Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Evaluation of the long term impact of a yearlong university high school laboratory research program on students’ interest in science and perceptions of science coursework
(USC Thesis Other)
Evaluation of the long term impact of a yearlong university high school laboratory research program on students’ interest in science and perceptions of science coursework
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EVALUATION OF THE LONG TERM IMPACT OF A YEARLONG UNIVERSITY
HIGH SCHOOL LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ON STUDENTS’
INTEREST IN SCIENCE AND PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE COURSEWORK
by
Terry Le
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION
December 2010
Copyright 2010 Terry Le
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not be possible without my mentor and project adviser, Dr. Roberta
Diaz Brinton, whose encouragement, guidance and support for the past 10 years have
helped me to develop a passion for science education.
I am indebted to Mike Cole and my colleagues at the Laboratory of Comparative Human
Cognition for their support and the invaluable knowledge they have bestowed upon me.
Lastly, I am very appreciative of the support and time of my thesis committee, Dr
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Dr. Anthony Maddox, and Dr. Seema Gaur for their time,
constructive comments, and commitment to guiding me through this process of
completing my thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Significance of the Study 8
Methodology 8
Definition of Terms 9
Organization of the Study 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
Underrepresentation of Students in STEM Education 12
Different Interventions to Address STEM Underrepresentation 17
Inquiry Based Learning in Science Interventions 20
Engaging Science Through Research in University Laboratories 24
Science Technology and Research (STAR) Program 27
Chapter 3: Research Overview 33
Introduction 33
Research Questions 33
Research Design 34
Population and Sample 34
Instrumentation 39
Data Collection 41
Data Analysis 42
Chapter 4: Results 43
Summary 61
Chapter 5: Discussion 62
Implications 65
Recommendations for Future Research 68
Limitations 69
Conclusions 69
References 71
Appendix 78
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 2008 California Standards Test Scores 29
Table 2: Distribution of Survey Responses by Year of Participation 36
Table 3: Average and Standard Deviation of Participant Report on
Preparedness for Undergraduate Science Courses
58
Table 4: Average and Standard Deviation of Participant Report on Interest
to Develop Stronger Scientific Literacy
61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of Participant Survey Responses Relative to Total
Number of Students Within Cohorts
37
Figure 2: Survey Response Distribution by Gender 38
Figure 3: Survey Response Distribution by Ethnicity 38
Figure 4: Survey Response Distribution by Participant Status 39
Figure 5: Interest in Pursuing a Science Degree After Completing the STAR
Program
44
Figure 6: STAR Program Influence on Interest to Continue Scientific Study in
College
45
Figure 7: STAR Program Influence on Interest to Continue Scientific Study in
College
46
Figure 8: Evaluation of the STAR Program's Influence on Improving
Understanding of Scientific Principles
50
Figure 9: Evaluation of the STAR Program's Influence on Improving
Knowledge of Scientific Techniques and Procedures
50
Figure 10: Comparison of Participant Evaluation of Course Rigorousness 51
Figure 11: Comparison of All Participants Responses to Rigorousness of
STAR and AP Biology
52
Figure 12: Comparison of All Participants’ Responses to Rigorousness of
STAR and AP Chemistry
53
Figure 13: Comparison of 1991 - 2005 Participant's Responses to
Rigorousness of STAR and AP Biology
54
Figure 14: Comparison of 1991 - 2005 Participant's Responses to
Rigorousness of STAR and AP Chemistry
55
Figure 15: Comparison of 2006 - 2009 Participant's Responses to
Rigorousness of STAR and AP Biology
56
Figure 16: Comparison of 2006-2009 Participant's Responses to Rigorousness
of STAR and AP Chemistry
57
Figure 17: Participant Report on Preparedness for Undergraduate Science
Courses
58
ABSTRACT
Compared to other developed nations, America’s ranking continues to drop in math and
science education. If America intends to develop a strong scientifically literate citizenry
to fuel is technology driven economy, it must provide greater investments in effective
STEM intervention programs for underrepresented students in secondary education.
University research programs for high school students have shown positive effects in
promoting scientific interest and among students. This focus of this study is the Science
Technology and Research Program (STAR) that has existed for 20 years. The STAR
Program is a partnership with USC and Francisco Bravo High School, a public high
school in Los Angeles, offering students the opportunity to engage in a yearlong
university laboratory research experience integrated into their curriculum. Using the
responses from surveys submitted by former participants of the STAR Program,
researchers found that participants developed significant interest in pursuing science and
developing a stronger scientific literacy after leaving the program. Participants also
report being well prepared for their science curriculum in college as a result of their
experience in STAR. The program’s level of rigorousness was reported to be on par in
comparison to other advanced science courses. The STAR Program is a proven model
for promoting learning and interest in science and is a viable model to help increase,
prepare, and retain the number of students entering postsecondary education with a
STEM interest.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
“Educate to Innovate” is the latest effort by the United States government to fund
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. This campaign,
launched in November 2009, underscores decades of commitment and billions of dollars
in investments into STEM education as a national priority. Since the report A Nation at
Risk was published in 1983, citizens and policy makers have become aware of the
growing risk facing America in regards to education. Presently, America’s economic
leadership in the global arena is challenged by nations with technology driven economies.
In 1992, reports such as Enabling the Future have charged the United States government
to respond to the urgency of reforming STEM education in order to maintain its
economic leadership among other nations living in a world during the technology age
through the development of a scientifically literate society (American Association for the
Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1990; National Research Commission Council,
1995).
In order to fulfill these demands, the United States must have a clear plan to
extend STEM education programs to groups that have been marginalized and
underrepresented. Reports have continued to highlight the consistent underrepresentation
of talent among female, African American, Hispanics, and Native Americans within
STEM fields, making these groups the largest untapped source of STEM participation
(Changing America: The New Force of Science and Engineering, 1989). In 2005, the
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported a decline in percentage
of STEM degrees awarded, from 32% in 1994-1995 to 27% in 2003-2004. Moreover,
despite efforts to increase enrollment of women and underrepresented minorities in post
secondary education, degree attainment among Hispanics and Blacks continue to drop
and lag behind Whites and Asians. In 2001, Hispanics and Blacks accounted for 16.3%
and 15.5%, respectively of the total number bachelor’s degree awarded in STEM-related
fields, while Whites and Asians account for 29.5% and 31.2%, respectively (U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009; U.S. GAO,
2006). Thus, Whites and Asians earn twice as many STEM degrees as their
underrepresented counterparts.
Background of the Problem
Various STEM intervention programs have reported success in addressing the
STEM education challenge outside the classroom. In response to improving science
literacy rates of students, the National Education Standards (National Academy of
Sciences [NAS], 1995), as well as the AAAS Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science
Literacy (AAAS, 1993) has made scientific inquiry a priority in how students understand
science. Using inquiry to teach science requires students to generate their own questions
and concepts during the process of investigation and collection of scientific data.
Engaging students in hands-on laboratory activities facilitates student’s understanding of
scientific concepts, laws, principles, and theories that will provide opportunities to
exercise manipulation skills and scientific reasoning (National Research Council, 2000;
Polman & Pea, 2001). Thus, AAAS (2001) recommends that effective education for
science literacy use inquiry based learning.
Proponents of using inquiry based learning in STEM education have been
consistently challenged by proponents of direct instruction. Proponents of direct
instruction question the validity and effectiveness of inquiry based learning, citing
limitations in the cognitive architecture of individuals and engagement in unguided and
incomplete instruction (Kirshner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). However, these proponents of
direct instruction overlook the theoretical and empirical basis of constructivist approaches
to learning science (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, Chinn, 2007, D. Kuhn, 2007; Schmidt,
Loyens, van Gog, & Paas, 2007). The theoretical framework of constructivism supports
inquiry based learning, in which the process of learning is the dynamic integration of new
knowledge with prior knowledge such that meaning and understanding of knowledge is
perpetually constructed and reconstructed by the learner. Moreover, influences of the
environment and surrounding context play influential roles in the learning process. The
“situated” element of learning is important in understanding how learners make meaning
from and frame knowledge as a negotiated, social, and contextual process. Engaging in
activities of cognitive apprenticeship and communities of practice allows learners to
participate among experienced others to achieve learning within their zone of proximal
development (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).
Thus, inquiry based learning promotes science learning beyond isolated concepts and
principles, and towards a scientific process used by experts in exploiting the theoretical
model of constructivism.
Inquiry based learning has become the core of many STEM outreach and
interventions initiatives. Science outreach programs housed in university research
laboratories have consistently shown a positive influence on a student’s understanding
of the nature of science and scientific inquiry (Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003;
Kimbrough, 1995). When placed in authentic science environments, experts serve as role
models to develop the student’s interest in science and to consider science as a career
path. (Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, 2007; Atwater, Colson, & Simpson, 1999;
Gibson & Chase, 2002; Helm, Parker, & Russell, 1999; Richmond & Kurth, 1999;
Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2006). While the immediate benefits to these interventions
are apparent, little formal investigation has been conducted to explore the short- and
long-term effects of such programs and the permanence of scientific interest among
participants of these interventions (Fagen & Labov, 2007). More rigorous evidence is
needed to substantiate the effectiveness of these programs in materializing the end result
it seeks to attain.
