
STEM” (Sumo.I4.250). Another, Price (seventh-grade male), in his third year of doing
robotics, explained how his continued participation in robotics created persistence: “I
think the more I do robotics, the more I like it. So I will do more STEM activities”
(Sumo.I7.463).
The continued support for and the promotion of STEM learning and future career
insights in STEM through the informal STEM activities, along with formal middle school
engineering classes during the school day, were cited by students as a pathway to
continue their STEM learning and to give them insight into career connections. Amy
(seventh-grade female), who was participating in the Science Olympiad, explained how
she wanted to continue with STEM learning activities in the future. She also explained
that her learning was making connections to career paths when she stated, “I’m
particularly interested in fashion design, and so I feel like that comes along with
engineering, now. I think it’s cool to figure out how things are made and sort of create
stuff” (ScOl.I8.516). Harry (sixth-grade male) explained that he wanted to go to college
for engineering (Sumo.I9.598). While Gina, (eighth-grade female) Science Olympiad
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
104
student, explained how she had already planned her upcoming freshman year STEM
activities: “Yes, I’m taking Design 1 and Design 2 next year, and then I’d like to go to
college for engineering. . . . Next year, I want to come back and be on the middle school
Science Olympiad team” (ScOl.I10.654). This is an example of how her Science
Olympiad have influenced her decision to take future courses to persist with STEM
activities.
In general, the students who were interviewed made statements that signified their
future persistence in STEM learning as well as even going to college to major in a STEM
discipline. For example, Gina stated, “[I’m] probably going to college for it. I think it’s a
good path to be on because like the future has a lot to do with technology and engineering
in general” (ScOl.I10.668). Furthermore, Hamilton, (eighth-grade male) in Robotics,
stated, “I’m interested in it and seem to be pretty good at it, and I really just love working
with things and especially like physical civil engineering “(Sumo.I13.856). Lastly,
pursuing future STEM learning opportunities was found when Sarah (seventh-grade
female in Science Olympiad) stated,
I always want to try different new activities involving engineering. . . . There’s
just so many people sort of closed off to engineering because they think it’s
tough, but I kind of like the challenge because it’s a new activity to try. And also,
it isn’t really that many females in that sort of section. (SciOl.I14.931)
These statements evidence the influence of OST STEM activities; in addition to exposing
students to STEM careers, these experiences (e.g. Science Olympiad, etc.) were cited as
helping the students’ persistence in STEM learning. Simon, (eighth-grade male) in
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
105
robotics explained how his STEM activity had supported his persistence and helped him
narrow his engineering career path when he stated,
I just really enjoy it, and it’s just something I'd like to pursue and continue to do. .
. . It’s exposing me to more stuff in engineering, and I can slowly decide what
type of engineering I want to continue with. (Sumo.I11.723)
All 15 students interviewed discussed this connection between the activity and supporting
their learning of STEM, and the descriptive statistics showed that 17 students were
interested in possibly pursuing a career field in STEM.
Progressing towards STEM. Students who were unsure about pursuing STEM
discussed considering or beginning to consider a pursuit of STEM learning opportunities
in the near future. Kimmy (an eighth-grade female student in eCYBERMISSION),
explained her uncertainty in pursuing STEM: “I don’t know. I just think, if I take it in
high school, I’ll probably pursue it in college and in my career. So, I’m just not sure yet”
(ScOl.I15.1004). Kimmy did express that her activity had a positive impact on her desire
to pursue STEM: “It has just opened my eyes and just leading to all of the possibilities in
engineering” ScOl.I15.1014). Furthermore, Sarah who participated in Science Olympiad,
echoed this same sentiment when she stated, “Yeah, in engineering. So it’s just like, yeah,
I can take off and see how it goes” (ScOl.I14.938). Lastly, Stewart (seventh-grade male),
who participated in sumobots, asserted that he was not talented in math or science, yet
continued with STEM learning because his involvement in his STEM activity made him
realize he is talented at technology and engineering. He explained,
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
106
Okay, then, “Yes” I’m going to continue with this one because I liked the
activities we did, and I thought they were fun. I’m not like really good at science
and math so, but like technology and engineering and other stuff like this.
(Sumo.I12.776)
Promotion. Some (n=5) students expressed they wanted to pursue a STEM
pathway even before participating in these OST STEM activities, but that the activities
further promoted their STEM persistence. For example, Simon (a male, 8th grader)
stated, “I’ve always wanted to do it. This just made me want to do it more”
(Sumo.I11.726). There were students, such as eighth-grade students Hamilton, Helen,
Kimmy, and Stewart, who came into the study with multiple years of participating in the
same informal activity, such as eCYBERMISSION or robotics, because the activity
provided them enjoyment or support for their STEM learning and persistence.
Holistically, the interview data suggests that the OST STEM activities promoted
student STEM learning and persistence in pursuing future STEM learning opportunities.
When the students were asked, “At this point in time, do you plan on pursuing a future
STEM class or OST activity?” 24 out of 37 students stated they wanted to participate in a
future STEM activity (formal or informal) in middle or high school. Furthermore, 17
students reported they were planning on or wanted to attend college as a STEM major or
pursue a career in STEM when asked the question, “At this point in time, do you plan on
pursuing a STEM college major and/or career?” These data indicate that the STEM
learning students’ experienced positively influenced the decisions of many to continue to
pursue future STEM opportunities and persist on a STEM pathway. Students discussed
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
107
during their interviews that the more STEM subjects and content they learned and the
more they participated in STEM learning the more they wanted to continue learning; this
was evidenced by students in more than half the activities. The subtheme of Promoting
STEM Persistence in Middle School stemmed from the positive impact engagement in
the OST STEM activities, specifically the enjoyment, exposure, and general learning of
STEM content, had on students’ STEM persistence.
Enjoyment, engagement, and focus. The OST STEM activities provided students
with an environment in which they could focus solely on STEM content, thereby
providing them with an enjoyable and engaging experience. Overall, the interview,
observations, and questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data showed that a majority of the
students enjoyed their informal STEM activity, which supported their STEM persistence.
Interview data. During the interviews, the students spoke to their enjoyment of
OST STEM activities. For example, Paul stated, “It’s been really fun!” (Sumo.I1.3). Paul
went onto explain in detail the process of joining, participating, learning, and continuing
with his OST activity:
So when I came into middle school, I had the opportunity to sign up for an engineering class. And when I learned that robotics was a thing, I thought this might be a cool thing to try and I might like it. So when I did, I learned more than I thought there would be to the program. So, I decided to keep going with it. (Sumo.I1.7)
Harry, a sixth-grade male student who participated in SumoBots and Drones, explained
how he enjoyed working with his robotics group: “It’s just a place where I feel happy,
and its’ something I enjoy doing” (Sumo.I9.601). Simon expressed a similar feeling when
he stated, “Well, I really like robotics, and I enjoy it. And I just enjoy engineering in
general. . . . I just really enjoy it, and it’s just something I'd like to pursue and continue to
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
108
do” (Sumo.I11.686). These comments illustrated students’ enjoyment in STEM learning
through their OST STEM activities.
Observations. The 78 observations that occurred during the meetings of the
STEM activities between January and May suggested students engaged in, focused on,
and enjoyed the OST STEM activities. The Observation Tool had two questions that lead
to observing the students being engaging in their activities and the students’ general
demeanor during the activities: “If students are engaged in a learning activity, what are
they doing?” and “What is the overall demeanor of the students during the course?”
Throughout the different informal STEM clubs, the students were observed with smiling
faces that were accompanied by serious and focused body language (Table 4.2). The
students were typically engaged in their specific project with their peers in small groups.
The peer interactions, generated by positive group dynamics, were demonstrations of
happiness and fun. The autonomy to pick their own groups may have enhanced their
enjoyment in the activities.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
109
Table 4.2
Observed Data Related to the Themes and Subthemes Theme
Themes and subthemes Sub-theme Days sub-theme was observed (n) Example
Supporting Student’s STEM Persistence
Promoting STEM Persistence in Middle School 0 -
Enjoyment, Engagement, and Focus 47 Smiles and focused
body language
Involved in Multiple STEM Activities 0 -
Developing STEM Skills and Content
Soft skills (i.e. 21st Century Skills 47
Teams communicating plans and collaborating on their projects
Technical skills (i.e. CAD, laser cutting, 3D Printing, soldering, etc.)
45 Use of the 3D printers and laser cutters
Experience Levels Prior experience and skills 44 Programming the
sumobots
No prior experience 25 Practicing soldering
Not Sure About a STEM Future
Lack of interest or source of frustration in STEM 20
Frustration from projects not working
Indecisive about choosing a pathway 0 -
Sources of Motivation
Friends 4 Positive peer interaction
Family 0 -
Teacher 18 Positive teacher feedback
Supporting Others 0 0
STEM Activities and content 40 Students using fabrication equipment
Outside of school organization or people 0 -
Self-motivation and internal interest 9
Students work during non-practice times, such as lunch
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
110
The overall excitement to work on their projects was evidenced by large number
of students who, by their own volition, chose to engage in the STEM activities during
their lunch break and during recess. Students in the Science Olympiad, Robotics, and
eCYBERMISSION groups exhibited a great deal of excitement. At times, the students’
body language signaled concern or frustration with the problems associated with their
project or struggles with a task, but they maintained their focus, as demonstrated by their
persistence to overcome their struggles with the support of their teachers (see Figure 4.2).
For example, a female student, after realizing her hoverboard did not meet the
requirements, had to redesign it, while a group of male students had a similar redesign
with their SumoBot in robotics. All of these students exhibited frustration through stiff
body language and angry facial expressions, yet persevered through these obstacles to
experience the joy of successfully completing the task, signified by smiling faces and
corresponding body language.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
111
Figure 4.2. Additional notes on students' overcoming frustration.
On three different occasions times during the observations of the
eCYBERMISSION, Science Olympiad, and robotics groups, students were drawn off
task or did not have a sense of urgency to complete their tasks or projects, even when due
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
112
dates or competition times drew near. For example, a pair of girls Science Olympiad girls
were observed working on a Rube Goldberg machine were not focused on completing
their task as the due date for the project was near. Contrarily, students were observed as
focused to accomplish their projects. For example, a majority of the Science Olympiad
participants attended on a teacher work day because they were feeling the pressure to get
their projects completed. The students’ prior knowledge manifested during observations,
and the instructors supported their students by making connections to prior formal and
informal STEM learning and skill sets as a resource, such as prior experience with
fabrication tools (3-D printer and laser cutter), coding knowledge (Scratch, 2015) and
LEGO Mindstorm EV3 (2018). Teachers extrinsically motivated their students through
encouragement, one-on-one support, positive reinforcement, and the competition
deadlines. Students demonstrated intrinsic motivation to complete a quality project which
kept students extremely focused as evidenced by their intense body language (see Figure
4.3). The intense focus due to extrinsic and intrinsic pressure caused some students to
rush, resulting in mistakes, which suggests that too much pressure may have affected
students negatively. These mistakes affected the outcomes of their final projects, as well
as extended their overall amount of time to complete their projects.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
113
Figure 4.3. Question 6 shows students’ body language being serious and focused.
Throughout the study of the different informal STEM activities, there were only
15 cases of students not appearing focused on their work and projects. In all other cases,
even when the work was frustrating, their focus helped them overcome their challenges
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
114
and accomplish their projects. Students’ focus increased when the due date for their
projects neared or an upcoming tournament was approaching. Examples of this
heightened focus could be seen the days before the sumobot robotics tournament, when
the eCYBERMISSION projects were due for submission, and the week before the
Science Olympiad competition. This suggests students’ focus on the STEM content and
projects fostered their STEM persistence by providing these students with a learning
outlet.
Questionnaire. The responses from the questionnaire (descriptive statistics)
provided even more insight into the students’ engagement and enjoyment of their OST
STEM activities (see Table 4.2). Students’ recorded comments about their activities
reflected their feelings about their informal STEM activity: “It seemed fun and interesting
and new” (eCYB.Q24.K), “I thought it would be fun” (Sumo.Q9.K), and “Fun. I like
engineering” (Sumo.Q13.K). Other students agreed—they found their STEM activity to
be fun too: “Because it’s fun and you learn a lot” (Sumo.Q25.K), and “Because it’s fun”
(ScOl.Q2.K). Sarah even described the importance of her informal STEM activity when
she stated, “Science Olympiad is very important to me because I am a bit on the
competitive side. And it is fun to work with my partner for our Science Olympiad
project” (ScOl.Q29.J).
In conclusion, the qualitative data suggests that the OST STEM activities (e.g.
Science Olympiad) promoted student STEM learning and persistence in pursuing future
STEM learning opportunities by providing STEM learning that was enjoyable and
engaging. Students’ body language indicated they were focused and happy. Students
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
115
were observed coming to the lab spaces to work on their project during their lunchtime
which could be considered evidence of students’ persistence in pursuing STEM learning.
Furthermore, the students were observed having a high engagement in their tasks,
projects, and challenges, which suggests how engaging the STEM activities were to the
students (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). A majority (N=25) of the students participating in the
STEM activities, especially the seventh- and eighth-grade students, had more than one
year of experience in these activities. The subtheme of Enjoyment, Engagement, and
Focus suggests that students’ participation in STEM-focused OST activities supported
their perceptions of STEM persistence through the self-reported data.
Involvement in multiple STEM activities. The subtheme of Involved in Multiple
STEM Activities arose due to multiple students participating in more than one OST
STEM activity offered at the middle school (see Table 4.3). The STEM activities were
offered at different times, before and after school as well as different days of the week,
which allowed students to participate in more than one informal STEM activity
sponsored by the school. The multiple OST STEM activities provided students with
exposure to different STEM content and possible career fields. The interview and
questionnaire data showed that nearly half of the students were participating in multiple
STEM activities and described as well as how the specific activities are engaging
students in their STEM interests. Specifically, 22 of the 37 participants were involved in
more than one OST STEM activity. Ten of these 22 participants were female students.
The 22 students who were participating in more than one activity were in either the
seventh or eighth grade. This information was self-reported by the students and included
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
116
OST STEM activities not a part of this study. A pattern was noted that students who had
participated in the OST STEM activities the previous year were more likely to participate
in more than one activity.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
117
Table 4.3
Students Self-Reported OST STEM Activity Participation
Students eCYBERMISSION Girls Who
Code Robotics Sumobots
Robotics Drones
Science Olympiad SeaPerch*
Verizon App Challenge*
Student 1
X X
Student 2 X X
Student 3
X X
Student 4
X X
Student 5
X
Student 6 X X
Student 7 X X
Student 8 X X
Student 9 X X
Student 10 X X
Student 11 X X
Student 12 X X
Student 13 X X
Student 14 X X
Student 15 X X
Student 16 X X
Student 17 X X
Student 18 X X
Student 19 X X
Student 20 X X
Student 21 X X
Student 22 X X
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
118
*This OST STEM activity was not a part of this study, and students self-reported their
participation.
