Presentation at the Colloquium on P-12 STEM Education Research August 2011 Authors:

1. The Role of Informal Science Programs on Middle School Students’ Perceptions of Science and Engineering Presentation at the Colloquium on P-12 STEM Education Research August 2011 Authors: Roxanne Hughes, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory/Florida State University hughes@magnet.fsu.edu Kristen Molyneaux, University of Wisconsin, Madison Pat Dixon, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory This study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation Division of Materials Research through DMR 0654118.

2. Underrepresentation in SE • Women represent less than 1/3 of SE degrees and careers (NSF, 2007) • This number is significantly lower for minority women and men (NSF, 2007) • Research suggests that this is due, in part, to minority students’ inability to fully identify with science and engineering (AAUW, 2010; Carlone, 2003; Olitsky, 2006; Tan, Calabrese-Barton, 2008)

3. Response to Underrepresentation • Single gender programs have increased in number due to changes in NCLB and Title IX (Ferrara & Ferrara, 2008; Spielhagen, 2008) despite reservations from women’s organizations like NOW and AAUW • Informal education programs have also utilized this strategy along with other tactics to help address the inability of women and minorities to identify with science • The goal of many informal education programs has been to expose students to STEM professionals of different races, ethnicities and genders so that all students can see themselves succeeding in STEM • In the summer of 2010, the NHMFL ran two camps: an all-girls SE camp (AGSC) and a co-educational SE camp • Both of these camps aimed to expose students to careers in SE and to help them better identify with SE by exposing them to many different SE professionals and their careers

4. Research Questions • How do these two informal science programs affect students views and perceptions of scientists/engineers and SE fields? • How does a single gender program compare to a co-educational program in its effects on students’ views and perceptions of scientists/engineers and SE fields? • Are there any lessons to be learned for other informal agencies regarding the activities that appear to be the most effective in increasing minority students’ persistence in SE?

5. Cases • Two camps summer of 2010 • All-girls Science Camp (AGSC) • Co-ed Science Camp (CEC); 13 girls, 14 boys • Both camps introduced participants to scientists and engineers and their careers • AGSC provided broader exposure • CEC focused on sustainable engineering • Students were selected based on level of interest (application) and teacher recommendation

6. Middle School focus • Middle school is crucial time when identity formations are occurring, particularly in academic disciplines (Tan & Calabrese Barton, 2008) • Time when students try on different identities as they try to form their own view of themselves (Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz, 2000). • School science can reproduce stereotypes of science (i.e. Albert Einstein) (Carlone, 2004) • Informal Educational Programs can address perceptions and expose students to real SE professionals in ways that school science cannot (Watermeyer & Stevenson, 2010)

7. Identity within Community of Practice • Calabrese Barton’s conception of liberatory science education • Individuals who are marginalized by the culture of science can only become legitimate participants when they become liberated from the stereotypical view of science as white, middle class, heterosexual and male. • Must have opportunity to challenge stereotypes, witness positionality in science, and gain practice using the language of science. • Camps perceived as community of practice within SE (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998)

8. Research • Mixed methods • Participant observations • Pre and post survey • Quantitative portion – measured self-efficacy in science and engineering and science and engineering (SE) identity (AWE, 2008) • Interviews with participants to represent varying ages, races, SE interest level, and SES

9. Demographics

10. Pre-data • Participants in both camps had similar levels of confidence regarding their ability to succeed in a science career and their confidence in solving math problems; interest levels in science and engineering • Significant differences between camps regarding whether anyone had spoken to them about necessary required courses for success in STEM (CEC had more participants receive advice than AGSC) • All of the participants from both camps said that the camp experience was positive

11. Perceptions of Scientists • Based on responses on the pre-survey, 37 of the total campers (57) had met a scientist before (65%). • AGSC = 19/32 • CEC 18/25 • Students were asked to describe what they thought of when they pictured a scientist on the pre and post survey • These responses were coded according to the following categories • positive view (i.e. Just like me, affective, cognitive) • stereotypical view (i.e. lab coat, test tubes, crazy hair) • stereotype AND male.