There are plenty of studies across America providing one and two month research
opportunities to high school students (Knox, Moynihan, & Markowitz, 2003; Markowitz,
2004; Winkleby, Ned, Ahn, Koehler, & Kennedy, 2009; Atwater et al., 1999). These
studies support the effectiveness of using inquiry-based learning within authentic
laboratory settings to promote scientific understanding and interest in science.
Surrounding students in a scientific community allows for students to learn science, not
as an outsider through a textbook, but also developing an identity as a participant
contributing to a collective effort (Malone & Barabino, 2008). While these studies
provide convincing and consistent evidence supporting these interventions, there are
limited studies investigating the potential benefits of engaging students in longer-term,
connected investigations (Richmond & Kurth, 1999).
The Science, Technology, and Research (STAR) Program is a partnership
between the University of Southern California (USC) and Francisco Bravo Medical
Magnet High School of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). As a public
magnet school, Bravo HS specializes in health sciences curriculums to attract students to
its classrooms. Students applying to Bravo HS are selected based on matriculation from
a magnet school, having previously been on a waiting list in a magnet program, residing
in a neighborhood school that is predominately “racially isolated” and overcrowded, and
if they have siblings attending the same magnet school. Since Bravo HS first opened its
doors in 1990, STAR has recruited over 400 students into USC research laboratories in
its Health Science Campus to engage in yearlong internships as research assistants. The
unique partnership between USC and Bravo HS is unlike many summer research
programs. The STAR Program integrates the student’s research experience in into their
academic curriculum and removes barriers often faced by summer research programs.
Students are able to engage in long-term experiences in scientific laboratories and
participate in authentic research earlier in their academic career. The STAR Program
aims to capitalize on the cognitive, personal, and professional development
accompanying long term exposure to role models and communities of practice seen in
many yearlong undergraduate research programs (Hunter et al., 2006). In order to
facilitate the development of such benefits among students, the STAR Program utilizes a
site director at the USC Health Science Campus and an instructor at Bravo HS to
coordinate efforts to place students in laboratories with committed faculty, provide
responsible mentors to students, and engage students in meaningful scientific activities
inside their laboratories. The STAR program is a model for science education to expose
and promote science interest in students that can be scalable on a national scope at
universities all across America.
Statement of the Problem
There is a lack of understanding about the long-term effects of STEM intervention
programs as students progress through college and into graduate school or their careers.
Research on long term intervention programs for high school students provide
opportunities to learn more about how to create more effective STEM intervention
programs around university-high school partnerships. While sufficient studies exist
regarding the immediate benefits accompanying interventions that place students in
scientific laboratories, limited evidence exist supporting the long-term benefits of STEM
interventions. There is a need for greater understanding of elements involved in
promoting student understanding of the scientific process and principles, in addition to
sustaining student interest in pursuing science as a long term career goal through the
development of an effective model that can network students into STEM fields. Due to
this lack of understanding, it is difficult to recommend similar intervention models that
can be replicated and scalable across other university campuses. It is important to
accurately identify the effective elements that can be manipulated to increase the desired
effects of such interventions.
Research into high school summer research programs and undergraduate research
experiences offer only pieces to how laboratory experiences can benefit student science
learning and motivation to pursue a career in science. Studies with summer research
programs have shown consistent results in student learning and career decisions
(Atwater et al., 1999; Carter et al., 2009; Hunter et al., 2006; Knox et al., 2003; Lopatto,
2007; Markowitz, 2004; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Russell et al., 2007). However, these
programs are limited in scope in which students are allowed to engage in such
laboratories and the agents that participate within them. Yearlong undergraduate research
experiences provide students with valuable opportunities to retain student interest and
develop professional skills needed in STEM careers (Carter et al., 2009). However,
providing such rich learning opportunities at the college level can be too late for many
underrepresented minority groups in STEM education who are challenged by the
obstacles found during secondary education. While interventions seeking to improve the
pipeline for getting underrepresented minorities into STEM careers show reliable
promise, limitations exist in providing all the benefits accompanying both summer
research programs and undergraduate research experiences. The STAR Program seeks to
integrate the strengths of both interventions while removing the barriers and limitations
accompanying them.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the STAR Program in
its unique approach to providing high school students with laboratory research experience
integrated with their normal academic curriculum. While past studies and evaluations
has shown that STAR has been able to replicate similar immediate and short term
benefits of similar laboratory research programs, little is known of the long term
decisions and behaviors of STAR Program participants.
The following research question will guide this study:
How do former STAR Program participants feel the program influenced their perception
of science and rigor of science coursework?
Significance of the Study
Knowledge derived from this study can benefit a number of people, institutions,
and communities. Schools within the vicinity of universities can replicate the model
provided by the STAR program and develop a similar university-high school partnership
to provide similar interventions to its students. It is valuable to understand how students
are able to benefit from the exposure to authentic scientific environments and tools often
times unavailable to many high schools with depleted budgets. Understanding how
students embody these experiences and use them in future contexts can provide valuable
insight into the how such interventions influence future behaviors and decisions.
Institutions like the university and high school benefits from their partnership to
provide an intervention program for students. High schools with limited resources and
faculty can outsource it’s the university to provide challenging and rigorous science
experiences for students using modern tools unavailable to public high schools.
Universities benefit from the positive public image of serving underserved communities
in struggling schools. In addition, universities can use such programs to study topic in
disciplines such as psychology, communication, and education.
Methodology
This study looked at a sample of students who participated in the first 20 years of
the STAR program at Bravo HS from 1989 to 2009. There have been approximately 430
participants of the STAR Program since 1990. Data for this study was collected from an
online survey STAR Program participants will complete. Correlation analysis will
analyze quantitative data derived from Yes/No responses as well as responses to using a
Likert scale. In order to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program, concrete and
quantifiable data must be obtained to objectively calculate the subjective responses of a
participant’s reaction towards the program.
Definition of Terms
Community of practice (CoP) – social situation or context in which ideas are judged
useful or true (Woolfolk, 2010). Groups of people who share a concern for an activity
and learn how to improve on it as they interact regularly (Wenger & Lave, 1991; Wenger,
1998)
Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) – the relationship between human agent and
objects of environment is mediated by cultural means, tools, and signs. (Vygotsky, 1978;
Engström, 1987)
Inquiry based learning – method of instruction that aims to promote learning as a process
through authentic activities led by the learner.
Motivation – a set of behaviors that initiate and sustains a goal directed activity (Pintrich
& Schink, 1996)
Scaffolding – support for learning and problem solving that eventually allows students to
grow in indepedence as a learner (Woolfolk, 2010)
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) -
Zone of proximal development – phase at which a individual can master a task if given
appropriate help and support (Woolfolk, 2010). The distance between the actual
developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peer. (Vygotsky, 1978)
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 will present an introduction to the study, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be
answered, the research hypothesis, the significance of the study, a brief description of the
methodology, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definition of terms.
Chapter 2 will review literature relevant to the study. It will address the
following topics: Underrepresentation within STEM education, STEM intervention
programs, inquiry based learning, university laboratory research experience, and the
Science Technology and Research (STAR) program.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or
development, together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these sections
concludes with a rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements.
The chapter does on to describe the procedures for data collection and the plan for data
analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the
results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations derived from this study in
addition to other relevant studies.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Underrepresentation of Students in STEM Education
On November 23, 2009, President Obama reaffirmed America’s interest in
maintaining its leadership in the global economy by launching the “Educate to Innovate”
campaign for excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
education. This initiative seeks to address three key issues in STEM education:
increasing the literacy of students in STEM disciplines, improving the quality of STEM
education to meet the performance among other top nations, and to open educational and
career opportunities for groups currently underrepresented in STEM (White House Office
of the Press Secretary, 2009). For over 20 years, efforts to increase the representation of
women and minorities in STEM have been positive (Ashby, 2006). In 2004, nearly $3
billion dollars was spent on STEM programs to improve STEM education and increase
employment in STEM career fields. Finding the students to enter STEM education and
graduates to enter the STEM profession will come from groups that have been
underrepresented in STEM for decades. However, the employment of women has
remained proportionally the same and racial minorities continue to be largely
underrepresented in STEM careers (Ashby, 2006; Mertens & Hopson, 2006). Current
studies have pointed to social and institutional practices that challenge efforts to create
equal representation of racial minorities and women in STEM education and professions
(Tyson, Lee, & Hanson, 2007).
As America competes globally among other nations in the economic arena, its
education system has also been scrutinized for its competitiveness with similar nations.
