by Althea Need Kaminske

Women and members of marginalized groups are underrepresented in STEM (1). Women make up less than a quarter of those working in STEM in the USA (2). Within that group, women of color receive less than 5% of STEM bachelor’s degrees in the US (2). According to the National Research Council, one of the drivers of inequity in STEM education is the lack of access to STEM learning experiences that provide the foundational background knowledge and skills necessary for students to engage successfully in college-level STEM coursework and to foster a sense of belonging in STEM (3). In other words, one of the reasons why some groups of students may seem more interested and motivated to pursue STEM coursework at the university level is simply because they have had more opportunities to engage meaningfully with STEM research and projects.

Researchers at the American Museum of Natural History in New York city studied how an informal science education program through the museum helped to foster interest in STEM fields for students in the Lang Program (4). The Lang Program is operated out of the American Museum of Natural History and recruits applicants who are interested in science but who may not have opportunities for informal science learning in their communities. The Lang Program aims to create gender-balanced and ethnical diverse cohorts and at least 60% of participants are near or below the poverty level.

In this study, 17 students took part in an authentic science research project focusing on landscape genetics. Across Summer and Fall sessions of the program students learned lab and fieldwork skills and investigated original research questions. As part of the program they collected specimens from locations surrounding New York Harbor and engaged in laboratory work that involved “DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, and DNA sequencing to identify the organisms” (4) (I am not a biologist, but I understand from my biology colleagues that these are common laboratory skills that students would learn in university-level coursework). Additionally, they presented their findings at a poster symposium for the program.

Habig and Gupta (4) used the interest development model (5) (which I’ve written about previously) to guide their study. The interest development model outlines four phases of interest development.

1. Triggered situational interest is “characterized by the development of a novel interest, which is “triggered” by an environmental stimulus that captures the attention of the learner” (4). This type of interest is externally supported and may or may not result in further interest development. For example, a baking-soda volcano demonstration in chemistry.

2. Maintained situational interest is “characterized by attention to an environmental stimulus over a sustained duration of time” (4). While still externally supported, this type of interest can be fostered by providing students with opportunities to re-engage with the material. For example, not just watching a demonstration of a baking-soda volcano, but having the student make one themselves and ask questions about how it works.

3. Emerging individual interest which is “characterized by a predisposition to reengage with disciplinary content over time”, though it still requires some external support (4). This type of interest is more internally supported, with students perceiving more value with the content area, and requires opportunities for students to reengage with material and ask questions. For example, a student’s interest in chemistry may have started with a baking soda volcano, but repeated opportunities to engage with chemistry and to find value in the process is what will foster a developing individual interest.

4. Well-developed individual interest which is “characterized by an enduring predisposition to reengage with content over time” and is distinguished by emerging individual interest by the degree of independence one has (4). For example, a student who has a well-developed individual in chemistry may feel comfortable and confident in their ability to read and understand books and papers about chemistry as well as their ability to conduct basic laboratory procedures, while someone with an emerging individual interest may still seek help in these endeavors. Importantly, there is also a high perceived value with well-developed interest so that students are interested in learning in and of itself (5).

Habig and Gupta gave the students surveys at the beginning (baseline), middle (midpoint), and end (post survey) of the program to measure 1) how competent students felt in their science skills and practices, 2) their interest in scientific research, and 3) their engagement in science outside the scope of the program. They also conducted structured interviews with students at the end of the program to better understand their interest development. They developed a rubric to assess student’s interest development by looking at frequency of engagement, depth of engagement, voluntary engagement, and capacity for independent engagement.

The survey revealed that students’ self-reported level of competence in science skills increased steadily through the study, with competence significantly higher at the midpoint survey than baseline and significantly higher at post survey than midpoint. A similar pattern emerged for students’ engagement with science outside of the program, however the only significant difference was from post survey to baseline. Finally, based on the analysis of the structured interview, Habig and Gupta were able to classify the students’ level of interest development (4). Given that the requirements for the program were that students have an interest in science, it is unsurprising that none of the students were categorized as having triggered situational interest by the end of the program. Two students were categorized as having maintained situational interest . These students expressed interest in participating in science program again if given the opportunity, but were less confident about their ability to do science activities on their own. The majority of the students, 15, were categorized as having emerging individual interest. These students demonstrated mastery over the content, engagement with science outside of the program, and a strong desire to continue to engage with science in the future. For example, one student reported “…before doing these research projects, I wouldn’t really so much look into science articles… it never really crosses my mind. But, doing these research projects and searching up articles, you know, I realized that there’s such fascinating research out there that I would like to learn more about and especially now. Sometimes my parents and I will discuss biology and like I’ll search up articles and I’ll show it to them.” Finally, 2 students were categorized as having well-developed individual interest . These students scored highly in every dimension of interest - frequency of engagement, depth of understanding, voluntary engagement, and propensity for independent reengagement. For example, one student responded “I write for a teen science journal … I recently wrote an article about climate change and lobsters.” (4)

This research provides a really useful tool for understanding how interest, particularly interest in STEM, can be supported. I think there were several key aspects of this program that helped to make it successful. First, it focused on authentic science research, which the authors defined as “experiences in which students engage as practitioners of science, that is, where they develop research questions and use specific tools and practices of science in real-world contexts to collect and analyze data, and to communicate their findings.” (4). Second, this was supported by training in skills and background knowledge through workshops. Finally, the program took place from July through December, allowing for both the development of foundational background knowledge as well as spacing of material.

References

1. Kricorian, K., Seu, M., Lopez, D., Ureta, E. & Equils, O. (2020). Factors influencing participation of underrepresented students in STEM fields: Matched mentors and mindsets. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1-9. https://dio.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00219-2

2. Ong, M., Smith, J. M., & Ko, L. T. (2018). Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: marginal and central spaces for persistence and success. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 206-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea021417

3. National Research Council (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. The National Academic Press.

4. Habig, B. & Gupta, P. (2021). Authentic STEM research, practices of science, and interest development in an informal science education program. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00314-y

5. Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4