The students expressed during the interviews and on the questionnaire what
activity combinations they were a part of at school. For example, Jennifer, stated, “I
participated in eCYBERMISSION and I am currently doing Science Olympiad”
ScOl.Q18.S). Other students went on to identify all of the formal and informal STEM-
related activities they were currently participating in at their school. For example, Mark
(eighth-grade male) stated,
I recently participated in SeaPerch underwater robots, and am currently participating in SumoBots. I also take my engineering class, which consists of multiple different activities such as electricity, 3D Design, Architecture, and aviation. I also take an Honors Geometry and Advanced Conceptual Physics class. (Sumo.Q10.S)
The data suggests that the OST STEM activities promoted student STEM learning
and persistence by providing multiple STEM learning options for the students. These
students chose to be a part of more than one of the informal STEM activities. Over half of
the students (N=22) participated in more than one of the OST STEM activities, which
they claimed supported their STEM learning and persistence. Furthermore, the student
participation in multiple activities demonstrates how these middle school OST STEM
activities are engaging students in the promotion of STEM learning and pathways. The
subtheme of Involved in Multiple STEM Activities is connected to a large number of
students participating in more than one STEM informal activity. This is directly
supporting students’ STEM persistence due to providing students with options that can
engage their interests, as well as provide access to a variety of STEM content.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
119
Conclusion for the theme of supporting student STEM persistence. The theme
of Supporting Student STEM Persistence was the most prominent because the largest
amount of references in the qualitative data (N =230) pointed to this benefit. the OST
STEM activities provided students an environment in which to engage in and enjoy
learning of STEM content as well as a platform for the students to focus on STEM-
related interests.
Developing STEM Skills and Content
The theme of Developing STEM Skills and content is made up of two subthemes:
Soft Skills and Technical Skills. All of the qualitative data collected revealed that the
subjects were gaining and developing a variety of STEM skills and content from their
informal OST STEM activities. Furthermore, the STEM activities were providing
students the opportunities to put prior skills into practice. These skills demonstrated,
discussed, and observed were soft skills, such as communication and collaboration, and
technical skills such as soldering and using Computer Aided Design (CAD).
The informal STEM activities provided students the opportunity to learn and
develop new skill sets, which included soft and technical skills. During the study, the
students (N = 36) discussed and demonstrated how they were learning new skills,
including how to use different equipment, such as power tools and laser cutters, software
tools, such as computer-based coding languages and design tools, and other skill sets
depending on the OST STEM activities the students were a part of during the study.
These same students explained how the specific activities provided them the opportunity
to go deeper into they had learned in prior years and to further develop the skills gained
from their school courses such as engineering. This insight came from questions asking
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
120
the students about their learning. For example, Mark listed, “I enjoy the activity of coding
and building with Lego EV3s” (Sumo.Q10.L), and Hamilton explained, “It [SeaPerch]
taught me basic electrical engineering and structural engineering” (Sumo.Q7.K).
Hamilton referenced his SeaPerch underwater robotics group meetings that were prior to
the study, where the students created their robots, using polyvinyl chloride pipe, DC
motors, category 5 cables, and soldering electronic components to a printed circuit board
using hand drill, and hand saws for creating the SeaPerch robot frames in teams as it is
described on the SeaPerch’s website. Finally, Harry stated, “It [Sumo-bot] challenges
your brain more to think of your own designs instead of following directions to build it”
(Sumo.Q33.K). Five of the interviewed students explained how they enjoyed working
together with others on their projects, which is demonstrative of developing
communication, collaboration, and shared creativity and problem-solving. For example,
Samantha (seventh-grade female) student said: “Science Olympiad is very important to
me because I am a bit on the competitive side, and it is fun to work with my partner for
our Science Olympiad project” (ScOl.Q29.K). The informal STEM activities are
providing students an opportunity to interact with their peers as explained by Jennifer,
“eCYBERMISSION was probably the most prominent because it was a great intro into
STEM and helped me get closer with my peers” (eCYB.Q18.K). These examples show
the importance of collaboration, a soft skill, and the positive impact it had on the
students.
Soft skills. The subtheme of Soft skills illustrates that a majority of the students
demonstrated skill sets related to communication, collaboration, problem-solving and
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
121
more (see P21, 2007). These skills were being developed and put into practice in each of
the informal STEM activities. The students overcame struggles and documented their
progress for communicating to the competition judges and specialists. All of the informal
STEM activities were carried out in small teams between two and four students, which
provided the opportunity for students to collaborate and communicate with one another.
Observations. During the observations (see Figure 4.4), the students in each of the
OST STEM activities demonstrated research skills. For example, a group of students
working on an eCYBERMISSION project discussed how to cut acrylic with a saw and
were researching the process using the Internet on their iPads. The students demonstrated
not just their research capabilities, but they also modeled problem-solving and
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
122
independence in decision-making (see Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4. Question 3 shows students researching.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
123
By far, the largest soft skill observed (n=78) was problem-solving and decision-
making by design during each observation. The observation tool’s questions, “If students
are engaged in oral engineering/STEM discussion, what is the content and topic of
discussion?” and “If students are engaged in a learning activity, what are they doing?”,
supported these observations. Each informal activity provided students different projects,
which led to different possible problems to overcome. The robotics students discussed,
designed, and figured out how to construct their robots, where to put sensors on the robot,
how to code their robot, and how to keep their robot within the constraints of the
competition. The eCYBERMISSION and Science Olympiad students demonstrated
decision-making when determining how to design and create their specific projects.
Through Science Olympiad, students built rockets, learned the meaning of food science
terms, and built windmill fan blades (see Figure 4.5). A group of girls who were working
on a mousetrap car that needed a custom controlled braking system worked with an
engineer to design a solution to this eCYBERMISSION problem. These students all
showed creative designing and problem-solving skills to complete their projects and
overcome challenges while developing solutions to provided problems.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
124
Figure 4.5. Question 2 shows the students’ projects.
Communication and collaboration skills were demonstrated by the students in
each of the informal STEM activities, primarily due to the design and nature of the
activities, the team-driven focus and the lead teachers encouraging communication and
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
125
collaboration between the individual groups and partnerships. There are many examples
in the data of students communicating with each other to solve problems and plan their
projects. This planning and documentation were done through pictures, videos,
reflections, and written explanations through the use of Google sites in
eCYBERMISSION and Science Olympiad. Furthermore, the poster presentation boards
made by the SeaPerch students to communicate the building of their underwater robots
were seen by the researcher in the robotics groups meeting area, as well as the posters are
described on the SeaPerch website. Robotics students discussed how to design and
program their sumobots and the Girls Who Code group communicated their website
design and code. In the observations carried out in a single day, student communication
targeted: how to build their rocket, what they needed to get done before the competition,
laser cutting fan blades and building them, lamenting balsawood for tower parts, taping
bottle rocket parts, 3D printing and making adjustments, reiterating how to build their
windmill fans, and building components for the Rube Goldberg machine such as ramps
and cars.
In spite of the positive skill development surrounding creativity, problem-solving,
collaboration, and communication, there was evidence of student frustration and being
overwhelmed during the activities. There were instances in which students became
frustrated when their projects did not work or there was disagreement between teammates
on the direction of their project (see Table 4). Teachers typically intervened when
students were struggling and frustration was mounting due to misunderstandings.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
126
Furthermore, teammates’ failure to follow through on commitments caused frustration
that required teachers to speak to the struggling groups of students.
Technical skills. The subtheme of Technical Skills is rooted in the fact that the
students demonstrated skill sets including using fabrication and design equipment,
developing specific science, engineering, and technical skill sets, and learning STEM
content. Technical skills were being developed and put into practice throughout each
informal STEM activity. The school has an engineering fabrication lab which provides
students access to laser cutters, 3D printers, CNC machines, digital fabrication tools, and
traditional woodshop equipment. The students practiced these technical skills by creating
solutions to challenges and problems through unique approaches to each of their projects
in their specific informal STEM activity and created finished products with a variety of
tools, software, and hardware.
In the robotics, eCYBERMISSION, Girls Who Code, and some of the Science
Olympiad activities, students learned about electricity, electronics, and computer
programming. This could be seen when Harry described the technical skills he gained
from his OST STEM activity when he stated, I’ve learned how to program deeper, put
things in loops, and how to use the sensors” (Sumo.I9.592). The students demonstrated
an understanding of circuits through projects that involved circuit design, using wiring,
direct current (DC) motors, light emitting diodes (LEDs), and resistors. Students also
learned and put into practice soldering skills for their projects. For example, a group of
eighth-grade girls soldered electronic components, including a DC fan, wires, and a
switch, as part of a hoverboard craft project. Katie explained her OST STEM activity
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
127
taught her engineering skills when she stated, “It obviously taught me engineering skills”
(eCYB.I15.1002). While Helen (a female eighth-grader) stated, “I’ve learned how to
laser cut. I’ve also learned how to work as a group and basically how to build towers".
Peter explained the technical skills he learned when he stated, “Soldering is also a really
cool skill and considering that I’ve done sea-perch and sumo bots I know how to build
robots (Sumo.I1.38).
Computer programming skill sets were primarily seen in the Girls Who Code and
the sumo-bot robotics groups, as well as small groups in the eCYBERMISSION and
Science Olympiad based on the nature of the particular project or challenge. The students
gained an understanding of computer programming terms and processes, such as looping
behaviors, if-else statements, and variables, by putting them into practice to create
finished outcomes. For example, the Girls Who Code group worked on developing a
website through the use of HTML5 (HyperText Markup Language 5), which is a markup
language for designing, structuring, and displaying websites on the World Wide Web.
Amy stated, "I learned python and I am learning HTML[5]. Right now, we’re building a
website, and then [learning] JavaScript and CSS (Cascading Style Sheets)”
(GWC.I8.490). Sumo-bot robotics teams also demonstrated an understanding of the
interaction between the hardware and software when they coded the wrestling robots,
using the LEGO Mindstorm robot. For example, groups of boys in the robotics group
programmed their design and custom built sumo-bots to use servomotors, color, and
ultrasonic sensors to find an opponent robot and push it out of the ring (see Table 4.5).
Lastly, a small group of students in eCYBERMISSION demonstrated coding skills using
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
128
an Arduino as a part of their project. These coding skills were seen throughout the
observations during the study (see Table 4.3).
Other fabrication and engineering skills were demonstrated at varying levels
depending on the informal STEM activity. For example, students in eCYBERMISSION
were using traditional shop tools in addition to more advanced technological tools to
build their prototypes. The Science Olympiad group used digital fabrication tools (i.e.
laser cutters and 3D printers) for their projects, too.
The researcher observed students learning and implementing computer-aided
design (CAD) software, such as Inkscape and TinkerCAD, into their projects (see Table
4). The eCYBERMISSION and Science Olympiad teams used CAD software with
specific projects and challenges. For example, Helen designed a tower for holding weight
for a Science Olympiad challenge using Inkscape, and she cut the parts out of balsawood
using a laser cutter. Other girls used CAD to design 3D printed custom rocket parts, such
as fins, for another project. Some students demonstrated a culmination of learning in their
final projects, which included, for example, CAD software design and laser cutting.
Throughout the study, students were learning and implementing technical skills
that involved a variety of hand tools, power tools, programming languages, and
fabrication equipment. Design software and physical tools provided students resources
for creating solutions to problems and answering the specific challenges given to them by
their OST STEM activity. The students integrated the tools in various ways, depending
on their project. For example, a group of eighth-grade girls in Science Olympiad used
Inkscape and the laser cutter for their windmill blades, while another group used the
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
129
Internet to study food science. Furthermore, a group of seventh-grade boys in robotics, in
coding their LEGO Mindstorm EV3, used an icon-based language after building their
robot with servomotors, an ultrasonic sensor, and a color sensor. These examples (see
Tables 4.2-4.5) show the various technical skills and tools used in different ways by the
middle school students.
Conclusion for developing STEM skills and content. The theme of Developing
STEM Skills and Content is directly connected to students’ learning and practicing soft
and technical skills. The qualitative data collected, suggest that the students were gaining
a variety of STEM skills and content from their informal OST STEM activities. The
informal STEM activities were providing students the opportunity to work on soft skills
that are 21st Century skills as such collaboration, creativity, problem-solving, and
communication. This was seen through the completion of collaborative projects that
provided students the opportunity creates solutions to different challenges and problems
(see Tables 4.2-4.5). Students also developed technical skill sets for using cutting-edge
fabrication equipment to build components, CAD software to design products, and
computer programming languages to accomplish unique tasks. Overall, the different
informal STEM activities provided the students’ knowledge and practice, to reinforce the
skills and content; the technical and soft skills went hand-in-hand in the STEM learning
experiences.
Experience Levels
The theme of Experience Levels is made up of two subthemes: Prior Experience
and Skills and No Prior Experience. All of the qualitative data collected from the subjects
of the study showed that a majority of the students had prior experiences learning STEM
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
130
or participating in formal OST STEM activities; there were only three students who
stated they had no prior experience in STEM learning.
Prior experience and skills. The subtheme of Prior Experience and Skills exists
because a majority of the students had previous experience within STEM learning.
During the interviews, the students spoke of experiences in formal classes learning
computer programming, building, and designing in addition to prior participation in
informal OST activities and personal learning on their own at home (see Tables 4.5).
Participation in prior OST activities included participation in LEGO robotics,
eCYBERMISSION, Boy Scouts of America (specific STEM-related badges), and
Technology Student Association competitions. Furthermore, some students spoke of
participating in summer camps and in online learning such as Hour of Code (2018). All
but three students had prior experiences in a specific STEM activity and had STEM
interests that were fueling their STEM persistence. All of the eighth graders had
participated in a specific OST STEM program in the past, all of the seventh graders
referenced participating in an OST activity or an elective course in school, and two of the
sixth graders stated they had engaged in afterschool engineering activities and attended
summer camps, some participating as early as third grade.
During the interviews, many of the students referenced their previous experiences
and interests in STEM (see Table 4.5). Six of the students spoke of working with LEGOs
and other STEM-related materials, such as Khan Academy’s learning (GWC.I8.486) to
code platform (Sumo.I3.159), at home in their free time (see Table 4.5). One student
described building shooting devices from clothespins, rubber bands, and other household
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
131
items (Sumo.I7.450). Multiple students referenced the skills and content they had learned
in their OST STEM activities in the past such as soldering, coding, 3D printing, and laser
cutting. During observations, the researcher noted a group of girls put their prior learned
skills surrounding 3D printing into practice by using TinkerCAD to design a custom 3D
printing part for their eCYBERMISSION project (see Table 4.5).
The STEM activities provided students an opportunity to put their prior technical
skills as well as their 21st Century skills into practice and it was apparent that their prior
knowledge and experiences influenced their behavior in the OST STEM activities
observed. During the observations, the students demonstrated prior skills in collaboration
and communication in working in small groups or partnerships in the majority of the
STEM activities to accomplish goals and tasks related to their specific activities, such as
collaboratively designing, building and coding a LEGO Mindstorm EV3 (LEGO, 2018)
sumo-bot robot. Gina stated, “Engineering, in general, is just collaborative learning. I like
working with other people to share ideas and share your knowledge with other people and
teaching them how to do things and learning how to do things” when she was asked about
what she has learned from her STEM activity (ScOl.I10.649). Furthermore, the students
throughout the OST STEM activities demonstrated researching skills and general
problem-solving techniques in developing their robots to provide a functional prototype
to solve a problem. This problem-solving skill set was confirmed in a statement from
Sarah when she was asked if the activity affected her decision to continue with future
STEM activities she stated,
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
132
The first time where the first machine didn’t work, I was just extremely frustrated.
. . . I continued just with trial and error. It made me want to do it again to know
that I could face the challenge and I could just do whatever I put my mind too.
(ScOl.I14.941)
These prior experiences evidence students finding outlets to bolster their STEM
persistence, learn new skills and improve their prior knowledge. Many students expressed
that their reasons for joining in the OST STEM activities related to enjoying learning
STEM skills and content wanting to continue this process. The questionnaire (descriptive
statistics) provided insight into this developed theme by way of student quotes such as “I
decided to join these competitions because I love to build and engineer,” “I enjoy
building and programming LEGO EV3,” and “I have always been interested in
engineering and building” (see Table 5).