While America has invested billions of dollars annually towards the improvement of
STEM education, its students have continually trailed behind students from other
comparable nations in international assessments (Koretz, 2009). In order to address this
consistently alarming issue of student underperformance in STEM education,
interventions are needed that strategically target students who are underrepresented and
underperforming in postsecondary STEM education. The National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES) reported in 2009 that twice as many men entered STEM
related fields in postsecondary education than women and that Hispanics and African
Americans had the lowest rate of degree completion compared to their White and Asian
counterparts. Data at the postsecondary level indicates that the problem of student
underrepresentation begins before they matriculate from secondary education. Thus, a
significant part of the problem of student underperformance and underrepresentation in
STEM education originates at the secondary education level.
Overcoming the institutional challenges at the secondary education level is
important towards increasing the representation of underrepresented groups in STEM
education. Attaining a STEM degree from a post secondary institution is highly
contingent upon a student’s preparation in high school (Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson,
2007). The strongest predictor of students enrolling in a postsecondary institution came
from the types of rigorous courses students were during high school (Schneider,
Swanson, & Riegle-Crumb,1998; Schneider, 2003). However, students from these
underrepresented groups, such as Hispanics, African Americans, and Native American,
though taking comparable number of STEM courses in high school, are taking less
rigorous courses than their White and Asian counterparts (Tyson et al., 2007). These
courses are not just important towards entering the pathway of a STEM program in
postsecondary education but also developing a high level of proficiency in STEM courses
and improving performance on college entrance exams (Tyson et al., 2007). Thus,
students must have access to such courses in order to enter postsecondary education
institutions and continue their pursuit of a STEM degree.
Motivation plays a critical role during their education to engage and persist in
STEM courses. Students showing persistence and aspiration to continue their education
beyond high school are strongly linked to enrolling in rigorous STEM courses (Horn &
Kojaku, 2001). However, most low socioeconomic communities are unable to provide
such rigorous courses to their students. In fact, only 3% of college students come from of
the lowest quartile of the socioeconomic scale, where there are four times more Blacks
and Hispanics students than there is other students in that bracket (Carnevale & Rose,
2003). The problem continues to point towards barriers in the secondary education level
where students begin to enter the STEM “network.” Thus, before underrepresented
students in STEM education can develop the motivation to engage in STEM courses they
are denied the opportunity to ever enroll in STEM courses by challenges within society
and educational institutions.
Motivation in students to persist and succeed in STEM education is further
compromised by the lack of faculty and professionals in STEM fields. Students must
develop positive self and social identities to help them persist and succeed in their STEM
curriculum (Newcombe, Ambady, Eccles, Gomez, Klahr, Linn, Miller, & Mix, 2009).
Developing a strong social identity requires the efforts of students of underrepresented
backgrounds to overcome negative stereotypes attached to their ethnicity and develop
positive ones. However, the number of STEM professionals and higher education faculty
from underrepresented minority groups remain low despite efforts to recruit and retain
such individuals into the field. In postsecondary institutions, individuals from
underrepresented groups make up less than 20% of the full time faculty (Turner,
González, & Wood, 2008) due to issues of discrimination and “inequitable resources and
opportunities” (Blackwell, Synder, & Mavriplis, 2009). The unavailability and limited
number of mentors in STEM education narrows student access to resources that support
the development self-efficacy and expectations of positive outcomes (Johnson-Bailey,
Cervero, & Baugh, 2004). In addition, workplace discrimination lowers individual self-
esteem and increases stress and anger among individuals (King, 2005). These challenges
compound an individual’s already difficult circumstance as a faculty on campus or
professional in industry. Among individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM
related fields, there are lower levels of work commitment and higher rates of attrition
(Blackwell et al., 2009). While maintaining diversity among student populations has
helped recruit and admit underrepresented students in universities, similar efforts have
been unsuccessful to increase faculty diversity due to legal fear. Risking legal lawsuits
proved too great of a compromise for institutions engage in hiring faculty of color
(Turner, Gonzales, and Woods, 2008). The limited efforts to recruit and retain
underrepresented groups within STEM fields have deteriorated the proportion of
individuals currently holding STEM careers.
Developing student interest in entering the STEM education pathways and
persisting within it requires both social and institutional support. Students can receive
environmental motivation often times from roles models that can persuade and
encourage them to enter STEM education courses and develop STEM career aspirations.
It is essential that role models embody similarity (Davidson & Smith, 1982) and
competence (Schunk & Hanson, 1989) to elicit motivation from students to pursue an
interest and persist in STEM education. While a high proportion of Black students enter
college with STEM majors, relatively fewer students graduate with a STEM degree
(Maton & Hrabowski, 2004). This discrepancy highlights the challenges students face in
persisting with a STEM focus during postsecondary education. One means to address
this issue is to utilize faculty to help motivate students to persist in the face of challenges
and to provide coping strategies to help nurture students through difficult circumstances
during their education. However, as noted above, faculty representation is limited. The
current state of student underrepresentation on campuses also contributes to the internal
challenges students must face in their self-efficacy in a STEM education. Women,
Hispanic and Black students are underrepresented within a male, and White and Asian
overrepresented field, creating an air of stereotype threat that lowers performance, raises
stress, and diminishes confidence among students (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Aronson &
Steele, 2005). Often times these students sense the feeling of being the “only one” which
create the burden of representing one’s group and a feeling of isolation (Malone &
Barabino, 1997). The lack of faculty and instructors from these underrepresented groups,
on different levels of education, also hinders an institution’s ability to recruit students
into STEM pathways (BEST, 2004). Thus, the lack of institutional efforts to provide
motivation through faculty and social support limits the ability to overcome current
challenges to recruiting and retaining underrepresented students in STEM education.
In summary, STEM education in America is in a challenging situation. Women,
Hispanics and African Americans are greatly underrepresented in STEM fields. In order
to address this growing national concern, efforts to recruit and retain students from these
underrepresented backgrounds must begin as early as secondary education. Institutions
must actively provide greater access to rigorous STEM courses and to recruit more
faculty from these underrepresented groups that can recruit and engage students.
Successful initiatives must support student learning in STEM education and provide
motivational support that come from the institution and society.
Different Interventions to Address STEM Underrepresentation
This issue of underrepresentation in STEM education is prevalent across many
levels of education. In 2009, NCES reports that STEM course underrepresentation
among Hispanics, African American, and Native Americans is found within both
secondary and post-secondary education. Moreover, these underrepresented groups often
fail to complete their STEM degree, indicating a weakness in retention throughout post-
secondary STEM education. Addressing this crisis in STEM education requires the use
of interventions that addresses recruitment not only to support students academically but
also to recruit students and sustain their commitment to pursue a STEM degree and career
by providing the additional resources, motivation, and informal learning activities.
Mentors serve as powerful sources of motivation for students to persist and
develop self-efficacy in learning science (Schunk, 2003; Schunk 1998). Interventions in
STEM education are rigorously recruiting more skilled teachers with diversity in mind in
order to provide students with relatable and competent role models. The Mathematics
and Science Partnership (MSP) Program is an intervention initiative by the Department of
Education and National Science Foundation (NSF) aimed at increasing the quality and
quantity of teachers in mathematics and science and diversifying teachers in the
mathematics and science teaching population (NSF, 2006). These teachers can serve as
effective mentors and role models that can build successful relationship through
similarity and understanding of personal experiences. Strong interpersonal relationships
help teachers to develop a stable sense of self-efficacy among students in order to engage
and persist in challenging situations during STEM education. In K-12 and post
secondary education, guidance and support coming from individuals similar in
background to students is needed at decisions points for students to persist in their STEM
education (White, Altschuld, & Lee, 2006). In a 2005 study, industry representatives,
faculty, and university undergraduate and graduate students worked with 8th grade
teachers to provide an intervention to promote students interest in STEM fields (Erkut &
Marx, 2005). Unique to this study, was the use of women in various supporting roles to
interact with students to in this intervention. At the end of this study, there was a
noticeable change in the girls’ attitude toward STEM fields and careers. Students and
teachers reported that support from women helped to serve as role models for the students
that created a greater lasting impression on girls than on boys (Erkut & Marx, 2005). The
effective use of mentors that can identify with underrepresented groups and serve as
positive role models that support greater interest and persistence among students has
illustrated how the complex issues of culture and diversity contribute to student
motivation (Merten & Hopson, 2006).
Interventions must address the need to promote participation and interest of
underrepresented students in STEM beyond secondary and postsecondary education
through immersive experiences in research facilities. Most underrepresented minorities
do not attain STEM degrees in postsecondary education (NCES, 2009). Providing
undergraduate research experiences is a valuable element in promoting underrepresented
students pursuit of STEM Ph.Ds (Carter, Mandell, & Maton, 2009). Carter et al. (2009)
found that undergraduate student participating in yearlong STEM research were more
likely to pursue a Ph.D. in a related field. Positive intervention outcomes at the
undergraduate level have encouraged the development of more interventions to target
younger underrepresented students at the high school level. These interventions in the
form of summer research programs for high school students not only contributed to their
continued interest in STEM education but also developed stronger proficiency in STEM
courses (Markowitz, 2004). Participation in such interventions involving research at the
university level has shown numerous learning benefits and helped to promote interest in
furthering their STEM education. Interaction with other individuals within a community
of practice (Wenger, 1998) helps to promote the situated learning (Lave & Wenger,
1991) of students to engage in real life application of scientific principles and processes.