12. Perception of Scientists tallies

13. Qualitative Evidence of Changes in Perceptions of Scientists for AGSC Participants

14. Quantitative and Qualitative contradictions • Perception of scientists – Margo • Pre survey response = “Someone with a white lab coat, safety glasses, pulled back hair.” • Post survey response = “A looming figure in a white lab coat, with a beaker.” • Post interview response to what type of person becomes a scientist: “I think that you have to be observant, you pay attention, a perfectionist, and intelligent, of course” • All of which describe her and yet her description of a scientist does not sound like someone she would identify with. What does this contradiction say (if anything) about identity?

15. Self-Efficacy and Science Identity Only the AGSC participants had a positive significant difference in both their self-efficacy and science/math identity scores post camp. Alarmingly, the CEC participants, science/math identity score actually decreased after camp, although this result was not significant.

16. Race/Ethnicity and gender • No significant differences based on race/ethnicity (one-way ANOVA) • When survey responses were separated by gender via t-tests, there was a positive significant difference between pre and post scores for the female participants in the following categories: self-efficacy, science and math identity.

17. Conclusions • Based on the data collected in this study, it would appear that AGSC was more effective in helping its participants better identify with science and see themselves as potential scientists • On a whole, both programs were effective in helping female participants better identify with SE fields • (It should be noted that the male participants had a significantly higher pre Self efficacy and SM identity score than the female participants, which mirrors larger studies on these concepts in the middle school population.)

18. Implications • This study adds to the current debate on single gender education. In our study, the single gender camp had a significant positive impact on students’ perceptions of scientists and engineers and their own perception of fitting in with these careers. • This study also adds to the current dialogue regarding the role that informal science agencies can have on minority students’ (including women’s) ability to identify with scientists and engineers. • Exposing students, particularly female students to SE professionals (including women and minorities) and their careers can improve their ability to see themselves within these careers. • The results indicate that the length of the camp, diversity of participants, and the diversity of participating scientists and engineers are important to a camp’s overall effectiveness in addressing students’ conceptions of SE and their ability to fit in with these fields

19. References American Association of University Women. (2009, July). Separated by sex: Title IX and single-sex education (Position paper). Washington, DC: AAUW Public Policy and Government Relations Department. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/actionpages/upload/single-sex_ed111.pdf American Association of University Women. (2010, February). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report). Washington, DC: Author. AWE, 2008. Assessing Women and Men in Engineering website, Retrieved March 3, 2008 (http://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/secured/director/precollege/pre_college.aspx Barab, S.A. & Hay, K.E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102. Brickhouse, N.W., Lowery, P., Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441-458. Buck, G.A.; Plano Clark, V.L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y., & Cerda-Lizarrage, P., (2007). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Science Education, 92, p 688-707. Calabrese Barton, A. (1997). Liberatory science education: Weaving connections between Feminist theory and science education. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(2), 141-163. Carlone, H.B. (2002). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(4), 392-414. Chang, K. (2009, November 23). White House pushes science and math education. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Ferrara, M., & Ferrara, P. (2008). Good news and bad news: Student behavior in single-sex classes. In F. R. Spielhagen (Ed.), Debating single-sex education: Separate and equal? (pp. 70-82). Baltimore, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Fields, D.A. (2009). What do students gain from a week at science camp? Youth perceptions and the design of an immersive, research-oriented astronomy camp. International Journal of Science and Education. 31(2), 151-171. Gandy, K. (2006, March 28). Separation threatens girls. USA Today. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from http://www.now.org/issues/education/060328op-ed.html. Gee, J.P. (2000-2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125. Jayaratne, T.E., Thomas, N.G., & Trautmann, M. (2003). Intervention program to keep girls in the science pipeline: Outcome differences by ethnic status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 393-414. Lave, J & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. Leggon, C.B. (2006) Women in science: Racial and ethnic differences and the differences they make. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31:325-333. Painter, J., Jones, M.G., Tretter, T.R., & Kubasko, D. (2006). Pulling back the curtain: Uncovering and changing students’ perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 181-190. Settlage, J., & Southerland, S.A., (2007). Teaching science to all children: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Taylor & Francis. Spielhagen, F. R. (2008). Having it our way: Students speak out on single-sex classes. In F. R. Spielhagen (Ed.), Debating single-sex education: Separate and equal (pp. 32-46). Baltimore, MD: Rowan & Littlefield. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.