The OST activities provided the students a way to continue nurturing their STEM
persistence as well as their learning. This can be seen when Hamilton was asked to
explain why he choose to participate in his robotics activity he explained, “I showed up
for robotics club, and I just had a knack for it. And I really loved it!” (Sumo.I13.828).
Furthermore, Gina stated, “I did junior solar sprint last year, and just the whole
atmosphere is very similar to the TSA [Technology Student Association] program”
(ScOl.I10.630), when she was explaining her reasoning for joining the Science
Olympiad. Prior experiences and skills were satisfying supporting the students’ interests
in looking for more STEM learning opportunities.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
133
No prior experience. The subtheme of No Prior Experience is rooted in the fact
that only one student indicated not having any informal STEM learning experiences as
well as only having STEM learning experiences in formal classroom settings. The
questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data and interviews, suggested that a very limited
number of students had no prior experience in STEM learning (see Table 5).
Interviews. During the interviews, only three students out of 15 reported not have
a prior STEM-focused learning experience in the past that was STEM learning related or
similar to their current OST activity. This was evidenced by a quote from Paul, when
asked about his activity being like anything else he has done previously he stated, “I
didn’t do a ton with engineering and robotics until I heard about it through middle school.
It was kind of a new thing” (Sumo.I1.24). Furthermore, Christopher in robotics,
responded to the same interview question, “No, not really” (Sumo.I4. 224); Gina echoed
Christopher’s response when she said, “Not that I can remember” (ScOl.I10.641). These
three individuals had not been a part of prior OST STEM learning.
Qualitative questionnaire (descriptive statistics). The responses in the
questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data showed that only six students out of the 37 had
only formal classroom experiences in STEM, such as math, science, and engineering
courses (see Table 4.3) and had not participated in a STEM OST activity before. These
six students referenced required courses (e.g., math and science), elective courses (e.g.,
engineering and technology), and advanced school courses (e.g., advanced school courses
(e.g., advanced conceptual physics and honors geometry). On the questionnaire
(descriptive statistics), the remaining 31 students referenced prior experiences: summer
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
134
camp, after-school activities, and activities in their personal free time. These students
Required school classes 1 3 4 2 3 Elective school classes 1 8 7 6 8 Advanced school classes 1 3 3 1 After School Clubs 1 5 5 3 2 Summer Camps 2 1 1 2 2
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
136
Table 4.4 Continued
Grade 6 7 8 Gender Male Male Female Male Female Question Responses (n) 3 8 8 6 8 What STEM Activities are you currently participating in at your school?
Thinking back, what event, class, or conversation sparked interest for you in STEM fields/activities? Please feel free to include more than one answer.
Do not remember 1 1 1 1 - Personal interest in STEM 1 - - - - Summer camp - 1 1 - - Science - 2 - - - Engineering class - 1 2 2 1 Sibling - 2 - - - Parents - - 1 - -
At this point in time, do you plan on pursuing a future STEM class or extracurricular activity?
Conclusion for experience level. The study revealed that 34 of the students had
prior experiences in learning STEM. These prior experiences varied from formal classes
to OST STEM activities. There were only three students who stated they had no prior
experience in STEM learning.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
138
Not Sure About a STEM Future
The theme of Not Sure About a STEM Future is made up of two subthemes: Lack
of Interest or Source of Frustration in STEM and Indecisive About Choosing a Future
Pathway. All of the qualitative data collected from the subjects of the study revealed that
a small number of students were not sure about persisting in a STEM pathway or unsure
of their decision on continuing a focus in STEM learning (see Tables 4.2-4.5). Reasons
given by this subset included lack of interest, frustration, and indecision.
Lack of interest or source of frustration in STEM. The subtheme of Lack of
Interest or Source of Frustration in STEM was developed from data showing that a small
group of students attributed their lack of interest was specific aspects of each of the OST
STEM activities and to frustration with those aspects. During the interviews and
observations, these students highlighted and explained specific frustrations, as well as
dislikes, about their OST STEM activities. Some students even assessed their interest
levels with certain aspects surrounding their STEM learning. During the interviews,
Jennifer expressed her frustration with the nature of her Science Olympiad activity when
she stated, “I preferred working on my individual project and learning different ideas
instead of specifically going to one topic” (ScOl.I4.334). Christopher explained, “If the
STEM options had giant teams, I am not sure I’d like to do that because there are too
many activities going on around me. It’s kind of like [when I was in] sixth grade with
FLL [FIRST LEGO League]. There were too many people on the same team”
(Sumo.I4.267). Both of these students referenced in their comments disliking large group
activities and the lack of autonomy with their STEM learning projects and activities. The
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
139
explanations specifically affected STEM choices; Christopher never participated in the
FIRST LEGO League again after his sixth-grade experience.
Lack of interest and source of frustration were also found in the questionnaire
(descriptive statistics) data (see Table 4.4). These were reported to affect a small number
of student decisions to persist in pursuing STEM learning or activities. Two seventh-
grade students, one male and one female, stated they tentatively did not want to continue
engaging in a future STEM course or activity. Furthermore, Penny (seventh-grade
female) reported that she tentatively did not want to pursue a possible future college
degree or career path in STEM.
This subtheme showed that a majority of the students are interested in pursuing
future STEM learning and that very few students were losing interest due to frustration in
some aspect of their particular STEM activity. During the observations of the activities,
students did lose focus or become frustrated when their projects did not work, such as
when a group of boys’ robotic coding failed and when an eighth-grade girls’ Science
Olympiad windmill blades fell off and broke. However, these students continued to
persist and improve their projects, ultimately overcoming their challenges and developing
working products (see figure). The frustration of their projects not working was seen in
each of the OST STEM activity, but students learned from their mistakes and continued
to improve their work. The majority of the students overcame their frustration through
perseverance, but for a limited amount of students, this reported frustration led in part to
a lack of interest in moving forward with STEM learning.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
140
Students’ reported a lack of interest or frustration generated by their STEM
informal learning activities were at times attributed to the number of students assigned to
a group, team, or project as well as the amount of autonomy they had been afforded with
a given project within their OST activity (see Table 4.4).
Indecisive about choosing a future pathway. The subtheme Indecisive about
choosing a future pathway was developed from the data generated by students who
reported that they were unsure about their future choices, including in the short and in the
long term. This portion of the students was still learning and deciding on the pathway
they would choose in their near and distant futures.
Qualitative questionnaire (descriptive statistics). The questionnaire (descriptive
statistics) data showed that seven the 37 students were unsure about wanting to pursue a
future STEM activity or course (see Table 4.4). These seven students included four
eighth graders (three female students and one male student), two seventh graders (both
female students), and one-sixth grader (a male student). In the longer-term,15 of the 37
students were unsure at this time about pursuing college or a career in STEM. These 15
students included 6 eighth graders (three female students and three male students), 7
seventh graders (four female students and three male students), and 2 sixth-grade boys.
Five of these 15 students stated they were unsure about pursuing a future STEM activity,
class, college major, or a career. Of the five students, three were female (2 eighth graders
and 1 seventh grader) and two were male (1eighth grader and 1 sixth grader).
Interviews. The interview data showed uncertainty about future decisions in
STEM learning when students were asked, “Do you see yourself continuing with
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
141
activities like your STEM activity the rest of middle school, high school, or college?”
Kimmy, a female eighth-grade eCYBERMISSION student, expressed that she was not
sure about pursuing any future STEM activities beyond middle school when she stated,
“Well probably through middle school. I’m not sure about high school”
(eCYB.I15.1002). This same student stated that her current OST STEM activity,
eCYBERMISSION, had opened her eyes to different possibilities when she stated, “I
don’t know after just seeing all the other eCYBERMISSION competitions and
participating in them myself. It has just opened my eyes” (eCYB.I15.1012). Overall, this
student was not sure about her decisions, but has become more aware of her possible
STEM options in the future.
Conclusion for not sure about a STEM future. The study revealed some
students were frustrated by the activities they participated. This frustration for some was
a reason to not persist with the activity they were participating in. Only seven students
were unsure about continuing with STEM in the short-term whereas 15 students were
uncertain about a STEM major or career.
Sources of Motivation
The theme of Sources of Motivation is made up of seven subthemes: Self-
Motivation and Internal Interest; Friends; Family; Teachers; Supporting Others; Outside
of School Organization or People; and STEM Activities and Content. This was the largest
theme (N=428). All of the qualitative data collected from the participants of the study
revealed the presence of a range of influential factors that were motivating students as
well as engaging their learning and participation. The reasons the students were
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
142
motivated and engaged in their OST STEM activity led to the variety of subthemes for
this theme of Sources of Motivation.
The interviews, observations, and questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data
showed that what inspired and motivated students to pursue STEM the most was their
self-motivation; the motivation they received from family, teachers, and STEM activities
followed (see Table 4.2-4.5). Students were also motivated by others, motivated by the
activity, or motivated by pop culture, such as the STEM movie titled Hidden Figures. A
majority of the students had prior experience with STEM-related activities that had been
inspirational. These activities ranged from school-related, formal classes and formal
community groups such as Boy and Girl Scouts.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
143
Table 4.5
Interview Data Topics Related to the Subthemes
Topics Sub-Theme
Number of Students (n) Referencing the
Topic
OST STEM activity supporting student learning and persistence
Promoting STEM Persistence in Middle School
15
Enjoyed their OST STEM activity Enjoyment, Engagement, and Focus 15
Participation in multiple OST STEM activity
Involved in Multiple STEM Activities
8
Working with peers Soft skills (i.e. 21st Century Skills 5
Description of a learned technical skill (i.e. laser cutting, 3D printing, soldering, coding)
Technical skills (i.e. CAD, laser cutting, 3D Printing, soldering, etc.)
11
Description of prior STEM learning (i.e. summer camps, OST STEM activities, personal learning)
Prior experience and skills 12
No reference to prior STEM learning No prior experience 3
Preferred working alone or in smaller groups
Lack of interest or source of frustration in STEM
4
Unsure about participating in future STEM learning opportunities
Indecisive about choosing a pathway 1
Influential friends Friends 6
Supporting and inspiring family members
Family 8
A teacher being a source of motivation and inspiration
Teacher 7
Possibly helping others with their projects
Supporting Others 1
Discussed that STEM learning was important to them
STEM Activities and content 14
None school and family-related sources of motivation (i.e. Boy scouts, Hidden Figures movie
Outside of school organization or people
3
Self-driven and motivated for STEM learning
Self-motivation and internal interest 15
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
144
Each of the subthemes in the Inspiration theme influenced students’ motivation to
pursue learning STEM content and, in some cases, pursue a possible career in a STEM
field.
Self-motivation and internal interest. The subtheme of self-motivation and
internal interest is the largest subtheme in the theme of Motivation, Inspiration, and
Engagement. This category had, by far, the most frequent (n=134), subtheme. The
students demonstrated and expressed their internal interests for STEM learning and their
self-motivation for pursuing their specific STEM activities in observations, the
questionnaire (descriptive statistics) and in their interviews.
The data collected showed that some students had a strong internal drive, personal
interest, and self-motivation for their inspiration to learn STEM content. Twenty-three
participants listed themselves as a source of inspiration and encouragement for joining
their specific OST STEM activity (see Tables 4.2-4.5). Six students expressed that they
valued their own opinions and thoughts the most when asked whose opinion they valued
most and why. Hamilton explained the importance of following one’s own ideas when he
stated, “It's also important to satisfy yourself and your own desires”. For example, a
seventh-grade female student stated, “I like listening to my own ideas,” and another
student named Paige (seventh-grade female) went on to explain how she valued her own
decision-making: “Myself, because I make the decisions. I choose what I am interested
in” (ScOl.Q24. H). Lastly, Otis, a seventh-grade male student in robotics, assessed his
trust in himself: “I have a lot of trust in me” (Sumo.Q30.H).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
145
Qualitative questionnaire (descriptive statistics). The qualitative questionnaire
(descriptive statistics) data confirmed that some students were self-driven and had a high
internal motivation for pursuing STEM learning and activities. 23 of the 37 students
listed themselves as a reason for joining their STEM activity; 13 were girls, and 10 were
boys (see Table 4.4). Five of these 23 students went on to describe how they valued their
own opinions in making decisions and found their own interests with regard to STEM
learning to be important. Examples of these students’ self-values could be seen in the
response to the question, “Of these people, whose opinion do you value the most and
why?” which was a follow-up to the question, “Who encouraged you to participate in the
activity?” Two female students, Kimmy (eighth grader) and Paige (seventh grader)
claimed, “My own because it looked like a good field to be involved in” (ScOl.Q4.QH),
and “I value my own opinion over others' opinions because I am the one to eventually
make the decision” (eCYB.Q24.H).
Interviews. During the interviews, the students explained how their self-
motivation was supporting the drive for engagement in STEM activities. When students
were asked about why they joined their OST activity, Helen stated, “We thought it would
be fun, and we thought it would be good to excel in engineering and grow as engineers”
(ScOl.I2.75). Emmitt, a sixth-grade male student, explained, “I just really like robotics,
and umm I just am really into robots, and I really like coding and yeah. It just really
interests me, yeah, and I just feel great while I’m doing it” (Sumo.I3.152). Price, a
seventh-grade male student, stated, “I’m just kind of interested in engineering altogether
and experimenting with stuff” (Sumo.I7.433). These students expressed how important
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
146
these OST activities were to them and how their own internal interests motivated them to
become better STEM students.
Other students mentioned similar internal interests for learning STEM. When
asked about having any prior STEM experiences, Price discussed, “I kind of build stuff at
home” (Sumo.I7.441); this reference to tinkering and building small devices on his own
shows his own interest driving participation. Price went on to explain that his choice of
being a part of the robotics groups has pushed him further: “I just kind of started the
building with stuff, and robotics got me more in-depth with engineering; so I just kind of
learned more and started to explore more” (Sumo.I7.451). Amy in Girls Who Code
explained how she was using her activity to explore more and advance her learning when
she stated, “I’m particularly interested in fashion design, and so I feel like that comes
along with engineering now. And I think it’s cool to figure out how things are made and
sort of create stuff” (GWC.I8.516). Amy went on to explain, “I’ll probably do some stuff
online, keep practicing” (GWC.I8.551). She was referencing her prior experiences of
completing online coding tutorials on www.code.org at home, guided by her own internal
interests.
When the students were asked about why they chose to participate in their OST
STEM activities, they expressed their personal interests and self-confidence in making
their own decisions. Hamilton explained his decision to participate in the robotics
program when he stated, “Well when I came to middle school, I’ve always been
interested in engineering, and I just wanted to try something new. And so I showed up for
robotics club, and I just had a knack for it. And I really loved it” (Sumo.I13.828).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
147
Another student named Harry (a male sixth grader) explained that he joined the robotics
group due to his enjoyment of programming when he stated, “I enjoy doing it, and I enjoy
programming and inventing and doing it my own way” (Sumo.I9.569). Furthermore,
when asked what it was about programming and inventing that inspired him, he
explained, “I think, it’s just the way, I just enjoy it” (Sumo.I9.570). His statement
suggested that he focused on his own enjoyment and personal connection to the activity.
Harry went on to state that he wants to continue pursuing engineering in the future
through college because “It’s just a place where I feel happy, and it’s something I enjoy
doing” (Sumo.I9.601). Gina (eighth-grade female) discussed that she joined Science
Olympiad to satisfy her competitive nature. Gina stated, “My personal motivation
because I really like being able to create things like how I want them to be”
(ScOl.I10.669). Simon discussed how his parent had explained to him that he had always
had an interest in engineering since he was young: “According to my parents, when I was
little, I liked to watch this engineering show” (Sumo.I11.710).
Observations. Throughout the study, a majority of the students demonstrated
internal drive and expressed an interest in pursuing STEM learning. All of the
interviewed students expressed their interests and motivation for learning STEM content.