Students participate initially as apprentices to graduate and doctoral students and
eventually develop, through practice and feedback, greater expertise and responsibilities
within the community (Lave, 1990; Winkleby, Ned, Ahn, Koehler, & Kennedy, 2009).
These intimate research environments are also conducive to mentoring and the
acquisition of role models for students (Hamilton, Hamilton, Hirsh, Hughes, King, &
Maton, 2006).
In summary, successful STEM education interventions have utilized the benefits
of providing supportive mentors to students and immersing them in authentic
environments that allow the practice of science. These approaches use scaffolding as a
means to support student learning and engagement (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 1990). The
presence of a more experience other serving as mentors provides motivational support to
recruit, engage, and retain students in STEM education. Installing students into authentic
environments and activities of science exploration facilitates the reinforcement of learned
STEM knowledge through practice and inquiry and problem based learning.
Inquiry Based Learning in Science Interventions
For over 20 years, educational leaders have pushed for a change towards inquiry
based learning in science education (AAAS, 1993). Educators and researchers agree that
the importance of learning and understanding science exists in the process of inquiry and
investigation. Standards and curriculums must move beyond learning mere content
knowledge through rote memorization. In 1964, education reformer John Dewey
advocated the idea that learning science should reflect the authentic practice of science,
an open-ended process driven by inquiry. However, today, inquiry based learning is
challenged in classrooms by proponents of direct instruction. For the purposes of this
paper, concentration will be placed on the broad goals of reforming education (AAAS,
1993; National Center of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; NRC, 1996) and
focus on the effectiveness of inquiry based learning in helping to achieve such goals. In
addition, the nation’s interest in developing more leaders in science requires science
education to facilitate not only the development of scientific knowledge in students and
understanding the scientific process, but also the motivation to persist in science as a
long-term career interest. Thus, inquiry-based learning is an effective and viable
intervention strategy towards goals of promoting active learning and motivation of
students in science education.
Researchers opposed to constructivist learning theory have challenged instruction
using an inquiry-based learning approach in the classroom (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark,
2006). In 2007, Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn responded directly to Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark (2006) to make the case for inquiry-based learning as an appropriate
and effective method of learning science. Due to the changing economic landscape of the
world, goals and standards in science education have been reformed (Enabling the Future,
1992). Instructional focus has shifted towards inquiry methods of instruction to address
the demand for greater scientific literacy among students (AAAS, 1993). However,
proponents of direct instruction have continued to attack the legitimacy of constructivist
theory of learning through its incompatibility with limitation in human cognitive
processes and the absurdness of providing minimal guidance in instruction. Instructional
approaches such as inquiry based, problem based, or discovery learning that use
constructivist learning theories are supported by activities and constructs that is
compatible with the various cognitive structures and sensitive to the limitations of how
they are organized (Schmidt, Loyen, van Gog, & Paas, 2007). Furthermore, inquiry
based learning facilitates the development and practice of metacognitive abilities to
promote learning strategies in science (White & Frederiksen, 1998). Evidence from
studies in cognitive science has highlighted the benefits of using inquiry-based learning
in the classroom as a scaffolding tool when used in small group settings to encourage
tutoring and collaboration. Constructivist learning thus moves learning from an
individual activity directed by a single instructor towards a more social and collaborative
activity to help support the construction of knowledge. Students are able to move their
potential for learning beyond what they can do alone by the presence of more
experienced others. The focus of science education has moved beyond the
comprehension of scientific concepts and into learning the epistemologies of science.
Developing strong scientific literacy among students is facilitated in part by allowing
participation in and practice of scientific experiments and research (DeBoer, 1991;
Duschl, 1990; Lederman, 1998; Mc-Comas, Clough, & Almazroa, 1998). As John
Dewey claimed, learning science should reflect the real practice of science. Thus,
students must learn science the same way is it discovered by scientist.
Understanding science must move beyond mere memorization of content and
move towards students seeing science as a process of discovery within a community
where knowledge is constructed and reconstructed. By approaching science as a process
educators aim to accomplish three things: develop knowledge about the natural world,
understanding how scientific knowledge is generated, and appreciating the social and
participatory nature of science (National Research Council, 2000). Inquiry based
learning becomes essential towards achieving these goals by allowing students to actively
engage in science like investigators through logic and problem solving strategies (Klahr,
2000; Kuhn & Park, 2005), using evidence to support or reject conclusions (Fay & Klahr,
1996), and understanding the logic of experimental design (Chen & Klahr, 1999).
Authentic scientific inquiry allows students to concentrate on creating, applying, and
refining causal models of their observation rather than focusing on memorizing
definitions, facts, and formulas and solving problems through algebraic manipulation
(White & Frederikson, 1998). By engaging in the scientific process students recognize
that science is a community with culturally established norms and practices (Lave, 1988).
Strategies, such as direct instruction and rote memorization from textbooks, treat students
as outside spectators with no interaction with the science content. Students engaging in
inquiry-based learning are allowed to engage as novice participants in a community of
science practitioners, with instructors to guide them. This form of cognitive
apprenticeship is a social process of scaffolding that allows students to practice and
internalize habits of scientific inquiry (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1991; Vygotsky,
1978). Through classroom experiments and other science activities, educators can bring
to light how science is a culture composed of many similar subcultures. In addition,
situating students in contexts where they are naturally engaged with their peers in using
evidence to explain their reasoning for proving or disproving a conclusion can promote
long-term learning and transfer (Rittle-Johnson, 2006). By creating a larger social
context of learning science, students undergo cognitive change (Dewey, 1933; Vygotsky,
1978) that enhances metacognitive abilities to support future exploration of science.
Inquiry based learning provides educators with additional motivational benefits
essential to engaging students to persist in science education. One outstanding
characteristic of inquiry-based learning is the opportunities students are allowed to
engage in active learning through participation in authentic science activities. Hands on
activities help students create new experiences that will be useful for future science
curricula. Students are actively engaged in learning science when they can relate to their
prior knowledge and experience that can promote interest in (Heinze et al., 1995).
Developing intrinsic motivation and interest in learning science contributes to positive
learning and performance outcomes for students (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Allowing
students to be directed by their own learning and investigation of science through inquiry
opens opportunities for contextualization and personalization of the task (Cordova &
Lepper, 1996). Contextualizing knowledge to the personal experiences of students helps
to engage student interests and their curiosities about their world. Inquiry based learning
increases the prevalence of students developing personal learning goals by using their
curiosities to direct their learning. Students with learning goals not only score higher on
assessments but also persisted in challenging situations and showed greater transfer
(Farrell & Dweck, 1985).
In summary, inquiry based learning is an effective and appropriate approach in
science education that enhances learning and motivation among students. Inquiry based
learning allows educators to meet the changing goals in science education. Goals to
teach science as a process, practiced similarly by experts within a community facilitates
the development of scientific knowledge emerging out of experimentation, evidence, and
discussion.
Engaging Science Through Research in University Laboratories
Efforts to change science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education in K-12 schools are taking shape in university research laboratories.
Partnerships between public high schools and universities offer a number of solutions to
address the various issues challenging STEM education (Carline & Patterson, 2003).
Engaging in authentic research inside university laboratories promotes conceptual
knowledge and hands-on laboratory skills (Bleicher, 1996). Moreover, students
participating in such science interventions integrate themselves within the community of
practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). A number of different interventions take similar
approaches to providing research at university laboratories but differ in the duration of
the student’s involvement. Current efforts to address issues of recruitment and retention
of underrepresented minorities in STEM education by participating in laboratory research
at universities show promising results: higher rates of matriculation, increase STEM
literacy and proficiency, and promoted interest in pursuing a STEM Ph.D and career
(Winkleby, Ned, Ahn, Koehler, Kennedy, 2009; Markowitz, 2004; Knox, Moynihan, &
Markowitz, 2003; Carter, Mandell, & Maton, 2009).
Summer research internships at universities have shown positive effects on high
school students in the short and long term. Summer gives high school students three
months of academic break providing a window to participate fully in laboratory research.
Many summer research programs allow students to experience living on a college campus
while engaging full time in laboratory research. Studies looking at summer internships
have reported a positive impact on participating student’s level of confidence in using
laboratory skills, academic performance and interest in pursuing a career in science
(Markowitz, 2004; Knox, Moynihan, & Markowitz, 2003). Summer research internships
at university laboratories have had positive effects on college success and career
decisions. Students participating in these programs graduate to 4-year universities and
have higher college graduation rates than individuals from the same ethnic group
(Winkleby et al., 2009). In addition, about half of students participating in these
interventions continue medical or graduate school to pursue a higher science degree.
Summer long research programs are greatly constrained by the limited time
students are privileged to participate as members of a university laboratory. The limited
time students are able to engage in research logistically shortens the scope of research
projects and the types of experiments students can undertake. This compromise deprives
students the opportunity to collect greater volumes of data that can help draw strong
conclusions necessary in science. Opportunities to engage in extended laboratory
research allows students to participate as accepted members instead of short term visitors.
Participants in yearlong undergraduate research programs have shown increased
likelihood of pursuing a STEM Ph.D (Carter, Mandell, & Maton, 2009). It is likely that
conducting long term research projects gives students first hand experience and exposure
to the level of science rigor needed for a Ph.D. The long-term commitment to a project
and community also can help develop intrinsic motivation within students to pursue a
degree and career in a science related profession. After completing such programs
students emerge as accepted members and not as outsiders.
In summary, university research programs inviting students to engage in
laboratory research hold tremendous promise for improving student outcomes in STEM
education. Among high school students evidence of increased matriculation to 4-year
universities and stronger STEM proficiency and literacy are valuable indicators for long-
term success in STEM education. Long-term participation in laboratories provided
students an added dimension in their experience as members of a scientific community.
Such interventions can address and assuage the concern for the underrepresentation of
women, Hispanics and African Americans in STEM education and careers. Further
exploration of interventions with long-term participation in laboratory research needs to
be conducted to assess the immediate and long term student outcomes.
Science Technology and Research (STAR) Program
STEM outreach programs recruiting students to engage in university laboratory
research is not a recent innovation of modern education (Atwater et al., 1999; Lopatto,
2004; Markowitz, 2004; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Winkleby et al., 2009). Rather, these
programs are a hybrid approach to how communities and cultures have approached
learning for hundreds of years. STEM initiatives have pushed not only school educators
to get involved in this potential crisis but also faculty in institutions of higher education.
Educators in all levels of education can promote interest in science through inquiry based
learning. Science, Technology, and Research (STAR) is an outreach program at the
University of Southern California (USC) aimed at reaching the goals of reforming
science education through successful partnerships between institutions of learning by
creating meaningful learning experiences for students. The STAR Program provides
students with year long laboratory research experience in order to engage in rigorous
research projects, develop more meaningful relationships with mentors, and developing a
stronger identity as a member of a community of practice.
The STAR Program is situated to provide a unique opportunity to academically
engaged students that enhances their STEM education. Since 1989, the STAR Program
has partnered with Bravo High School to provide students the opportunity to engage in
science the same way it is discovered. Rather than engaging in science though
listening to lectures to understand superficial information, science education is learned
through investigation and inquiry to enhance the understanding of concepts, principles,
laws and theories (AAAS, 2001). Not only do students acquire the content of the science
curricula but they develop the problem solving and investigative skills an expert develops
in situ. The STAR program also is able to provide students with access to modern
scientific equipment, and other tools to understand how professionals practice science.
Rather than executing experiments with little relevance or purpose to a student’s personal
experience, students are engaged in new developments in science and technology dealing
with issues concerning society such as Alzheimer’s Disease and cancer (NCES, 2000).
STAR, like many programs similar to it, provides an ideal setting to not only enhance
students learning of science along Bloom’s taxonomy, but also spark interest that can
inspire career opportunities (Atwater et al., 1999; Gibson & Chase, 2002; Helm et al.,
1999; Richmond & Kurth, 1999).
The STAR Program recruits its students from Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet
High School. Bravo is a magnet school that admits 60% of its students from the
surrounding neighborhood and 40% from a point system lottery. In 2008-2009, the
average class size of Bravo was 28.1 students, versus 24.5 students of LAUSD; the
students per teacher ratio at Bravo is 25.7, compared to the 19.8 of LAUSD; 83.1% of
students at Bravo receive free and reduced meals compared to the 75.9% of LAUSD
(Dataquest, 2009). Demographically, Bravo is 69.2% Hispanic, 1.6% Black, 13.3%
White, and 11.1% Asian; compared to the LAUSD which is 73.2% Hispanic, 10.7%
Black, 8.8% White, and 3.7% Asian (Dataquest, 2009). 86.6% of Bravo students are
eligible for free/reduce lunches as compared to the district average of 79.9%. Despite
evidence of economic disadvantages of students at Bravo, the school’s graduation rate is
91.4% as compared to 69.1 % in the local district. While in many ways Bravo resembles
many characteristics of schools with challenges, its students still perform better than their
LAUSD peers in areas of Biology, Chemistry, and Math on the California Standards
Tests (CST) (California Department of Education, 2009). While students at Bravo share
economic and institutional disadvantages of other schools at LAUSD, they still show
tremendous academic potential and persistence to succeed.
Table 1: 2008 California Standards Test Scores
Bravo High School Los Angeles Unified School
District
Grades 9
th
10
th
11
th
12th 9
th
10
th
11
th
12th
Language Art 370.5 362.8 359.5 323.1 318.0 313.1
Biology Life
Science
361.8 362.0 361.4 361.8 316.6 317.3 317.6 317.0
Chemistry 340.8 350.5 344.8 299.3 293.7 295.5
Summative Math 371.4 354.2 359.9 343.2 307.6
314.6
LAUSD and Bravo data derived from Ed-Data, 2008
Bravo High School and the STAR Program share a unique partnership unlike
many other science outreach programs. While many other science outreach programs
provide students with university research experience to engage in inquiry based science
activities in an authentic setting, these experiences are often short lived. Many
programs that operate on university campuses are only summer internships since students
are only able to engage in such activities during their summer breaks (Markowitz, 2004;
Winkleby et al., 2009; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Knox, Moynihan, & Markowitz, 2003).
The STAR Program provides students with a yearlong experience integrated into their
academic curriculum. This bold approach seeks to enhance all the nurturing experiences
involved in similar outreach programs by providing a lasting experience for students.
Science investigation is often times a long and thorough process. The scope of
the student’s projects during these summer research programs is limited to the time
constraints of the program. In order to meet deadlines, projects assigned to students are
limited in regards to the number of trials they can conduct or their significance to the
larger research goals. By allowing students to engage in research for an entire year,
students can practice science continuously and through repeated trials. This approach is
more aligned to reflecting how real science is conducted. Students can also be given
projects that integrally contribute to the overall goals of the laboratory. As a year long
participant, students can engage with other members in team discussions and understand
how various projects contribute to the long term goals of the laboratory.
Most science outreach programs provide approximately eight weeks for students
to engage in laboratory research. Even in this limited scope, positive results have been
seen in regards to interest and attitudes towards science (Lott, 2003). However this
limitation can reduce the quality of relationship students build with other undergraduate
students, graduate students, and faculty in their laboratory. The relationships students
form with more experience others not only enhances their scientific knowledge through
guided participation (Rogoff, 1990), but mentors can also provide personal and career
advice for students. Allowing students to participate for an entire year with mentors
provides more opportunities for students to learn from formal and informal
communication and interactions.
From a sociocultural perspective learning is understood as participation in
communities of practice, moving from a role of a novice to an experience participant
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Activity theory, based on the theoretical work of Marx,
Vygotsky and Leont’ev (Engestrom, 1999), acknowledges the complex interaction
between the individual and the group, and investigates how the individual learns through
acting with others in the group (Blackler et al., 2000). These theories lay the foundation
to the importance of engaging students in authentic practice and engaging learners not
just as novices but cultivating their development as they transition from one role to the
next. To integrate a new participant into a community of practice requires mutual
involvement by the participant and members of the community. Students must have the
time to engage in shared activities. In eight weeks, there is hardly enough time to
participate beyond a novice, let alone learn the content needed to become a familiar with
the community. More time is needed for students to engage further so they can transition
from a novice to a legitimate participant of the community. Students must learn
techniques and practices of the laboratory in order to make this transition within the
community. Thus, from a scientific cultural standpoint, extending the involvement
students make within their laboratory experiences is crucial to their acceptance as a
developing member of the scientific community (Wenger, 1998).
In summary, the STAR Program is a distinctive science outreach program for
high school students compared to other summer research programs. The STAR Program
boldly engages students as a yearlong program integrated into their normal academic
curriculum with the beneficial laboratory experience of most other summer research
programs. This approach seeks to enhance student understanding of the scientific process
but also their long-term interest in science as a career. Providing students with an
extended laboratory experience logistically allows for students to carry out projects with
larger scopes than summer programs. Moreover, yearlong programs allow students to
develop more meaningful relationships with mentors and develop an identity as a
member of a scientific community. Thus, the STAR Program provides a science
outreach model aimed at providing an inquiry based learning experience for students with
a focus on cultivating long term interest and motivational support for students.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OVERVIEW
Introduction
This survey study provided useful information in determining the impact of a
yearlong high school research program on its participant’s behavior and decisions during
their undergraduate education and thereafter. This study provided participants the
opportunity to respond to their present circumstances as well as recall their past
experiences. Data collected from this study with allowed researchers to relate participant
perception of the STAR Program’s and its impact on their experience after graduating
high school. Collecting and analyzing the data in this survey helped researchers evaluate
the STAR Program’s overall impact on participant’s self-reported perceptions, decisions,
and behaviors. It was important to look at not only the short terms impact of
interventions, like the STAR Program, and its immediate support for participants in
building scientific knowledge and interest, but also the long-term impact the interventions
had on students entering new contexts and facing different challenges beyond high
school. This study provided valuable data in regards to how students use their
experiences from interventions towards their academic and career goals.