These students (15) also demonstrated confidence through body language and spoke of
their personal drive for pursuing STEM. In the observations, students showed the same
motivation for their STEM activities by coming to practices before and after school,
during lunch and recess time (see Table 4.4). A large number of students across all of the
different OST STEM activities were coming in during their free time consistently. This
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
148
internal motivation was evident in students participating in multiple OST STEM
activities, such as a small group of girls (n=3) were doing eCYBERMISSION, Girls Who
Code, or Robotics, and some boys were doing robotics and eCYBERMISSION or
multiple types of robotics platforms.
Conclusion for self-motivation and internal interest. Overall, the subtheme of
self-motivation and internal interest was the largest subthemes in the theme of
Motivation, Inspiration, and Engagement. A majority of the students modeled and
demonstrated, in the observations, their internal interest for learning STEM content, as
well as their self-motivation to join their OST STEM activity and pursue their projects to
the fullest. Over 60% of the students listed themselves as their source of motivation or
explained how their own interests and internal drive provided them the motivation for
pursuing STEM learning and their specific informal STEM learning program, in
responses to the interviews and questionnaire (descriptive statistics). In conclusion, the
data suggested that the students drove themselves to pursue STEM learning opportunities.
Friends. The subtheme of friends derives from students’ references to their
friends being an influential factor in their participation, motivation, and engagement in
their OST STEM activity. This subtheme was evidenced during the observations of the
STEM activities based on the students’ friendly interactions. The team selection in each
of the STEM activities was also student-driven (see Table 4.5).
Interviews. During the interviews, students made comments about their
connections to their friends and referenced them as a source of their motivation for
joining their OST activity through camaraderie and companionship. Six of the 15
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
149
students interviewed stated that their friends were influential in their decision to
participate in an OST STEM activity. Paul (seventh-grade male) explained, “I
encouraged some other friends who had done summer camps and other things along those
lines” (Sumo.I1.31). Helen stated, “We thought it would be fun. We thought it would be
good to excel in engineering and grow as engineers” (ScOl.I7.76). Both of the statements
speak to friends wanting to do the activities together.
Students referenced their collaboration with their peers as a source of inspiration
for choosing to do the OST STEM activities. Christopher was asked a follow-up question
regarding why he kept doing robotics since sixth grade. He stated,
I like the team aspect, especially with sumo bots’ three or four-person teams. It
was fun to work with my friends, and I think if it was a project with you by
yourself, it wouldn’t be as fun or as satisfying. (Sumo.I4.219)
Another student explained that his friends decided to join the OST STEM activity as a
group: “We decided this seemed fun, so we started doing it, and then we liked it. So we
continued” (Sumo.I4.219).
Two questions primarily provided insight into students’ characterization of
friends as an influential factor: “Who encouraged you to participate in this activity?” and
“Why did you decide to participate in this activity?” Friendship provided inspiration and
influenced the joining of activities, which was seen when a student stated, “A lot of my
friends are doing it, and they thought it was cool. So, I thought I could do it too. And if I
liked it, I could continue” (Sumo.I7.465).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
150
The students reported having friends who were involved in STEM clubs and
activities that had influenced them in a positive manner and inspired them to join a
STEM club (see Table 4.2-4.5). Furthermore, students were finding enjoyment in
completing STEM projects associated with an individual activity, such as Science
Olympiad’s mousetrap car challenge, with peers and friends. Steven (seventh-grade male)
explained that his friends and his enjoyment for STEM led him to join his robotics group
“because my friends do it, and I like STEM”. John (sixth-grade male) explained that his
friends influenced him to join his STEM activity when he stated, “My friend was doing
it,” and he went on to say, “Me and my friend were talking about it, and then I decided”
(Sumo.Q32.K). Otis stated, “my friend said it was fun” (Sumo.Q30.K). Lastly, Ryan
(sixth-grade male) explained that because he valued his friends’ opinion and
encouragement, he decided to pursue his STEM activity.
Questionnaire. The responses from the questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data
included 11 students noting that they joined their OST STEM activity due to a friend’s
influence (see Table 4.4). For example, Kevin, a seventh-grade student, stated that he
joined the STEM activity “because my friends do it,” when asked why he decided to
participate in his activity (Sumo.Q16.K) while Otis stated, “Because my friends said it
was fun” (Sumo.Q30.K), and Jeffery (a sixth-grade male student) stated, “My friend was
doing it” (Sumo.Q32.K). Jeffery went on to say, “Me and my friend were talking about it,
and then I decided” (Sumo.Q32.L). A majority of the comments that pertained to the role
friends’ encouragement and influence played in a student joining an informal STEM
activity came from male students (see Table 4.4-4.5).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
151
Conclusion for friends. The subtheme of Friends was the fifth largest subtheme
in the theme Motivation, Inspiration, and Engagement. There were multiple references
(10 from the questionnaire (descriptive statistics) and six from the interviews) by students
about joining an OST STEM or enjoying the teamwork aspects due to friends, such as
small team sizes in eCYBERMISSION and Sumo-bot robotics. Friends had inspired and
motivated middle school students to participate in OST STEM programming.
Family. The subtheme of family as a source of motivation and inspiration comes
from the frequency of references to family members including parents, siblings, and
grandparents (n=48). Through interviews and descriptive statistics, students reported that
family members support their experiences and learning in STEM in addition to their day-
to-day influence (see Table 4.4-4.5).
Parents. A majority of students stated their parents had been an influential or
inspirational factor on their STEM motivation. Furthermore, multiple students spoke
about their parents being in STEM professions. Four questions (two from the
questionnaire (descriptive statistics) and one from the interviews) primarily led to
responses identifying family members as a source of motivation (see Tables 4.4-4.5).
When students were asked, “Who encouraged you to participate in this activity?”,
“Thinking back, what event, class, or conversation sparked interest for you in STEM
fields/activities?”, “Why did you decide to participate in this activity?”, and “Has anyone
helped or inspired you to continue to learn more about STEM concepts?”, 51 responses
referenced family members.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
152
Many of the students referenced their parents as a reason why they are pursuing
OST STEM activities. Seventeen out of the 37 students had a parent in a STEM field,
which may be having a positive influence on students’ motivation to pursue STEM (see
Table 4.4-4.5). Seventeen of the 37 students reported that one of their parents was in a
STEM career such as a computer programmer, medical doctor, math or science teacher,
and engineer; Nine of the 17 students reported that both of their parents were in a STEM
field. 16 of the 37 students listed their parents as an encouraging influence for joining
their OST STEM activity (see Table 4.4.-4.5). In the interviews, many students
referenced their parents as a positive influence for them pursuing STEM learning. For
example, Susan (seventh-grade female) in eCYBERMISSION, stated, “I remember
talking with my parents about STEM. They told me what they do in engineering and
computer programming, and that sparked my interest” (eCYB.Q29.L). Furthermore,
Sarah expressed a similar thought when she stated, “My dad was an engineer and always
taught me how to build things, take things apart, and put things back together”
(ScOl.Q19.L).
During the interviews and on the questionnaire (descriptive statistics), students
discussed how their parents were supporting their pursuit of STEM learning. This
positive support from parents engaged and motivated some students to pursue their
STEM learning OST activities. On the questionnaire (descriptive statistics), students were
asked about whose opinion they value; Vern (female 8th grade) explained, “I value my
parents’ opinion the most because they are people who I can talk about STEM to deeply.
They explain to me some about computer programming and engineering” (ScOl.Q15.H).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
153
Christopher stated, “I value my parents’ opinion because of their success in their fields. I
have a high appreciation for STEM activities because of them” (Sumo.Q10.H).
Students also reported that they had joined activities because their parents wanted
them to join. Some students explained that they joined their STEM activity at their
parents’ request. Other students took this concept further such as Irene who stated, “they
know what's best for me” (ScOl.Q15.H2) and Emmitt who claimed “My parents
encouraged me to do so” (Sumo.Q34.L). During the interview, Christopher explained,
“My parents introduced me to the idea [OST STEM activities], and I thought it would be
fun. When I was in sixth grade and first did it, I stuck with it through middle school”
(Sumo.I4.215). Christopher’s parent introduced the idea of participating in a STEM
activity, as well as encouraged him to participate. The positive reinforcement supported
Christopher’s engagement in STEM learning. When asked about who had helped or
inspired her to continue learning about STEM, Kimmy explained, “My parents are proud
of me for doing it. So, it’s sort of like good, and it influences me” (ScOl.I15.1021).
Parents are supporting their children and introducing them to STEM opportunities. Two
students (Simon and Amy) explained that their parents looked explicitly for STEM-based
activities.
Five students referenced their older siblings as providing motivation and
inspiration for pursuing STEM learning. Helen explained that her older brother’s
influence was important because he too was participating in STEM learning; her brother
is currently majoring in engineering in college. She stated, “I think what inspired me
personally is my brother, who is in college right now studying engineering and doing an
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
154
internship” (ScOl.I2.81). Two other students referenced an older sister’s STEM
experiences. Penny (seventh-grade female) stated, “My sister created many fun projects
that I wanted to do, too” (eCYB.Q24.L) and Jennifer said, “Again, my sister did
eCYBERMISSION 3 years in a row and won regionals twice. I was hoping to follow in
her footsteps and was not disappointed” (ScOl.Q18.L). Older siblings were reported as
exposing younger siblings to STEM activities and inspiring them to purse OST STEM
interests.
Siblings. Having an older sibling involved in STEM learning has impacted
students’ engagement in pursuing STEM learning. When asked about how he got
involved with learning computer programming languages, Emmitt, a sixth-grade male
student, referenced his older brother as a source of motivation for wanting to pursue
STEM learning; “My brother influenced me actually on my old computer”
(Sumo.I3.157). Jennifer said, “I know my sister is really into engineering, and she really
wants to be an engineer. And I really want to follow in that path a little bit because she
does a lot of projects that do some of the similar things” (ScOl.I5.342). Penny echoed a
similar idea sentiment, “I also saw some of the projects my sister was doing, and I
thought it would be cool to do them” (eCYB.I6.420). Lastly, Jennifer explained in the
interview how her dad, a computer programmer, had been working with her sister to
support her coding skills (ScOl.I5.349). This influenced her to want to pursue what her
dad and sister were accomplishing.
Grandparents. Grandparents were also cited as inspiring and influencing
students’ choices for pursing OST STEM learning. During the interviews, two students
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
155
(Amy and Simon) revealed their grandfathers were engineers. Amy explained how her
grandfather’s occupation persuaded her mother to encourage Amy to pursue STEM,
“Well my grandfather is an engineer, so my mom has always been really big in me taking
engineering” (GWC.I8.530). Simon spoke of his grandfather and father both being
engineers and how he wanted to follow in their footsteps (Sumo.I11.691). In all, three
students referenced their grandfathers, particularly their grandfathers’ engineering
backgrounds.
Conclusion for family. The subtheme of the theme Motivation, Inspiration, and
Engagement with the third most references were related to family. Family members were
cited influences on students’ decisions to pursue STEM learning and reported as sources
of inspiration for their wanting to learn and pursue STEM activities. Family members
motivated students to continue learning STEM, provided a positive influence, and
supported students’ engagement in STEM concepts. Many students (n=20) referenced
their family or a specific family member as a reason why they themselves are inspired to
pursue OST STEM activities.
Teachers. The subtheme of teachers includes the observed interactions of the
teacher with their students during the OST activities (see Table 4.2) and the comments
made by the students about their teachers inspiring them to join the STEM activities and
motivating their learning for STEM (see Table 4.4-4.5). Teachers were cited by students
as encouraging them to participate in the OST activities by speaking to students in class
settings, one-on-one, and by promoting OST STEM activities school-wide. Teachers
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
156
were also cited as supporting students’ motivation for STEM and increasing their
engagement.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire (descriptive statistics) data showed that
teachers inspired some students to join an informal STEM activity and served as a source
of encouragement. When students were asked on the questionnaire (descriptive statistics)
about who encouraged them to participate (see Table 4.4), why did they decide to
participate, and what sparked their interest for STEM activities, 28 references by students
from the questionnaire noted the schools’ engineering teachers and the OST STEM
teachers. Over half, 24 of the 37, of the students responded that a teacher or teachers
encouraged them to join their OST STEM activity (see Table 4.4). Additionally, eight
students found that the STEM teachers’ inspirational attitudes were engaging their STEM
learning.
Interviews. During the interviews, students discussed their STEM teachers being
inspirational and motivating. Helen referenced her engineering teachers at her previous
schools and her current school where the study took place. Amy discussed how her
science teacher who promoted Girls Who Code drove her to join the group. Simon, who
participated in robotics activities, explained that “a lot of people related to engineering”
(Sumo.I11.734), influenced his pursuit of STEM learning. Furthermore, Kimmy
explained how her teacher pulled her aside to recommend her for the Science Olympiad
competition. This student went on to state, “It excited me about it, so I entered and then
continued on this year” (SciOl.I15.981). Other students, such as Helen, Gina, and Sarah
had similar positive experiences with this teacher.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
157
Both male and female teachers were cited as an influence on the number of
students joining the STEM activities and their corresponding gender to join a STEM
activity. A number of male and female students were participating in an informal STEM
activity lead by a teacher of their same gender (see Table 4.4). Seven female students
referenced the female teacher who ran the Science Olympiad and eCYBERMISSION
activities during the interviews as being a motivating influence (see Table 4.5). Sarah
stated that she “pushed her and didn’t baby her” (SciOl.I14.946) while Kimmy and Gina
described how she recommended them for the STEM activity of they chose to be apart
for that school year. Because they found enjoyment with their chosen STEM activity,
they continued with the same activity the following year. The female teacher was
referenced by all of the girl participants in Science Olympiad and Girls Who Code. The
boys similarly referenced being influenced by male teachers, as participants of the
robotics groups were primarily boys. For example, the five males referenced the robotics
teacher who ran the robotics group.
Conclusion for teachers. Overall, a large percentage of students spoke about how
their teachers’ teaching styles and creative motivational techniques helped them to be
engaged in their STEM activities and classes. During the observations of the activities,
many of the students were noticeably motivated by teacher comments and feedback. The
positive working environment created by the teachers leading a trusting relationship
between the teacher and the students. As one student stated, “I value my teacher's opinion
because he wanted me to try something, and I liked it after I tried it” (Sumo.Q7.H).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
158
Thirteen students stated their teachers were a direct inspiration for their joining their OST
STEM activity (see Table 4.4).
Supporting others and outside of school organization or people. The
combined subthemes of supporting others and outside of school organization or people
had the least number of references in the theme of Sources of Motivation. These
subthemes were developed based on consistent responses from a small number of
students evidenced by in the questionnaire (descriptive statistics) (see Table 4.4) and
interview data (see Table 4.5).