Research Question
The following research question was used to guide this study:
How do former STAR Program participants feel the program influenced their perception
of science and rigor of science coursework?
Research Design
The design of this research was a survey study. Surveys collected both
quantitative and qualitative data. Participants of this study were grouped according to
their response to specific self-reported questions. Those indicating their graduating year
from 2006 to 2009 were put into one group and those graduating prior to 2006 were put
into another group. A few of the independent variable used in this study was the year
participants graduated from high school, their perceived preparation for science courses
in college, influence on career choice, and the program’s influence on continued study in
science during college.
Population and Sample
This study intended to sample all students from past cohorts of the STAR
program since its inception at Bravo High School in 1989 through 2008. There were a
total of 433 students who have participated in the STAR program from 1989 to 2008.
Using the latest contact information documented, email, and Facebook, 300 participants
of the STAR Program were contacted and invited to complete the online survey.
Participants of this study consisted of individuals who were involved in the STAR
Program at different years. Participants consisted of potential undergraduate and
graduate students, doctoral candidates, working professionals, and other academic and
career statuses. The participants age ranged from 18 to 38 years.
Ethnicity was based on the participant’s self-reported ethnicity, and is classified
according to the following categories consistent with the U.S. Census (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2009).
• African American (African, African American, black)
• Asian (Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong, Indian, Japanese,
Korean, Laotian, Mongolian, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese)
• Latino (Hispanic, Mexican, Mexican-American. Central American, South
American, Puerto Rican, Cuban)
• Native American (American Indian, Native American)
• White, non-Hispanic (Caucasian, European) and
• Other Ethnicity, including mixed ethnicity.
A total of 119 submissions were
Participant Demographics
A total of 91 surveys were submitted online and entered into a database of the
possible 230 STAR Program alumni who were contacted. Participants of this survey
mainly came from the graduating class of 2006 through 2009, accounting for 57.14%
(52) of the submitted surveys while 42.86% (39) came from participants graduating from
1991 to 2005. During 2006 to 2009, 93 students participated in the STAR Program, and
from 1991 to 2005, 326 students participated in the STAR Program. Thus, 12% of
participant’s responses came from the 1991 to 2005 cohorts and 56% of participant’s
responses came from the 2006 to 2009 cohorts. For the purposes of this study we will
present the results in three groups, 2006 to 2009 participant responses, 1991 to 2005
participant responses, and all participant responses. In addition many of the constructs of
the study involve undergraduate experiences that this group is currently most aware of.
Table 2: Distribution of Survey Responses by Year of Participation
Year Number of Surveys Submitted by
Participants
Relative Percentage of
Total Surveys Submitted
1989-1990 0 0%
1990-1991 0 0%
1991-1992 1 1.1%
1992-1993 3 3.3%
1993-1994 2 2.2%
1994-1995 2 2.2%
1995-1996 0 0%
1996-1997 0 0%
1997-1998 3 3.3%
1998-1999 5 5.5%
1999-2000 5 5.5%
2000-2001 4 4.4%
2001-2002 2 2.2%
2002-2003 3 3.3%
2003-2004 4 4.4%
2004-2005 5 5.5%
2005-2006 8 8.8%
2006-2007 15 16.5%
2007-2008 13 14.3%
2008-2009 16 17.6%
Figure 1: Percentage of Participant Survey Responses Relative to Total Number of
Students Within Cohorts
In this study females constitute approximately 62% (57) of the participants in the
survey and males approximately 38% (35). The highest number of responses came from
Asians contributing to approximately 53% (49) of the total submissions, followed by
Hispanics with approximately 20% (18), White/Caucasians with approximately 19%
(17), African Americans with approximately 6% (5), and Pacific Islanders with
approximately 3% (3).
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
3.4%
7.7%
25.0%
6.9%
13.0%
31.3%
25.0%
15.4%
9.5%
21.4%
18.2% 18.5%
30.8%
51.7%
81.3%
72.7%
Figure 3: Survey Response Distribution by Ethnicity
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
61.36%
38.64%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
African
American
Asian Hispanic Pacific
Islander
White/
Caucasian
5.75%
54.02%
19.54%
2.30%
18.39%
Figure 4: Survey Response Distribution by Participant Status
Instrumentation
A survey was developed and was made available online to past participants of the
STAR program. In order to have the survey accessible to as many participants as
possible, it was put online using online based Qualtrics application. Due to the lack of
current and reliable contact information, sending surveys to last known addresses would
not be the only means of distributing the surveys to participants of the STAR Program.
Researchers for this study used the social networking site Facebook to locate,
communicate and direct participants of this study to the online survey. This ambitious
study was motivated due to the growing ubiquity of Facebook and the internet to help
find participants. The ability to look at an individuals network of ‘Friends’ helped
researchers locate other participants from one reliable contact on Facebook. However,
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Undergraduate
Student
Graduate
School
Postdoctoral
scholar or
medical
resident
Not in School,
Employed
Not in school,
not employed
50
9
4
16
3
due to the early adoption of the Facebook application by more recent STAR Program
graduates, most of the responses received came from the past four cohorts of 2006 to
2009. Thus the use of this instrument and method of communicating with participants
favored more of participants of the past 10 years.
The survey consisted of self-report questions about the impact that the STAR
Program had on participants during their undergraduate experience and experiences
thereafter. In addition, the survey included self-report questions about the impact that the
STAR program had on specific skills of the participants. Participants who were
interested in being contacted for a future interview were asked to indicate their interest in
a self-report question. In total, there are 84 items in the survey that the participant can
respond to, 43 of which are participant constructed responses/open ended questions and
41 which are choice questions. Only the responses to the following questions were
reported in this study:
• Evaluate the STAR Program's influence on improving your understanding of
scientific principles.
• Evaluate the STAR Program's influence on improving your knowledge of
scientific techniques and procedure.
• Evaluate the STAR Program's influence on your interest to continue scientific
study in college?
• Due to your participation in the STAR Program, how prepared were you in your
science courses during college (e.g. lectures, discussions, labs, independent
studies, practicums).
• Did your STAR Program experience increase your interest in ... continuing
scientific study in college.
• Evaluate the following courses you took at Bravo according to the rigorousness of
the science content.
• How influential was the STAR Program in moving you to develop a stronger
scientific literacy during college?
Refer to Appendix A for complete survey used in this study.
Data collected in this survey for statistical purposes came from “Yes/No”
responses and other variations of a three, four, and five-level Likert scaling method. The
survey also collected qualitative data from participants if they choose to provide further
data for researchers explaining their responses to specific questions.
Data Collection
The data for this study was collected using an online based survey tool called
Qualtrics. Participants were given a link that directs them to the survey to complete.
While participant’s personal information were collected in this survey, it was not be used
as statistical data. Personal information was collected for identification purposes to
verify that the individual was a participants of the STAR program. Personal information
provided by participants also served for future reference to maintain continued
communication and any further follow-up studies.
Since this study used an online survey, all data collected was automatically
aggregated on to a spreadsheet. No procedure was needed for inputting data from the
survey into a spreadsheet for statistical analysis. Responses from questions using Likert
scales were numerically coded for identification and statistical measurement purposes.
User response question that are open ended were be coded for themes participants submit
in their responses.
Data Analysis
This follow-up survey taken online by participants of the STAR Program was
created to assess whether the STAR Program had a significant impact on students who
participated in the program. The survey was a tool to collect data on the extent to which
students’ believed participation in the STAR Program contributed to their interest and
academic achievement during their undergraduate experience and any other academic
experiences thereafter in or related to science. The survey also collected data on student
perception of the program to assess its effectiveness in developing scientific literacy.
This study analyzed data from the survey looking at statistical measures to
identify relationships and measurements between responses and specific outcomes
identified by the participant. Frequency analysis was conducted on various quantitative
questions in the survey. Responses using Likert scales will use means and standard
deviations to look at average and range of responses from participants.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The STAR Program alumni survey participants responded to a survey that
provided both quantitative and qualitative data for analysis. This chapter presents the
statistical outcomes for the previously presented research question: how do former STAR
Program participants feel the program has influenced their post-secondary educational
and career experiences?
Interest in Pursuing Science After High School
Due to the high rate of responses among STAR Program alumni from 2006 to
2009, delineation was artificially created to isolate participants still pursuing an
undergraduate degree from those still pursuing a degree. This allowed investigators to
look at several key survey questions from the participant’s undergraduate and graduate
perspective. In order to assess the program’s influence on students after leaving high
school and entering college, the survey asked participants to evaluate the program’s
influence on their interest to pursue scientific study in college. The first related question
asked participants if the STAR Program influenced their pursuit of a science degree after
graduating high school. Participants were offered a binary response option of “Yes” or
“No.” Overwhelmingly, all delineated groups reported over 75% agreement that the
STAR Program influenced their interest to pursuing a science degree after high school.
The 1991 to 2005 participant group had approximately 76% say “Yes” and approximately
26% say “No.” The 2006 to 2009 participant group had greater polarity of responses.
96% of this group reported “Yes” while only 4% reported “No." Overall, 87.5% of
participants agreed that the STAR Program influenced their interested to pursue a science
degree after high school.
Figure 5: Interest in Pursuing a Science Degree After Completing the STAR Program
Another prompt addressing this dimension of the program’s influence on the
participant’s interest in scientific study offered participants to choose from a five-level
Likert response. Participants responded to the degree in which the STAR Program
influenced their interest in continuing scientific study in college. Despite the availability
of a “Very Negatively Influence” option for participants to choose, it was never selected.
The overwhelming majority of responses sided on the positive influence of the program
promoting interest in pursuing scientific study in college.
Among the 1991 to 2005 cohorts approximately 78% reported a positive
influence, approximately 8% reported no influence and approximately 14% reported a
low level of negative influence by the program.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
1991-2005 (n=38) 2006-2009 (n=50) All Participants
(N=88)
76.32%
96.00%
87.50%
26.38%
4.00%
12.50%
Yes No
Figure 6: STAR Program Influence on Interest to Continue Scientific Study in College
Among the 2006 to 2009 cohorts, over 95% of participants reported a positive response
to the program’s influence and approximately 2% reported no influence. Overall,
approximately 90% of participants viewed the STAR program as a positive influence to
their continued interest to study science in college.
The last question to address this aspect of promoting interest in science influenced
by the STAR Program offers the participants three response choices of “No,”
“Moderately,” and “Significantly.” An overwhelming number of survey participants
(90%) reported that the STAR program had a positive influenced on their interest in
continuing scientific study in college.
,
! ,
" ,
# ,
$ ,
% ,
& ,
!))!" %-#& " &" )-$)
-(& !#(),
,
%(!,
(##,
" $,
$&%,
"% ,
%%! ,
$# ",
%"'(,
$"(&,
$&%!,
Figure 7: STAR Program Influence on Interest to Continue Scientific Study in College
Similarly to previous questions of the same nature, participants in the 2006 to 2009
cohorts provided positive responses to the program’s ability to increase their interest
continue scientific study in college. Only 6% of this group reported no influence by the
STAR program. Among the 1991 to 2005 participant group, while there was greater
distribution of responses, 60% of responses still rated the STAR program having a
significant influence on increasing their interest in continuing scientific study. The
remaining participants of each group equally responded (approximately 20%) to the
STAR Program experience moderately influencing their increased interest or not
influencing their interest in continuing scientific study in college. Overall, approximately
60% of participants attributed their experience in the STAR Program as significant reason
for their increased interest in continuing scientific study in college. Approximately 25%
rated the STAR Program as a moderate influence on their continued study of science in
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
1991-2005 (n=33) 2006-2009 (n=50) All Participants
(N=83)
21.21%
6.00%
12.05%
21.21%
30.00%
25.30%
60.61%
64%
62.65%
No Moderately Significantly
college. 12% reported that their STAR Program experience did not influence their
interest in studying science in college.
When participants were asked to provide statements to explain their response
choice to the question regarding interest, there was generally positive responses.
Participants identified experiences interacting with different members within their
laboratory and engaging in various scientific procedures that challenged their thinking
and encouraged their curiosity. As a result of many of the participants experience in the
laboratory, developing a sense of identity and earning the respect of their colleagues
helped to establish their long term interest in pursuing science. Participants identified
experiences from the STAR Program that motivated them through a sense of confidence
and value of the profession. Many participants were also engaged further int science
through real life application of concepts they had been learning in school or what they
had only heard about. Participants mentioned numerously the relationship built with
mentors as well as the challenging ideas they were working with. The following are a
few samples collected from the survey:
Mentoring from my PI, Dr. Schreiber, and his post-doc, Shahin Sakhi, really helped me.
The fact that I could accomplish such a project while still in high school gave me the
confidence to pursue further projects in college. It confirmed that I was capable and smart
enough as long as I had guidance.
The STAR program gave me hands-on experience for laboratory research. It also gave
me the independence to develop and discuss projects with my mentor and provided me
opportunities to present my research to my colleagues. This helped shaped my decision to
go into science for a career. Furthermore, the emphasis on biomedical research guided me
to pursue an MD/PhD. The STAR program was a turning point for me and I attribute my
career to both the STAR program and my mentor.
Taking on real and relevant research was very engaging and help keep interest in
studying science. STAR program also provided extensive training in advanced science
that helps making continuing scientific study easier. Mentorship of PI and graduate/post
doctoral gave valuable advice to use while in college.
The responsibility of being at the lab every single day, being responsible for
presentations, and being held accountable for our work was something that gave us an
opportunity unlike those experienced by other high school students. It gave me an
appreciation for research and an understanding that for what I want to do in the future,
research would need to be a strong part of it.
After my experience at STAR, I was confident enough to apply and work as a laboratory
assistant at the UCLA Department of Pathology and later in the UCLA Department of
Psychology. All the lab experience helped me to pursue my degree in Psychology.
Inspiration by all the cool things I heard about the sciences and various advances in
research through Dr. Cocozza and Mrs. De la Cruz. I enjoyed having a very cool PI who
was very open to any questions that I had and who encouraged me to always think as
though there are no restriction/keep your mind open to the endless possibilities there are.
My PI also inspired me to pursue the highest education that I seek for myself.
The actual participation in scientific research for a tangible application to better the
vision of patients made me appreciate science more. We learn the theory of science in
classes, but working in a lab opened my perspective on the many possible science careers
available. The one on one mentoring allowed me to see my mentor as a role model. His
accomplishments and interests made me more interested in research. The STAR Program
showed me that my wanting to help people regain their health was not limited to aspiring
to become a medical doctor.
The STAR program helped me visualize the reality of the scientific community such as
the processes that are necessary for the development of a research project which leads to
a potential discovery and contribution to science. STAR helped me realize the wide
variety of subjects and topics that can be studied in the present and future. This was done
through the semester/annual presentations that were conducted in front of our peers. If
this can be conducted to twice a semester, a bigger impact can be made.
The STAR Program taught me how to conduct my own research, which inspired me to
want to continue doing research in college and as a career. The STAR Program gave me
mentors, teachers, and colleagues to teach me not only scientific information but also
how to be a scientist and present my findings. Nothing has prepared me more for a major
in science.
The STAR program increased my interest in biology research by helping me understand
that everything I learn in the classroom I can apply to everyday life. What I learned and
its applications have tremendous impacts on the lives of others. What we do in the lab
is beneficial to our society. Without this research life cannot continue at the pace we see
today.
I believe that what really sparked my interest in continuing scientific knowledge in
college was reading Tino Sanchez's published papers and being able to relate many of the
terms previously only read in textbooks to the experiments done in lab. Often times, these
experiments seemed long with tedious procedures but picturing everything at a molecular
level completely modifies one's perception of the experiment at hand.
Suffice to say, the environment us STAR students were subjected to was enough
influence. We experienced the nitty-gritty of laboratory procedures and the repetition of
constant data collection. Science and research was no longer a thing of myth, but a facet
of tedium. However, with tedium came a steady flow of realization and appreciation. We
were contributing to the advancement of our species directly. What I did in Dr. Davies's
lab contributed to his research on neural protein receptors. I accomplished something
significant.
Improving Understanding and Knowledge
Beyond the ability to develop interest among students in the program, improving
the student’s understanding of scientific principles and knowledge of scientific
techniques and procedures was another dimension the STAR program aimed to provide
students.
Figure 8: Evaluation of the STAR Program's Influence on Improving Understanding of
Scientific Principles
Figure 9: Evaluation of the STAR Program's Influence on Improving Knowledge of
Scientific Techniques and Procedures
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1991-2005 (n=35) 2006-2009 (n=48) All Participants
(N=83)
0% 0% 0%
25.70%
14.60%
19%
74.30%
85.40%
81.00%
No Influence Moderate Influence Strong Influence
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1991-2005 (n=35) 2006-2009 (n=48) All Participants
(N=83)
0% 0% 0%
8.30%
6.30%
7%
91.70%
93.80%
92.90%
No Influence Moderate Influence Strong Influence
Rigor and Preparedness for College
There were a significant number of participants who did not take certain AP
courses, namely AP Physics. Since 82% of participants did not take AP Physics,
comparison of the STAR Program to this course was not made. Investigators looked
only at comparing STAR to AP Biology and AP Chemistry. AP Chemistry only had
approximately 31% of participants not take the course and AP Biology had
approximately 14%.