Supporting others. The subtheme of supporting others can be seen in a response
by Robin (a female, 7th grader), who was involved in eCYBERMISSION, to a question
about which of the STEM activities was the most important: “The Verizon App
Challenge, because I got to learn about and try to help people with Down syndrome”
(eCYB.Q23.J). Harper (a female, 8th grader), who had been working with classmates
from a former class on a grant supported by Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
stated, “I really enjoy our project for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology grant
because it has the potential to help people” (eCYB.Q3.J). These two examples evidence
how students reported being motivated and inspired to learn STEM concepts by their
humanitarian desire to help other people. This was also demonstrated when Emily (a
female 7th grader) from eCYBERMISSION stated, “I wanted to be able to make
something that would help other people” (eCYB.Q21.K). Veronica, a Science Olympiad
student who was asked to think back on what event, class, or conversation sparked her
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
159
interest in STEM learning, explained her work in supporting others in her engineering
class this way,
I was hesitant to take the class and completely ready to drop it for a study hall. But when we were given the opportunity to work in small groups to brainstorm, design and build a prototype, and figure out how to implement an idea/invention that would help our community, I realized how interested I was in the class. I was excited for that period, and making a breakthrough felt so gratifying. I do believe though, that the experience would not have been as fulfilling if we were not granted the freedom that we had been. (ScOl.Q15.L)
Supporting others was cited as a source of inspiration and motivation by a small
group of female students (n=4) when pursuing STEM concepts; there were no references
made by male students about being inspired, engaged, or motivated to pursue STEM
learning activities because of a desire to support other people. Supporting other people
helped motivate some female students to learn STEM concepts with the hopes of
improving other people’s lives and society as a whole.
Outside of school organizations or people. The other low-frequency subtheme
(n=8) for the theme of Source of Motivation is outside of school organizations or people
(see Table 3). This subtheme was derived from the middle school students’ reference of
non-school related people, groups, topics, and organizations which had inspired
motivation for STEM learning. Only a small group of students mentioned this as a source
of inspiration.
There were references in the questionnaire (descriptive statistics) responses and
interview data of specific people who had inspired some students to engage in STEM
learning. For example, there were references to mentors such as Boy Scout troop leaders
(Sumo.I11.734). Sarah referenced one of the female character leads in the movie Hidden
Figures, in response to a question about who has inspired you, when she explained, “The
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
160
women in Hidden Figures. She is 93 right now. She was a big inspiration because
everyone was telling her she couldn’t do it” (ScOl.I14.954). Sarah went on to describe
how that woman from Hidden Figures overcame obstacles, which is a root source for the
student’s inspiration for learning STEM.
Lastly, students referenced outside organizations (of school or OST STEM
activities) that were inspiring them to pursue STEM. For example, Boy Scouts of
America’s engineering- and science-related merit badges (Sumo.I11.703) and Code.org’s
Hour of Code each served for certain students as a catalyst for wanting to learn more
STEM content (GWC.Q31.L). When asked to explain when and how Harry had first been
inspired to take part in OST STEM activities, he answered, “In third grade, when I did
afterschool with Young Engineers” (Sumo.Q33.L).
Conclusion for supporting others and outside of school organization or people.
These combined subthemes were derived from a small proportion of students. The desire
to help others and individuals outside of the school setting that are connected to STEM
student learning each motivate some students to participate in STEM activities.
STEM activities and content. The subtheme of STEM activities and content had
a relatively low frequency of references (N=75) in the theme of Sources of Motivation.
This subtheme was developed based on consistent responses from students’ referencing
informal STEM activities or STEM-related content being a source of motivation or
inspiration for learning. These responses were primarily seen in the questionnaire
(descriptive statistics) and interview data. Hamilton, a robotics student, explained, “I
would say it’s just that it’s just really interesting to me and every time I do something I
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
161
look back at it and is ah, wow, that’s really cool” (Sumo.I13.800). Science Olympiad
student Gina explained that she wanted to do more than just her engineering class when
she stated, “I wanted to do something extra for engineering and last year solar sprint was
the thing that appealed to me the most and they needed people [for Science Olympiad]”
(ScOl.I14.611). Gina went on to explain, “It [Science Olympiad] was part of what they
[peer girls] wanted us doing in engineering and I like competing a lot I like comparing
my knowledge to others and seeing what I can do” (ScOl.I14.604). Sarah, when
participating in Science Olympiad, was asked why she chose to participate in her specific
OST STEM activity. She explained her Rube Goldberg project from her activity,
I like engineering as a whole and I also like just building things and trying new
sort of different activities out. I’d always had an interest in Rube Goldberg for
example and I thought it would just be a fun experience to try and build one for
like myself and see what it took and where it went to (SciOl.I14.861)
Some students spoke of how enjoyment of the subject matter led to them being motivated
to learn STEM. Peter (seventh-grade robotics student) explained, “I just like it. I just like
learning and making robots and other stuff” (Sumo.I2.446). Furthermore, he went on to
state, “I think the more I do robotics the more I like it so I will do more STEM activities”
(Sumo.I2.450). Fourteen out of the 15 students interviewed discussed how their
engineering course or informal STEM activity’s content was important to them (see
Table 4). The observations showed students being involved in their activities, self-
selecting activities and having autonomy.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
162
STEM activities and content conclusion. Overall, the STEM Activities and
Content subtheme demonstrates motivation for some students based on the specific
activity in which they were participating.
Conclusion for motivation. The theme of Motivation explains student inspiration
and motivation for pursuing STEM. The interviews, observation, and survey data suggest
that the students’ Self-motivation and internal interest was the largest subtheme followed
by family (N=48), teachers (N=81), STEM activities and content (N=75), all being very
close in coding frequency. Friends had a lower frequency than the above subthemes, but
not as low as Outside of School Organizations or Supporting Others. A majority of
students reported a high level of self-motivation and internal drive for wanting to learn
STEM content. A majority of the students had participated in camps, clubs, and other
STEM-related activities that had been inspirational factors. These activities ranged from
school-related, such as clubs and informal and formal classes, to formal community
groups such as the Boy Scouts of America. Each of the subthemes in the theme of
Motivation, Inspiration, and Engagement represent the sources of motivation and
inspiration that provoked students’ engagement in and the pursuit of learning STEM
content.
Summary of the Qualitative Findings
The analysis of the interviews, questionnaire (descriptive statistics), and
observations led to five major themes: Supporting Student STEM Persistence,
Developing STEM Skills and Content, Experience Levels, Not Sure About a STEM
Future, and Sources of Motivation. These themes illuminate key aspects that impacted
students’ interest in STEM and their planned pursuit of it in the future. Subthemes under
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
163
each theme laid the foundation for creating an understanding of the factors, influences,
interests, and experiences that impacted these students’ decisions to continue learning
STEM content and pursuing activities in these areas. The findings of influential factors
that arose in the analysis of the data may give greater insight into students’ STEM
persistence.
Mixed Method Analysis
The mixed methods data analysis used a side-by-side comparison approach where
the researcher merged the data and compared the quantitative results and the qualitative
findings to gain a more robust understanding of the findings (Creswell & Clark, 2011).
The quantitative findings were reported at the construct level, and the Science and About
Yourself sections demonstrated that the OST STEM activities had a statistically
significant impact on the students’ attitudes toward science, their awareness of the
academic performance in their class, and their awareness of the people they know who
are STEM professionals. The students' significant change towards their science attitude
can be compared to the themes of Supporting Student’s STEM Persistence (N=203) and
Experience Levels (N=59). These themes support that STEM activities provided students
an environment in which to engage in and enjoy learning about STEM content and served
as a source for engagement and enjoyment in STEM learning. Similar results are rooted
in the quantitative analysis when the participants referenced family members, teachers,
and people from outside school activities (i.e. Boys Scout trooper leaders
[Sumo.I11.734]) that are STEM professionals. Seventeen students had a parent in a
STEM field, and another four students referenced other influential relatives in STEM
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
164
fields. 24 of the 37 students reported that their teachers encouraged them to join their
OST STEM activity, which could be a potential driver of increased student awareness of
teachers being STEM professionals.
The analysis of the item-level survey data showed that there were a few
statistically significant questions. A students’ perspective on considering science as a
future career option and the belief that learning to engineer can help the students improve
items people use every day each changed positively; conversely, the feeling that doing
advanced math is difficult changed negatively between the pretests and posttests. More
than half of the students’ (n=20) perception that learning engineering can improve things
people use every day increased, which was likely supported by the observations showing
that the students were learning technical and soft skill sets (n=78) and the students’ self-
reporting during the interviews (n=15) of the different STEM-related skills they were
learning. The increased access to the subject matter may have influenced their perception
that engineering helps things create things people use every day. Additionally, a large
number of students (n=22) participating in multiple OST STEM activities, supporting
their awareness of different STEM topics and fields. The qualitative themes of
Developing STEM Skills and Content (N=203) and Supporting Students STEM
Perspectives (N=111) supported the quantitative findings by explaining the skills students
were learning and content students were engaged in which motivated their learning of
STEM.
Overall, the quantitative findings showed that the OST activities did not impact
student perceptions of STEM subject areas, 21st century learning or their future career
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
165
decisions as a whole. However, the qualitative data found that 28 students planned on
participating in a future STEM activity and a majority (n=13) of the students interviewed
stated they would consider going to college for a STEM career. Furthermore, the
qualitative data contradicted the quantitative findings on the item-level for 21st century
learning through the subtheme of Soft Skills (N=46) in which the data showed the
teamwork and problem-solving aspects of the OST STEM activities. The largest
qualitative theme of Sources of Motivation (N=428) and its subthemes support the lack of
significance found in the quantitative analysis towards the STEM content attitudes not
changing due to variety of motivational sources influencing the students: Friends (N=41),
Family (N=48), Teacher (N=81), Supporting Others (N=3), STEM Activities and Content
(N=75), Outside of School Organization or People (N=8), and Self-Motivation and
Internal Interest (N=134).
Chapter Summary
The research findings from the qualitative and quantitative research have
enhanced understanding of the influence of the OST STEM activities on the students’
persistence for STEM learning. The qualitative and quantitative findings provide insight
into this phenomenon. The five major themes of Supporting Student STEM Persistence,
Developing STEM Skills and Content, Experience Levels, Not Sure About a STEM
Future, and Sources of Motivation illuminated key aspects of how students’ interest and
motivation were impacted along with how the activities aided students in learning 21st-
century skills and STEM content. The qualitative data also provided an understanding of
the factors influencing the middle school students’ interests and motivations for STEM
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
166
learning, as well as their STEM learning pursuit. The S-STEM Survey showed that the
OST activity had no statistically significant impact on the students’ STEM persistence.
The analysis of the survey data did show that students’ perception of considering science
as a future career option and understanding that engineering can help the students
improve items people use every day all changed positively. However, the perception that
doing advanced math is difficult changed negatively between the pretests and posttests.
The mixing of the data has shown that the OST STEM activities are influencing students’
motivation and interests for STEM learning and persistence towards a possible career in
science, as well as the students learning 21st Century skills.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
167
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This research study sought to describe changes in middle school students’
aptitude for 21st century skills and their motivation for, interest in, and perceived
persistence in STEM after a 13-16-week participation in at least one of the following
OST STEM learning: eCYBERMISSION (2016), Science Olympiad (2017), Girls Who
Code (2017), and a robotics group (involving sumobots and drones). The study focused
on 37 middle school students (16 females and 21 males) in sixth (5), seventh (18), and
eighth (14) grades, all of whom participated in one or more OST STEM activities at an
independent, private school in a metropolitan city in the Southeastern United States. The
researcher studied the affective and influential factors of eCYBERMISSION (2016),
Science Olympiad (2017), Girls Who Code (2017), and a robotics group (sumo-bots and
drones). The researcher investigated the role that students’ experiences in the OST STEM
activities played in the students’ reported motivations, interests, and persistence in STEM
using proxy measures such as pre- and post-surveys, one-on-one interviews,
observations, and an inventory of in which and how many STEM courses middle school
students chose to enroll. The study aimed to highlight the importance of OST STEM
activities and their role in supporting middle school students in developing a STEM
identity, leading to the student pursuing STEM high school courses, college majors,
and/or careers. Furthermore, the knowledge gained from this study may inform best
practices in OST STEM activities and education.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
168
Discussion of the Results
In this chapter, the results are grounded in the extant research literature to confirm
or refute previous findings. These findings are discussed with their potential implications
for research and practices. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this
chapter are based on major (significant) mixed methods research findings related to each
stated research question, respectively.
Research Question #1: Change in Perceptions of and Actions Toward STEM Persistence
Research question #1 focused on the change in middle school students’
perceptions (descriptions) of and actions (enrollment) toward STEM persistence. This
research question had two sub-questions that focused on the type and a number of current
middle school STEM courses in their formal schooling and future STEM courses in their
formal schooling. The questionnaire (descriptive statistics), interview questions,
observations, and the S-STEM Survey (FI, 2012), results were used to determine the
change in the middle school students’ perceptions of and actions toward STEM
persistence. The results from the study indicated there was a significant change in the
students’ views towards STEM persistence after participating in the OST STEM activity.
The results suggest that the OST STEM activities supported student STEM
learning and persistence in pursuing future STEM learning experiences. Twenty-four of
the 37 students stated they wanted to participate in a future STEM activity (formal or
informal) in middle or high school. Furthermore, 17 students reported they were planning
on or interested in attending college as a STEM major with the intent to pursue a career
that had a STEM focus. This confirms prior research, as Mohr-Schroeder et al. (2014)
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
169
found similar results with 99% of their middle school participants (N = 144), who
participated in a summer STEM camp, wanting to attend a future STEM activity (i.e.,
STEM summer camp). Like this middle school OST STEM study, previous studies
related to OST STEM activities have shown that these activities provide support for
students’ motivation for STEM learning (Bull et al., 2008; Dabney et al., 2012;
Leblebicioglu et al., 2017; Stocklmayer et al., 2010). This early exposure to STEM
learning also supports students’ motivation for future STEM learning (Wang, 2013).
The OST STEM activities provided students with a resource for pursuing STEM
learning. A majority of the students (N = 25) who participated in the OST STEM
activities had more than one year of experience participating in the OST STEM activity
for which they were being studied, particularly the seventh- and eighth-grade students. 21
of the 37 students reported participating in more than one of the STEM OST activities as
a proxy for STEM persistence, which is an example of how these middle school OST
STEM activities are supporting and promoting students’ STEM learning and persistence;
the STEM learning experiences are shaping the middle school students’ interest towards
STEM because the OST STEM activities are engaging, fun, and hands-on (Hayden et al.,
2011; Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014; Nugent et al., 2010; Paulsen, 2013). The study also
revealed that a majority of the students participating in the OST STEM activities had
prior experiences in learning STEM or participating in other OST STEM activities—only
three students stated they had no prior experience in STEM learning. This draws
important corollaries between the participation in OST STEM activities and STEM
persistence as the continued participation in these activities grows the STEM pipeline
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
170
while impacting the students’ STEM interests, motivation, and identity (Hugh et al.,
2013; Hite et al., 2018; NRC, 2015).
The findings from the S-STEM Survey (FI, 2012), showed that the OST activity
did not have a statistically significant influence on the students’ views towards their
learning of their individual formal STEM content area classes, 21st Century learning, or
their future career decisions. However, analysis of the S-STEM Survey data showed that
after participating in the OST STEM activities, students’ attitudes towards science were
positively influenced, as were perceptions of how well they would perform in science and
the perception that learning engineering would enable them to improve things people use
every day. Conversely, after the OST STEM activities, the students’ views on their own
ability to do advanced work in math declined.
Subquestion #1. The first sub-question for the first research question was: Type
and number of current middle STEM courses in their formal schooling? There were no
significant changes between the students’ self-reported data on the S-STEM survey (FI,
2012) related to performance in their formal STEM classes which could be due to the
students’ high level of interest and self-motivation for STEM learning that already
existed for these particular students. All of the students in the study participated in formal
math and science courses for their respective sixth, seventh, and eighth grades that took
place daily for 50 minutes each. Furthermore, all of the seventh-grade (18) and eighth-
grade (14) students participated in a formal engineering middle school elective course,
while the sixth-grade students (6) participated in a 2-week Scratch (2017), a
programming unit that introduces students to the fundamentals of computer
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
171
programming. The middle school engineering courses are sorted by grade level (seventh-
or eighth-grade) and gender. Students (i.e., seventh- and eighth-graders) attend an
engineering course designed for their grade level and gender, and the gender of the
course’s educator matches that of the students. A majority of these students had a high
level of self-motivation for STEM learning, which could also help to explain why there
was no significant self-reported changes in student’s performance in their formal math
and science course work.
The engineering courses take place in a Fab Lab, where students learn about the
principles of engineering design and different fields of engineering and engage in project-
based learning using digital fabrication tools such as laser cutters, 3-D printers, and vinyl
cutters. It was apparent that the students’ skills and knowledge gained in the formal
engineering courses were applied in the OST STEM activities. For example, a Science
Olympiad group of girls used the laser cutter to fabricate windmill blades, and the
eCYBERMISSION teams used the 3-D printing techniques with their projects. Without
prior knowledge and exposure, students would not have had the same level of technical
aptitude when participating in the OST STEM activities. Furthermore, all of the teachers
of the OST STEM activities were also math, science, or engineering teachers at the
middle school, which could support the content aspects and possible student
encouragement for participation outside of the OST STEM activities.
In addition to engineering, students referenced other courses and OST activities.
Students referenced their formal science, math, and engineering courses as STEM classes
that they were participating in when asked, “What are the specific names of the STEM
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
172
activities that you participate in?” Two students reported working on a Massachusetts
Institute for Technology grant, and another referenced participation in the Duke
University Talent Identification Program that supports academically talented students in
Grades 4–12 with additional learning resources. Finally, another student referenced the
Version Innovation Learning App Challenge, which involves the brainstorming of app
ideas by teams of middle- and high-school-age students to help solve real-world
community problems with the chance of winning money and working with professional
app developers. Prior research has found that students’ interest for STEM learning is
positively impacted from active participation in engaging OST STEM activities, such as
afterschool programming (Krishnamurthi et al., 2014) and summer camps (Mohr-
Schroeder et al., 2014; Nugent et al., 2010), which could explain why the students in this
study are choosing to pursue other STEM learning opportunities.
Subquestion #2. The second subquestion for the first research question was: Type
and number of future STEM courses in their formal schooling? This subquestion focused
on the type and number of future STEM courses in the students’ formal schooling. After
participating in the OST STEM activities, all of the eighth-grade students (14) registered
for a formal high school engineering course for their freshman year of high school.
Furthermore, four of the five 6th-grade students registered for a seventh-grade
engineering course, and 17 of the 18 seventh-grade students registered for an eighth-
grade engineering course. This data alone demonstrates that majority (N = 35) of the
students sought future participation in a formal elective STEM course, in addition to their
formal science and math courses for the following school year. Of the two students who
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
173
did not seek future STEM learning, only one discussed not wanting to participate in an
OST STEM activity or a formal STEM-elective course in the future; the other student
transferred to a different school where the same electives weren’t offered. Similar results
were found in a prior study conducted after students participated in an OST science club
where 80% of the subjects wanting to take future formal STEM courses at school
(Krishnamurthi et al., 2014).
The OST STEM activities in this study did influence the students' self-reported
STEM persistence for wanting to participate in future STEM courses in the formal
setting, in which the majority of the students registering for an engineering class as well
as formal math and science courses for the next school year. A majority of the middle
school students participated in an OST STEM activity the following school year, except
for two students (one female seventh grader and one male seventh-grade student). These
results indicate that the OST STEM activity influenced the students’ STEM persistence
for participating in future STEM learning.
Summary for question #1. The results indicated that there was a significant
change in the students’ views towards STEM persistence. This finding showed that some
students (N = 24) expressed a desire to participate in future STEM activities and learning
opportunities. Furthermore, 17 of the 37 students reported that they were currently
planning on or wanted to pursue a STEM pathway long-term. Lastly, only one student
indicated during the study that she did not want to participate in an OST STEM activity
in the future; only seven students indicated they were unsure about future participation.
Though they did not all report continuation in the data set, students (N = 36) wanted to
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
174
continue with STEM courses and OST STEM activities, as a majority of the students
registered for future engineering courses and five sixth-graders and 16 of the 18 seventh-
graders indicated they wanted to participate in their same OST STEM activity the
following school year – this question did not apply to eighth-graders as the OST STEM
activities are middle-school specific. Furthermore, all but two of the 37 students
participated in a formal elective course or an OST STEM activity the following school
year, which supports previous research suggesting OST STEM activities, like the
activities in this study, are key factors in enhancing STEM motivation (Holmquist, 2014;
Wang, 2013), interests (Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014; Nugent et al., 2010), and
research on OST STEM activities and formal STEM courses have focused primarily on
how high school STEM learning has influenced participating students’ STEM learning
and persistence as measured by college STEM course enrollment (Afterschool Alliance,
2015; Brown, 2016; NRC, 2015). This study has added clarity to the understanding of
how middle school OST STEM activities have impacted middle school students’ STEM
persistence. Furthermore, the study has provided findings on the development of
students’ STEM identities, especially those of middle school girls (Archer et al., 2010;
Barton et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2013). Lastly, the importance of STEM learning held
by the students’ parents, as well as the large percentage of students’ parents in a STEM
career, influenced the students’ STEM capital through family habitus.
Prior research has shown the importance of providing students extra STEM
learning opportunities due to the influence on students learning like these OST STEM
activities in this study (Marginson, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts, 2013; NRC, 2011; NRC,
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
197
2013). Furthermore, authentic, interactive hands-on learning that was reported and
observed by the students in this study has been shown to have positive effects on
students’ future STEM learning in prior research (NRC, 2013). This study confirms prior
research which has shown that STEM learning that is relevant and personal can increase
STEM literacy, interest and motivation (NRC, 2011) as demonstrated by the self-
selection of the OST STEM activities and the student-driven selection of specific
projects. The OST STEM activities studied, along with the formal STEM courses in
which students participated, were emphasizing technical and 21st century skill
development to address real-world learning by providing students a STEM focus and uses
of the school’s digital fabrication lab. Furthermore, the teachers and the school
community have made STEM important part of the school by offering multiple STEM
learning experiences (Scott, 2012; White, 2014).
The results of this study suggest that OST STEM activities can support middle
school students’ perceived views towards STEM persistence. Furthermore, the OST
STEM activities offered students the opportunity to pursue their STEM learning, as well
as to pursue in their STEM interests and motivations. This indicates that OST STEM
activities may support middle school students’ interest and motivation for STEM
learning, as well as develop their 21st Century learning skills. Lastly, the data suggest
that the OST STEM activities may positively influence students’ perceived STEM
persistence, especially for possible future careers in science and doing engineering to
improve peoples’ lives. These OST STEM activities are resources providing middle
school STEM students with pathways to pursue their interests and motivation for STEM
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
198
and develop a long-term possible goal for STEM learning (Dweck, 2008). This study has
shown how the positive support of middle-schoolers’ STEM learning and persistence by
teachers and parents can positively impact the STEM persistence and continuation of
self-directed learning of STEM for those students (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, &
Kelly, 2007). This study was significant due to determination that OST STEM activities
support middle school students’ long-term STEM persistence by providing them the
opportunity to engage in their STEM interests and motivation (Von Culin, Tsukayama, &
Duckworth, 2014), as well as positively support their STEM identity (Hite et al., 2018).
This study illuminated the importance of intrinsic motivation for independent school
students. The students in this study had high levels of intrinsic motivation which is
important for students’ STEM learning and perceived STEM persistence (DeJamette,
2012; Nugent et al., 2010). Evidence of this intrinsic motivation includes the fact that the
majority of the students had more than one year of experience in OST STEM activities.
As prior research has shown, motivation to learn math and science can be impacted by
students’ prior learning experiences and support their STEM persistence (Andersen &
Ward, 2014; Graham et al., 2013; Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014; Nugent et al., 2010;
Wang, 2013). Additionally, over half of the students participated in more than one of the
OST STEM activities in this study, demonstrating that the OST STEM activities were a
STEM learning modality for the majority of the students who used these activities as a
means to nurture their STEM persistence (Hall et. al., 2011). Finally, the largest
subtheme under the qualitative theme of Sources of Motivation (N = 428) was Self-
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
199
motivation and Internal Interest (N = 134) and over half of the students listed themselves
as a reason for joining their OST STEM activity.
This study highlighted the importance of STEM family habitus for independent
school students. Parents and family played an extremely important and influential role in
the development of these independent school students’ motivation, interest, and
persistence for STEM learning and impacted the development of their STEM identities
(Afterschool Alliance, 2015; Archer et al., 2010; Brown, 2016; Sabin, 2013). The
qualitative subtheme of Family (N = 48) under the theme of Sources of Motivation
supported this concept. Nearly half of the students listed their parents as an encouraging
influence for joining their OST STEM activity in addition to other students referencing
other influential relatives such as siblings or grandparents. These references are evidence
of students’ who are highly motivated for STEM learning being encouraged to continue
pursuing a STEM passion by their parents. Furthermore, nearly half of the students in this
study had at least one parent whose occupation was in a STEM field; this supports the
development of the students’ STEM identity and motivation for STEM learning through a
positive STEM family habitus (Bandura et al., 2001; Gallagher, 1994; Hall et. al., 2011;
Wyss et. al., 2012). This indicates that students with parents in STEM careers possibly
could be influencing the students’ motivation and persistence for STEM due to their
STEM family habitus.
The information discovered in this study could be important to independent
schools with a population of students with backgrounds similar to those in this study that
are developing STEM courses (i.e. formal and informal) and OST STEM activities. The
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
200
study can help the independent schools to support their students that are intrinsically
motivated for STEM learning and who want to continue their pursuit of STEM.
Furthermore, independent schools with students’ whose parents encourage STEM could
possibly support their schools’ STEM pipeline development by applying an
understanding of the importance of intrinsic motivation and STEM family habitus for
independent school students. Overall, this study provides enhanced insight into the
importance of intrinsic motivation and STEM family habitus for independent school
students’ motivation, interest, and persistence for STEM learning.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
201
REFERENCES
Abernathy, T. V., & Vineyard, R. N. (2001). Academic competitions in science: What are the rewards for students? The Clearing House, 74(5), 269-276.
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education, 34(3), 243-257.
Afterschool Alliance (2015). Full STEM ahead: Afterschool programs step up as key partners in STEM education. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/aa3pm/STEM.pdf
Ahmed, H. O. K. (2016). Strategic Future Directions for Developing STEM Education in Higher Education in Egypt as a Driver of Innovation Economy. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(8), 127-145.
Allison, B. N., & Rehm, M. L. (2006). Meeting the needs of culturally diverse learners in family and consumer sciences middle school classrooms. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 24(1), 50-63.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in OECD countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ 21st Century-skills- and-competencies-for-new-millennium-learners-in-oecd-countries_218525261154 [March, 2017].
Anderhag, P., Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P. O. (2015). What can a teacher do to support students’ interest in science? A study of the constitution of taste in a science classroom. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 749-784.
Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy‐value models for the STEM persistence plans of ninth‐grade, high‐ability Students: A comparison between black, hispanic, and white students. Science Education, 98(2), 216-242.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old school childrens constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617-639.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881-908.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
202
Arikan, S. (2014). A Regression Model with a New Tool: IDB Analyzer for Identifying Factors Predicting Mathematics Performance Using PISA 2012 Indices. Online Submission, 4(10), 716-727.
Asunda, P. A. (2011). Open courseware and STEM initiatives in career and technical education. Journal of STEM Education, 48(2), 6-37.
Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. (2011). Refueling the U.S. innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington, DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1655-1675.
Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to constructivism in science education? Research in science education, 43(6), 2477-2496.
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(1), 187-206.
Barker, B. S., & 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.
Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15.
Basham, J. D., Israel, M., & Maynard, K. (2010). An ecological model of STEM education: Operationalizing STEM for all. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 9-19.
Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 427-448.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43.
Bellanca, J. A. (2010). Enriched Learning Projects: a practical pathway to 21st century skills. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
203
Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., Moller, S., & Parker, A. D. (2015). The Relationships among High School STEM Learning Experiences and Students' Intent to Declare and Declaration of a STEM Major in College. Teachers College Record, 117(3), n3.
Bourn, D., & Neal, I. (2008). The global engineer: Incorporating global skills within UK higher education of engineers. Report for the DFID Development Awareness Fund project on: “Promoting Development Awareness through dialogue and partnership exploration: UK Engineering Higher Education”.
Boy, G. A. (2013, August). From STEM to STEAM: toward a human-centred education, creativity & learning thinking. In Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (p. 3). ACM.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out‐of‐school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373-1388.
Brisson, L., Eisenkraft, A., Flatow, I., Friedman, A., Kirsch, J., Macdonald, M., & Witte, J. (2010). Informal science education policy: Issues and opportunities.
Brazell, J. (2013). STEM 2.0: Transformational Thinking about STEM for Education and Career Practitioners. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 29(2), 20-33.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387.
Brown, J. (2016). The Case for Investing in Out-of-School Learning as a Core Strategy in Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Retrieved from June 8, 2016: http://www.stemedcoalition.org/2016/04/27/the-case-for-investing-in-out-of-school-learning-as-a-core-strategy-in-improving-stem-education/
Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100-107.
California Department of Education Publication. (2017). Characteristics of Middle Grade Students. Retrieved from http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/documentlibrary/characteristicsmg.aspx#top
Cantrell, P., & Ewing‐Taylor, J. (2009). Exploring STEM career options through collaborative high school seminars. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 295-303.
Capraro, R., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM Project-based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market. European Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science Technology Engineering Mathematics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Chen, X. (2009). Students Who Study Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in Postsecondary Education. Stats in Brief. NCES 2009-161. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533548.pdf
Chow, C. (2012). Learning from our global competitors: A comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan. World Economic Forum.
Chris, C. (2013). Learning with FIRST LEGO League. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 5118-5124). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2010). A content analysis of the use of mixed methods studies in engineering education. American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/a-content-analysis-of-the-use-of-mixed-methods-studies-in-engineering-education.pdf.
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). A retrospective analysis of STEM career Interest among mathematics and science academy students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(1), 45-58.
Cofré, H., González-Weil, C., Vergara, C., Santibáñez, D., Ahumada, G., Furman, M., ... & Pérez, R. (2015). Science teacher education in South America: The case of Argentina, Colombia and Chile. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 45-63.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 171-200.
Coxon, S. V. (2012). The malleability of spatial ability under treatment of a FIRST LEGO League-based robotics simulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 291-316.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. C. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, D., & Veenstra, C. (2014). Community Involvement in STEM Learning. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 37(1), 30-33.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346.
de Winter, J. C. (2013). Using the Student’s t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(10), 1-12.
DeJamette, N. (2012). America's children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77-84.
Dewey, J. (1913). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. London, England: Macmillian.
Dewey, J. (1916). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dewey, J. (1937). What is learning. John Dewey: The Later Works, 11, 1935-1937.
Dickinson, T. S., & Butler, D. A. (2001). Reinventing the Middle School. Middle School Journal, 33(1), 7-13.
Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the “informal science education” ad hoc committee. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(2), 108-111.
Dubetz, T. A., & Wilson, J. A. (2013). Girls in Engineering, Mathematics and Science, GEMS: A science outreach program for middle-school female students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(3).
Duderstadt, J. J. (2007). Engineering for a Changing Road, A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice, Research, and Education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, University of Michigan.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
206
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(6), 1087.Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The Impact of After-School Programs that Promote Personal and Social Skills. Chicago, IL: CASEL.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. New York, NY: Carnegie Corp. of New York–Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.
eCYBERMISSION. (2018, March). About. Retrieved from eCYBERMISSION website https://www.ecybermission.com/about
Ejiwale J. A. (2012). Facilitating Teaching and Learning Across STEM Fields. Journal Of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 13(3), 87-94.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eris, O., Chen, H., Bailey, T., Engerman, K., Loshbaugh, H., Griffin, A., & Cole, A. (2005). Development of the Persistence in Engineering (PIE) survey instrument. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/david.taylor/Downloads/development-of-the-persistence-in-engineering-pie-survey-instrument.pdf.
Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Suny Press.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of science education and technology, 16(2), 171-190.
Espinosa, L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209-241.
ESSA. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
Fayer, S., Lacey, A., & Watson, A. (2017). STEM Occupations: Past, Present, And Future. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdff
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2010). The 95% solution. American Scientist, 98, 486-493.
Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2010). NC Student Learning Conditions Survey, Raleigh, NC: Author.
Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012). Student Attitudes toward STEM Survey – Middle and High School Students, Raleigh, NC: Author.
Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based OST activities in adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of educational research, 75(2), 159-210.
Freeman, K. E., Alston, S. T., & Winborne, D. G. (2008). Do Learning Communities Enhance the Quality of Students' Learning and Motivation in STEM?. The Journal of Negro Education, 77(3), 227-240.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Furlong A., & Biggart, A. (1999). Framing ‘choices’: A longitudinal study of occupational aspirations among 13-17 year-olds. Journal of Education and Work, 12(1), 21-35.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Middle school classroom predictors of science persistence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(7), 721-734.
Gallego, M. D., Bueno, S., & Noyes, J. (2016). Second Life adoption in education: A motivational model based on Uses and Gratifications theory. Computers & Education, 100, 81-93.
Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future (Leadership for the common good). Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in higher education, 53(2), 229-261.
Gerlach, J. (2012). “NSTA Report, STEM: Defying a Simple Definition,” NSTA WebNews Digest, April 11, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=59305
Green, M. (2007). Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966−2004 (NSF 07-307). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A. B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455-1456.
Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911-922.
Fitzgerald, A., & Gunstone, R. F. (2013). Embedding assessment within primary school science: a case study. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing Assessment in Science Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Policy (pp. 307 - 324). The Netherlands: Springer.
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), 47-69.
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of research in science teaching, 47(8), 978-1003.
Hein, G. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning.html
Hemmo, V. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. Paris: OECD.
Hite, R., Midobuche, E., Benavides, A. H., & Dwyer, J. (2018). Third Space Theory: A Theoretical Model for Designing Informal STEM Experiences for Rural Latina Youth. In T. T. Yuen, E. Bonner, & M. G. Arreguin-Anderson (Eds.), (Under)Represented Latin@s in STEM: Increasing Participation Throughout Education and the Workplace. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Holmquist, S. (2014). A multi-case study of student interactions with educational robots and impact on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) learning and attitudes. Retrieved from University of South Florida Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5043
Hossain, M. M., & G. Robinson, M. (2012). How to Motivate US Students to Pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Careers. Online Submission.
Hour of Code. (2018, September). Us. Retrieved from Hour of Code website https://hourofcode.com/us
Hughes, R. M., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979-2007.
Hypothesis Test: Difference Between Paired-means. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://stattrek.com/hypothesis-test/paired-means.aspx?Tutorial=AP
Implications for Future Research, Policy, and Practice in STEM Education. (2011). ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 87-126.
IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA) (2016). Technology and Engineering: Bring STEM to Life. Retrieved from: https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=90060&v=5e1d6c4c
Ivaniushina, V., & Alexandrov, D. (2014). Socialization Through Informal Education: OST Activities of Russian School Students. Educational Studies, 3, 174-196.
Jensen, F., & Sjaastad, J. (2013). A Norwegian Out-Of-School Mathematics Project’s Influence on Secondary Students’ STEM Motivation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1437-1461.
Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children's perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The Clearing House, 72(4), 224-230.
Kay, K. (2009). Middle schools preparing young people for 21st century life and work. Middle School Journal, 40(5), 41-45.
Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99-111.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679-692.
Kirkwood-Tucker, T. F. (2009). Visions in global education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European journal of psychology of education, 14(1), 23-40.
Krishnamurthi, A., Ballard, M., & Noam, G. G. (2014). Examining the Impact of Afterschool STEM Programs. Washington DC: Afterschool Alliance.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563–575.
Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. International handbook of science education, 1, 449-469.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91-113.
Leblebicioglu, G., Abik, N. M., Capkinoglu, E., Metin, D., Dogan, E. E., Cetin, P. S., & Schwartz, R. (2017). Science camps for introducing nature of scientific inquiry through student inquiries in nature: Two applications with retention study. Research in Science Education, 1-25. DOI 10.1007/s11165-017-9652-0
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2012). Flattening classrooms, engaging minds: Move to global collaboration one step at a time. Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Ed.
Lirmenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327.
Liu, E., Liu, C., & Wang, J. (2015). Pre-service science teacher preparation in China: Challenges and promises. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 29-44.
Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do OST activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental psychology, 33(2), 241-53.
Maltese, A., & Tai, R. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877-907.
Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2016). Why is the pipeline leaking? Experiences of young women in STEM vocational education and training and their adjustment strategies. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 8(1), 1-18.
Makhmasi, S., Zaki, R., Barada, H., & Al-Hammadi, Y. (2012). Students' interest in STEM education. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2012 IEEE (pp. 1-3).
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
211
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons: international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research (Sixth ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2012). Teaching & assessing 21st century skills. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Matterson, C., & Holman, J. (2012). Informal science learning review: Reflections from the Wellcome Trust. Retrieved from: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtp040859.pdf.
Maximizing the Impact of STEM Outreach [MISO]. (2011). S-STEM surveys. Retrieved from http://miso.ncsu.edu/articles/s-stem-survey
McCann, F. F. (2013). Engineers' self-perceptions and a strategy for fostering authentic images of engineers and scientists among elementary school students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman.
McNally, T. (2012). Innovative Teaching and Technology in the Service of Science: Recruiting the Next Generation of STEM Students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 49-58.
McNeal, R. B. Jr. (1995). OST activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of education, 68(1), 62-80.
Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the Pipeline: A Critical Review of STEM Workforce Literature. InterActions. UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(2), Article 4. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6zf09176
Modi, K., Schoenberg, J., & Salmond, K. (2012). Generation STEM: What girls say about science, technology, engineering, and math. New York, NY: Girl Scouts of the USA.
Mohr‐Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., ... & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students' interests in STEM via summer learning experiences: See Blue STEM camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291-301.
Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education. The Student The School The Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.tiesteach.org/documents/Jans%20pdf%20Attributes_of_STEM_Education-1.pdf
Mosatche, H. S., Matloff-Nieves, S., Kekelis, L., & Lawner, E. K. (2013). Effective STEM programs for adolescent girls: Three approaches and many lessons learned. Afterschool matters, 17, 17-25.
Navarro, R. L., Flores, L. Y., & Worthington, R. L. (2007). Mexican American middle school students' goal intentions in mathematics and science: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 320.
National Science Foundation-. (2014). National Science Board: Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing?. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2010). Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Newbill, P. L., Drape, T. A., Schnittka, C., Baum, L., & Evans, M. A. (2015). Learning across Space Instead of over Time: Redesigning a School-Based STEM Curriculum for OST. Afterschool Matters, 22, 4-12.
Nkhata, B. (2013). Career and Technical Education (CTE) Directors' Experiences with CTE's Contributions to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education Implementation. Retrieved from Virginia Tech ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/24203/Nkhata_B_D_2013.pdf?sequence=1
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.
OECD (2016). Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en
Ost, B. (2010). The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 923-934.
Oudeyer, P., & Kaplan, F. (2008). How can we define intrinsic motivation? 8th
International Conference on Epigenetic Robotics (Epirob08). Retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/420175/filename/epirob08OudeyerKaplan.pdf.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary educational psychology, 24(2), 124-139.
Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., Moore, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2010). A nation at risk: Increasing college participation and persistence among African American males to stimulate US global competitiveness. Journal of African American Males in Education (JAAME), 1(2), 105-124.
Palmer, R. T., Maramba, D. C., & Dancy, T. E. (2011). A qualitative investigation of factors promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in STEM. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(4), 491-504.
Paulsen, C. A. (2013). Implementing Out-of-School Time STEM Resources: Best Practices from Public Television. Afterschool Matters, 17, 27-35.
Peters, L. (2009). Global education: Using technology to bring the world to your students. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human development, 15(1), 1-12.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries–STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 37-48.
Popescu, C., & Diaconu, L. (2009). Informal Education and Productivity. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1328239
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (September 2010). Report to the President, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf
Price, J. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29, 901–910.
Regassa, L. B., & Morrison-Shetlar, A. I. (2009). Student Learning in a Project-Based Molecular Biology Course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 48, 58-67.
QSR International (2018). NVivo Software 11.1.1. Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational.com/product/nvivo-mac
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184.
Reynolds, B., Mehalik, M. M., Lovell, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Increasing student awareness of and interest in engineering as a career option through design-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 788-798.
Rittmayer, A. D., & Beier, M. E. (2008). Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. SWE-AWE CASEE Overviews, 1-12.
Rivoli, G. J., & Ralston, P. A. S. (2009). Elementary and middle school engineering outreach: Building a STEM pipeline. In B. Bernal, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Southeastern Section Conference. Retrieved from http://www.softwareeducationsupport.com/ASEE%20SE%20Conference%20Proceedings/Conference%20Files/ASEE2009/papers/P2009035RAL.PDF.
Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rothwell, J. (2013). The hidden STEM economy. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Ruby, A. (2006). Improving science achievement at high-poverty urban middle schools. Science Education, 90(6), 1005-1027.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Thi, R. (2014). The role of advanced high school coursework in increasing STEM career interest. Science Educator, 23(1), 1-13.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science education, 96(3), 411-427.
Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 5-11.
Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM Related After-School Program Activities and Associated Outcomes on Student Learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 309-322.Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231-300). Netherlands: Springer.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.
Schunk, D., Pintrich, P., & Meece, J. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Scott, C. E. (2012). An investigation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) focused high schools in the US. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5).
Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 175-183.
Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J. (2017). Student Attraction, Persistence and Retention in STEM Programs: Successes and Continuing Challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46-59.
Sladek, M. (1998). A report on the evaluation of the national science foundation’s informal science education program. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 19-32.
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom‐based practices. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 87-101.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
216
Soldner, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Inkelas, K. K., Garvey, J., & Robbins, C. (2012). Supporting students' intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: The role of living-learning programs among other social-cognitive factors. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 311-336.
Somerville-Midgette, K. N. (2014). An Engineering Journey: A Transcendental Phenomenological Study of African-American Female Engineers' Persistence. Retrieved from Liberty University ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2007&context=doctoral
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stevens, S., Andrade, R., & Page, M. (2016). Motivating young native American students to pursue STEM learning through a culturally relevant science program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 947-960.
Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1-44.
Sullenger, K. (2006). Beyond school walls: Informal education and the culture of science. Education Canada, 46(3), 15–18.
Swanborn, P. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Qi, Maltese A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21). (2016). Empowering Students For The Global Stage. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/news-events/p21blog/1959-empowering-students-for-the-global-stage
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) (2015). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) (2015b). State Framework on Global Education. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/Global_Education/P21_State_Framework_on_Global_Education_New_Logo.pdf
Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42-53.
Thompson, R. A., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2004). Academic Aptitude and Prior Knowledge as Predictors of Student Achievement in Introduction to Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 778-784.
Tofel-Grehl, C., Fields, D., Searle, K., Maahs-Fladung, C., Feldon, D., Gu, G., & Sun, C. (2017). Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 406-417.
Treagust, D. F., Won, M., Petersen, J., & Wynne, G. (2015). Science teacher education in Australia: Initiatives and challenges to improve the quality of teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 81-98.
Trochim, W. M. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A qualitative investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 275-314.
U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). (2017). STEM Occupation: Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf
Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why and how. Psychology of learning and motivation, 57(2), 147-181.
Varnado, T. E. (2005). The effects of a technological problem solving activity on first lego league participants' problem solving style and performance (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
VanMeter-Adams, A., Frankenfeld, C. L., Bases, J., Espina, V., & Liotta, L. A. (2014). Students who demonstrate strong talent and interest in STEM are initially attracted to STEM through extracurricular experiences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 687-697.
Vianna, E., & Stetsenko, A. (2006). Embracing History through Transforming It Contrasting Piagetian versus Vygotskian (Activity) Theories of Learning and Development to Expand Constructivism within a Dialectical View of History. Theory & psychology, 16(1), 81-108.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf
Von Culin, K. R., Tsukayama, E., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Unpacking grit: Motivational correlates of perseverance and passion for long-term goals. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 306-312.
Wagner, T., (2008). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need- And What We Can Do about It. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Watters, J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Developing Motivation to Teach Elementary Science: Effect of Collaborative and Authentic Learning Practices in Preservice Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301-321.
Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1081–1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831213488622
Weber, K. (2011). Role Models and Informal STEM-Related Activities Positively Impact Female Interest in STEM. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3), 18-21.
Weber, K. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and participation in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18-33.
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46-53.
Whalen, D. F., & Shelley II, M. C. (2010). Academic success for STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and research, 11(1/2), 45-60.
White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1-9.
Williams-Watson, S. (2017). Persistence among Minority STEM Majors: A Phenomenological Study. Retrieved from the University of Phoenix ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1916889983?pq-origsite=gscholar
Woolnough, B. E. (2000). Authentic science in schools? An evidence-based rationale. Physics Education, 35(4), 293-300.
Woolnough B. (1994). Factors affecting students’ choice of science and engineering. International Journal of Science Education, 16(6),659-676.
Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Why students choose physics, or reject it. Physics Education, 29(6), 368-374.
Wyss, V. L., Heulskamp, D., & Siebert, C. J. (2012). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 501-522.Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Solmon, M.A. (2003). Motivational climates in ten teachers’ elementary physical education classes: An achievement goal theory approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 71–92.
Young, D. J., Fraser, B. J., & Woolnough, B. E. (1997). Factors affecting student career choice in science: An Australian study of rural and urban schools. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 195-214.
Zimmerman, T. G., Johnson, D., Wambsgans, C., & Fuentes, A. (2011). Why Latino high school students select computer science as a major: Analysis of a success story. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2), 1-17. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1993074
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12-19.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
220
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Recruitment Letter
Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s):
The STEM-based career fields are to grow by 17.0% by 2018 as reported by the U.S. Department of
Commerce in 2011. To help support the STEM pipeline, which had over a 4.5% lower employment rate
between 1994-2010 then non-STEM occupations in the United States, it is important to understand why
students who are interested in these career areas and what is motivating them. We are trying to learn how
participating in a STEM extracurricular activity affects their STEM persistence.
To gain this insight, your child would be asked to complete two anonymous, online surveys/questionnaire
and participate in a short interview as well as observations will be recorded during the activity sessions. No
information will be gathered that could personally identify your child, and we would ask that you not put
your name on the survey. The interviews will take place in a separate room during the students’ individual
working time. The interviews will not take place during teacher instruction or interrupt student support
from the instructor. The interviews will take no more than 15 minutes of your child’s time during the
course. Furthermore, the total time allocated for the surveys and interviews will be less than 45 minutes. By
your child participating in this study, they may help us better understand how we support student interest in
the STEM fields.
The research is not part of the course and while the instructor is allowing it to take place, it is not part of the
expectations and the instructor will not know who participates and who doesn’t. Participation is
completely voluntary. The participant is free to leave the study at any time they wish. Thank you for
your time and consideration in helping us answer this important question. If you have any questions, please
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
221
do not hesitate to call David C. Taylor at 724-601-5650. More information is provided on the back of this
paper about this study.
Sincerely,
David C. Taylor
Texas Tech University Doctoral Student
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
222
Appendix B
Consent to Participate
What is this project studying?
This study will help us learn about the factors that inspire students to pursue STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields. As a result of this study, we will
help develop a better understanding of why students are interested in STEM education.
From this knowledge, we will create best practices for inspiring students to enter STEM
fields. Informal STEM learning lessons are an extra activity; from the student’s
experiences in these lessons, we can learn why they choose this course of learning.
What would I do if I participate?
In this study, students will be asked to share their experiences, thoughts and opinions.
These will be shared in two (2) ways: 1) two confidential, on-line surveys/questionnaires
and 2) an interview. Some of the questions from the surveys and interview will be about
his or her experiences related to engineering and STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math) as a whole. Some questions will be about his or her thoughts.
Some will be about his or her interests, attitude and aptitude towards STEM. The
interviews will be audio recorded in order for us to obtain accurate information. The
interviews will take place during activities meetings in a separate room during the
student’s individual working time. The interviews will not take place during teacher
instruction or interrupt student support from the instructor. The interviews will take no
more than 15 minutes of your child’s time during the course. Furthermore, the total time
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
223
allocated for the surveys and interviews will be less than 30 minutes. A total of 45
minutes of your child’s time will be used throughout the course. Additionally, the
researchers may conduct observations of participants during activities directly related to
the study (i.e. during activity time). The researchers may take field-notes during this time
in order for us to obtain accurate information.
How will my child or me benefit from participating?
While no compensation, money or favoritism will be provided, your child will provide
the project with valuable information.
Can my child or I quit if I become uncomfortable?
Yes, absolutely. Your child’s involvement is completely voluntary. He or she may skip
any survey or interview questions he or she does not feel comfortable answering. He or
she can also stop answering questions at any time. He or she is free to leave the study at
any time. Participating is your choice. However, we do value any help you and your child
are able to provide. The research is not part of the extracurricular activity and while the
teacher is allowing it to take place, it is not part of the expectations and the teacher will
not know who participates and who doesn’t.
How long will participation take?
We are asking for a total of about 45 minutes of your student’s time of the time of the
course meetings.
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
224
How are you protecting privacy?
Your name and child’s name will not be connected to any documentation and any use of
this material in reports, publications or presentations will never be connected with your
child in this study without permission. No one other than the researchers associated with
this project will have access to the raw data. All related documentation will be stored
either in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office or on a password protected
computer. You and your child’s name and information will be kept confidential to the
research team. Teachers and other students will not be aware of your child’s
participation; only the school’s administrator in charge of extracurricular activities will
be aware of your child’s involvement. Mr. Morrow will be in charge of distributing and
collecting the documents at your school. Mr. Morrow will be the only person at school
with direct information of you and your child’s participation. By limiting access and
taking care not to identify your child during the study through limiting access to one
person at your school being aware of child’s participation, and the research team not
exposing your child to direct interactions with them that are obvious to peers and
teachers.
If my child or I have some questions about this study, whom can I ask?
David C. Taylor, a doctoral student at Texas Tech University, and Dr. Dan Carpenter, an
Assistant Professor of Education in Science Education within the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University, are running the study as research
related to doctoral studies at Texas Tech University. If you have any questions, you can
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
225
contact David C. Taylor at 724-601-5650 and [email protected], or Dr. Dan Carpenter
at 806-834-6660. TTU also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate
in research. You can ask them questions at 806-742-2064. You can also mail your
questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for
Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409 or email them at [email protected].
Engineering and Technology -0.104939 0.81684 0.192532 -0.720333 17 0.386222
21st Century Learning -0.04444 0.744469 0.175475 -0.2893 17 0.5783
Your Future -0.00463 0.821606 0.193653 -0.001167 17 0.595583
About Yourself -0.04444 0.611821 0.144209 -0.3613 17 0.4796
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
258
Table A.5
7th Grade Paired Means t Test Data
7th Grade Paired Means t test Scores
Section Mean SD SE T-Stat DF P-Value
Math 0.111 1.778 0.419 0.265 17 0.794
Science -1.388 4.461 1.051 -1.321 17 0.204
Engineering and Technology 1.277 5.062 1.193 1.071 17 0.299
21st Century Learning -1.166 4.018 0.947 -1.232 17 0.235
Your Future 0.555 4.091 0.964 0.576 17 0.572
About Yourself -1.055 2.235 0.527 -2.003 17 0.061
Table A.6
8th Grade Paired Means t Test Data
8th Grade Paired Means t test Scores
Section Mean SD SE T-Stat DF P-Value
Math -1.0 3.762 1.005 -0.995 13 0.338
Science -2.285 2.729 0.729 -3.133 13 0.008
Engineering and Technology
-0.071 3.771 1.008 0.071 13 0.945
21st Century Learning -3.674 0.982 0.509 13 0.619 3.674
Your Future -0.643 4.199 1.122 -0.573 13 0.577
About Yourself -0.071 1.384 0.37 0.193 13 0.85
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
259
Table A.7
All Subjects Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Data
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Math
1. -.500b 0.617
2. -1.908c 0.056
3. -2.399b 0.016
4. -.263c 0.793
5. -.644b 0.519
6. -1.756c 0.079
7. -1.048c 0.295
8. -.909c 0.364
Science
9. -.329b 0.742
10. -1.162b 0.245
11. -.983b 0.326
12. -.803b 0.422
13. -.565b 0.572
14. -.341b 0.733
15. -.680b 0.497
16. -.538c 0.591
17. -.925b 0.355
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
260
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Engineering and Technology
18. -.471b 0.637
19. -2.121c 0.034
20. -1.291c 0.197
21. -.991c 0.322
22. -.593b 0.553
23. -.870c 0.384
24. -.994c 0.32
25. -.420b 0.675
26. .000d 1
21st Century Learning
27. -1.761b 0.078
28. -.258b 0.796
29 -.258b 0.796
30. -.832c 0.405
31 -.258b 0.796
32. -.243c 0.808
33 -.404b 0.686
34. -.655c 0.513
35. -.842b 0.4
36. -.225b 0.822
37. -2.500b 0.012
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
261
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Your Future
1. -1.213b 0.225
2. -.836b 0.403
3. -.167c 0.867
4. -1.279c 0.201
5. .000d 1
6. -.188b 0.851
7. -.276b 0.783
8. -.440b 0.66
9. -.500b 0.617
10. -.607c 0.544
11. -.959b 0.337
12. -.688c 0.491
About Yourself
1. -.632b 0.527
2. -2.111c 0.035
3. -.333b 0.739
4. -1.184c 0.236
5. -.632c 0.527
6. .000d 1
7. -.294c 0.768
8. -.513c 0.608
9. -2.299c 0.022
10. -.660c 0.509 a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b. Based on negative ranks c. Based on positive ranks; d. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
262
Table A.8
Girls Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Data
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Math
1. .000b 1
2. -.816c 0.414
3. -1.890d 0.059
4. .000b 1
5. .000b 1
6. -1.134c 0.257
7. .000b 1
8. -1.342c 0.18
Science
9. -1.890c 0.059
10. -2.126c 0.033
11. -.749c 0.454
12. -.632c 0.527
13. -1.508c 0.132
14. -2.121c 0.034
15. -1.508c 0.132
16. -1.000d 0.317
17. -1.841c 0.066
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
263
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Engineering and Technology
18. .000b 1
19. -1.732d 0.083
20. -.577c 0.564
21. -.832c 0.405
22. -1.508c 0.132
23. -.302d 0.763
24. -.333c 0.739
25. -.378d 0.705
26. .000b 1
21st Century Learning
27. -.632c 0.527
28. -.816c 0.414
29 -0.5b 0.617
30. -.816d 0.414
31. .000c 1
32. -1.189c 0.235
33 -.378c 0.705
34. .000b 1
35. -.447c 0.655
36. -1.890c 0.059
37. -.302b 0.763
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
264
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Your Future
1. -1.508c 0.132
2. -0.98b 0.922
3. -.921c 0.357
4. -.378d 0.705
5. -.816d 0.414
6. -1.414c 0.157
7. -.816c 0.414
8. -.333d 0.739
9. -1.342c 0.18
10. .000b 1
11. -1.518c 0.129
12. -.905d 0.366
About Yourself
1. -1.414d 0.157
2. -1.414c 0.157
3. -.447d 0.655
4. -.378c 0.705
5. -.577c 0.564
6. .000b 1
7. -.322d 0.748
8. -.378c 0.705
9. -1.414c 0.157
10. .000b 1 a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b. Based on negative ranks; c. Based on positive ranks; d. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
265
Table A.9
Boys Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Data
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Math
1. -.212b 0.832
2. -.344c 0.731
3. -.192b 0.848
4. -.351c 0.726
5. -.231b 0.817
6. -.024b 0.981
7. -.036b 0.972
8. -.159c 0.873
Science
9. -.369c 0.712
10. -.194b 0.846
11. -.423b 0.672
12. -.072c 0.942
13. -.037b 0.971
14. .000d 1
15. -.074c 0.941
16. -.122c 0.903
17. -.217b 0.828
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
266
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Engineering and Technology
18. -.378b 0.705
19. -.333c 0.739
20. -.037b 0.971
21. .000d 1
22. -.179b 0.858
23. -.332b 0.74
24. .000d 1
25. .000d 1
26. -.258c 0.796
21st Century Learning
27. -.189b 0.85
28. .000d 1
29 -.302c 0.763
30. -.302c 0.763
31 -.500c 0.617
32. 0.000b 1
33 -.225b 0.822
34. -.351c 0.726
35. -.538c 0.591
36. -.034b 0.973
37. .000d 1
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
267
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Your Future
1. .000d 1
2. -.098b 0.922
3. -.355c 0.723
4. -.216b 0.829
5. -.421b 0.674
6. -.081b 0.935
7. .000d 1
8. -.226c 0.821
9. -.096c 0.923
10. -.535c 0.593
11. -.233b 0.816
12. -.504c 0.614
About Yourself
1. .000d 1
2. -.500c 0.617
3. .000d 1
4. -.462c 0.644
5. -.277b 0.782
6. .000d 1
7. .000d 1
8. -.513c 0.608
9. -.249c 0.803
10. -.655b 0.512 a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b. Based on negative ranks; c. Based on positive ranks; d. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
268
Table A.10
6th Grade Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Data
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Math
1. .000b 1
2. -.577c 0.564
3. -1.414c 0.157
4. .000b 1
5. -1.000d 0.317
6. -1.000d 0.317
7. -1.000d 0.317
8. .000b 1
Science
9. .000b 1
10. -.577c 0.564
11. .000b 1
12. .000b 1
13. .000b 1
14. -1.000c 0.317
15. -.577c 0.564
16. -1.000c 0.317
17. -.577d 0.564
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
269
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Engineering and Technology
18. .000b 1
19. -1.000d 0.317
20. -1.000c 0.317
21. -1.000c 0.317
22. -1.414d 0.157
23. -1.000d 0.317
24. .000b 1
25. -1.414d 0.157
26. .000b 1
21st Century Learning
27. -1.414d 0.157
28. -1.000d 0.317
29 -1.000b 0.317
30. .000b 1
31 -1.000c 0.317
32. 0.000d 1
33 .000b 1
34. .000b 1
35. -1.000d 0.317
36. .000b 1
37. .000b 1
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
270
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Your Future
1. .000b 1
2. -1.342c 1.8
3. .000b 1
4. -.816c 0.414
5. .000b 1
6. -.577d 0.564
7. -1.732d 0.083
8. -1.000c 0.317
9. .000b 1
10. -1.342c 0.18
11. .000b 1
12. .000b 1
About Yourself
1. -1.000c 0.317
2. -1.000d 0.317
3. -1.000c 0.317
4. .000b 1
5. .000b 1
6. .000b 1
7. -.447d 0.655
8. .000b 1
9. .000b 1
10. .000b 1 a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b. Based on negative ranks; c. Based on positive ranks; d. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
271
Table A.11
7th Grade Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Data
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Math
1. -.707b 0.48
2. -2.179c 0.029
3. -1.811b 0.07
4. -.333b 0.739
5. -1.291b 0.197
6. -1.155c 0.248
7. .000d 1
8. -.378c 0.705
Science
9. .000d 1
10. -2.070c 0.038
11. -1.645c 0.1
12. -1.299c 0.194
13. -.649c 0.516
14. .000d 1
15. -1.473c 0.141
16. -.333b 0.739
17. -1.150c 0.25
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
272
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Engineering and Technology
18. -.535c 0.593
19. -1.732b 0.083
20. -.333b 0.739
21. -1.604b 0.109
22. -.525b 0.599
23. -1.265b 0.206
24. -1.732b 0.083
25. -.333b 0.739
26. -.378b 0.705
21st Century Learning
27. -1.732c 0.083
28. -.302c 0.763
29 0.000b 1
30. -.378b 0.705
31 -0.816c 0.317
32. -1.000c 0.444
33 -.707c 0.48
34. -.378b 0.705
35. -1.459c 0.145
36. -.264b 0.792
37. -2.111c 0.035
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
273
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Your Future
1. -1.387c 0.166
2. -0.302d 0.763
3. .000d 1
4. -.632b 0.527
5. -.302b 0.763
6. -.351b 0.725
7. -.849b 0.396
8. -1.667c 0.096
9. -.302c 0.763
10. -.816b 0.414
11. -.277c 0.782
12. -.707b 0.48
About Yourself
1. -.447c 0.655
2. -1.633c 0.102
3. .000d 1
4. -.302c 0.763
5. -1.633c 0.102
6. .000d 1
7. -.368c 0.713
8. .000d 1
9. -1.994c 0.046
10. -.577c 0.564 a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b. Based on negative ranks; c. Based on positive ranks; d. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
274
Table A.12
8th Grade Wilcoxon signed-Rank Test Data
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Math
1. .000b 1
2. -.707c 0.48
3. -1.000d 0.317
4. -.707c 0.48
5. -.378c 0.705
6. -1.155c 0.248
7. -1.186c 0.236
8. -.776c 0.438
Science
9. -1.134c 0.257
10. -1.633c 0.102
11. -1.081c 0.279
12. -1.633c 0.102
13. -1.732c 0.083
14. -1.667c 0.096
15. -.707c 0.48
16. .000b 1
17. -2.000c 0.046
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
275
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Engineering and Technology
18. .000b 1
19. -2.000d 0.046
20. -1.342d 0.18
21. -.632c 0.527
22. -1.265c 0.206
23. -.302d 0.763
24. -.264c 0.792
25. -.378c 0.705
26. -.333c 0.739
21st Century Learning
27. .000b 1
28. -.577d 0.564
29 -1.000b 0.317
30. -.816d 0.414
31 -.707c 0.48
32. -1.633c 0.102
33 .000b 1
34. -.577d 0.564
35. -1.342d 0.18
36. -.816c 0.414
37. -1.342c 0.18
Texas Tech University, David C. Taylor, May 2019
276
Question Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Your Future
1. .000b 1
2. -0.632b 0.527
3. -.144d 0.885
4. -.816d 0.414
5. -.447c 0.655
6. -.577c 0.564
7. -.828c 0.408
8. -.632d 0.527
9. -.577c 0.564
10. -.513c 0.608
11. -1.414c 0.157
12. -.302d 0.763
About Yourself
1. -1.000d 0.317
2. -1.000c 0.317
3. .000b 1
4. -1.633c 0.102
5. -1.414d 0.157
6. .000b 1
7. -.276d 0.783
8. -.557c 0.577
9. -1.342c 0.18
10. -.272c 0.785 a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; b. Based on negative ranks; c. Based on positive ranks; d. The sum of negative ranks equals the sum of positive ranks