Figure 10: Comparison of Participant Evaluation of Course Rigorousness (N=84)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Rigorousness of
STAR
Rigorousness of AP
Biology
Rigorousness of AP
Chemistry
13.79%
31.33%
6.02%
4.60%
1.20%
33.73%
34.48%
16.87%
60.24%
47.13%
50.60%
N/A - Did not take Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous Very Rigorous
In order to make a reasonable comparison between the STAR Program and the
two AP courses, the data needed to be adjusted to look only at participants having
enrolled in the respective courses. Participants having not enrolled in AP Biology did not
have their responses calculated in the comparison of AP Biology and the STAR Program.
The same was done for AP Chemistry.
After controlling for participants that did not enroll in AP Biology, investigators
were able to compare the rigorousness between the STAR Program and AP Biology.
Approximately 5% of participants indicated AP Biology and the STAR Program as not
rigorous, approximately 36% indicated STAR as being moderately rigorous and
approximately 42% for AP Biology, and approximately 60% indicated STAR as very
rigorous and approximately 52% for AP Biology.
Figure 11: Comparison of All Participants Responses to Rigorousness of STAR and AP
Biology (N=71)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
STAR Program AP Biology
4.23%
5.63%
36.62%
42.25%
59.15%
52.11%
Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous
After controlling for participants that did not enroll in AP Chemistry,
investigators were able to compare the rigorousness between the STAR Program and AP
Chemistry. Approximately 5% of participants indicated STAR as being not rigorous
while approximately 2% reported AP Chemistry as not rigorous. Approximately 32%
indicated STAR as being moderately rigorous and approximately 25% indicated that AP
Biology was moderately rigorous. About 63% indicated that STAR as very rigorous as
compared to approximately 74% for AP Chemistry.
Figure 12: Comparison of All Participants’ Responses to Rigorousness of STAR and AP
Chemistry (N=57)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
STAR Program AP Chemistry
5.26%
1.75%
31.58%
24.56%
63.16%
73.68%
Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous
This study also compared the rigorousness of the STAR Program with the AP
science courses along the study’s delineated groups.
Figure 13: Comparison of 1991 - 2005 Participant's Responses to Rigorousness of STAR
and AP Biology (n=27)
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
STAR Program AP Biology
7.41%
35.71%
48.15%
64.29%
44.44%
Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous
Figure 14: Comparison of 1991 - 2005 Participant's Responses to Rigorousness of STAR
and AP Chemistry (n=24)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
STAR Program AP Chemistry
28.00%
29.17%
72.00%
70.83%
Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous
Figure 15: Comparison of 2006 - 2009 Participant's Responses to Rigorousness of STAR
and AP Biology (n=44)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
STAR Program AP Biology
6.98%
4.65%
37.21%
39.53%
55.81% 58.14%
Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous
Figure 16: Comparison of 2006 - 2009 Participant's Responses to Rigorousness of STAR
and AP Chemistry (n=33)
Preparedness
Participants of this study were also asked if the STAR Program helped prepare
them for their undergraduate science courses. Students responded along a four-level
scale of their view of preparedness influenced by the STAR Program. Most participants
reported that in light of the STAR Program they were “very prepared” for their college
science courses. On average (mean), participants rated themselves as being slightly
above “somewhat prepared.”
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
STAR Program AP Chemistry
9.38%
3.03%
34.38%
21.21%
56.25%
75.76%
Not Rigorous Moderately Rigorous
Table 3: Average and Standard Deviation of Participant Report on Preparedness for
Undergraduate Science Courses
Average (Mean) Standard Deviation
1991-2005 (n=34) 1.35 0.917
2006-2009 (n=50) 1.14 0.947
All Participants (N=84) 1.23 0.936
Figure 17: Participant Report on Preparedness for Undergraduate Science Courses
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1991-2005 (n=34) 2006-2009 (n=53) All Participants
(N=87)
2.94%
1.89% 2.30%
2.94%
7.55%
5.75%
38.24%
50.94%
45.98%
52.94%
35.85%
42.53%
2.94%
3.77% 3.45%
I was very unprepared I was somewhat unprepared
I was somewhat prepared I was very prepared
N/A - Did not enroll in science courses in college
While each delineated group varied in how high they responded to their level of
preparedness for college science courses, the general trend was consistent with very few
participants (<10%) reported being unprepared. The participants submitted responses in
their own words regarding their response choice to this question. The following
statements are some of the responses taken from the survey that exemplify how students
responded to the question.
The materials presented in my science courses, were not foreign to me or something I've
just read in the text book provided. The materials presented in class had significance. I
can retract back to my STAR experience and apply what I was learning to the concept of
my research project at STAR.
I needed to learn college and graduate level science concepts to succeed in creating my
project. My mentors were extremely helpful in explaining concepts at my level and
having them on hand for one on one conversations and questions was invaluable.
The STAR program gave me a good foundation in laboratory technique and skills which
helped me in lab courses at Caltech.
STAR provided early exposure to advanced topics of biochemistry and cell biology
which are usually only taught at the college level and beyond. In addition, STAR was my
first experience presenting scientific data/research in front of an audience and recieving
scientific critique, which was invaluable later on in medical school.
Rigor of science exposure during STAR gave me the confidence that I could handle
science curriculum in college. Knowing how science is used in laboratory helped gave
insight to what content was valuable in courses.
The experience very unique, and I felt privileged to have conducted research during high
school. It was something very few teenage had an opportunity to participate in throughout
the nation. I believe that I understood the extend that one needed to understand science in
order to move further through in my education.
The STAR program helped me see the big picture...which helps enormously in
understanding scientific processes on a smaller level.
Understanding the protocols for experiments increased my overall skills in conducting
research and enabled me to apply these skills to my science courses as well as other areas
of study.
Upper division courses such as Molecular Biology (BIS104) often related to techniques I
had learned in the STAR program. This made understanding the class material very easy.
I was very prepared because the STAR program gave me glance at the level of difficulty
of science classes at the college level. The various publications that were required to read
and understand increase the easiness to which I was able to comprehend college level
textbooks.
What i learned from my STAR mentor helped me prepare for my major core classes.
Everything I learned in lab was presented in my lecture classes one way or another. This
information really prepared me for my human physiology class. I excelled in this class
because of what I learned about the human body in lab. I had a foundation when I began
the class and was able to build on this foundation with the information presented by my
instructors.
I am majoring in Chemistry, therefore, I am always working in a laboratory. STAR has
shown me how to work with micro-pipettes, centrifuges, laminar flow hoods, how to
make proper dilutions, as well as being prepared to be patient throughout an experiment.
The degree of difficulty of the STAR Program made college material and labs seem very
easy. I miss the intellectual challenges that the STAR Program provided, I think they
believed in me more than the college professors believe in their students ability to learn
complex material.
Scientific Literacy
The STAR Program introduced participants to a rigorous laboratory experience
requiring the development of strong scientific literacy unlike their classroom experience.
The survey asked participants if the STAR Program influenced their interest in
developing a stronger scientific literacy after exiting the program. Addressing science
literacy specifically looks at the participants active interest in developing a stronger
ability to understand Among the 2006-2009 responses, 39% reported “Very Interested,”
51.2% reported “More interested,” 7.3% reported “No Influence, and 2.5% reported
“Less Interested” in regards to developing a stronger scientific literacy.
Table 4: Average and Standard Deviation of Participant Report on Interest to Develop
Stronger Scientific Literacy
Average (Mean) Standard Deviation
1991-2005 (n=30) 1.0333 0.9643
2006-2009 (n=49) 1.2449 0.6624
All Participants (N=79) 1.1645 0.7914
Summary
According to expectations, participants of the STAR program consistently
reported positive influence in regards to their continued interested in science during
college and preparation for the academic challenges they would encounter in college.
The overwhelming margin between responses across most survey questions helped to
show agreement among participants in their perspective of the benefits of the STAR
Program on their experiences after high school.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the STAR Program in
providing high school students with laboratory research experience integrated with their
normal academic curriculum to promote their interest in science and scientific literacy.
While programs like STAR have grown over the past two decades (Knox, et al., 2003),
few have gathered comments made by participants regarding the influence of these
programs on their current academic and professional endeavors, as well as their
perceptions of such programs. While past studies have looked at immediate outcomes
and effects of programs on students programs (Russell, et al., 2007; Markowitz, 2004;
Knox, et al., 2003; Atwater, et al., 1999), this study will look at student responses to their
perception of the STAR Program influencing their long term goals and academic
preparation after graduating high school and entering college, and in nearly half the
sample of participants, having graduated from a four-year university. Data collected
from this study gave insight into the degree of preparation participants received for their
college level coursework. Participants are able to make sound comparison and evaluation
of their experiences in STAR and as an undergraduate to see how well prepared they are
in succeeding in their science courses. As a result of these lasting benefits to participants,
the likelihood of success in receiving a STEM related degree from a university is
improved among students involved in such programs.
Participant Interest to Continue Scientific Study in College
The results of this area of interest in the study indicate that the students who
participated in the STAR Program saw their experience was a positive influence
towards their continued pursuit of science in their postsecondary education. Finding this
consistent pattern among the 2006 to 2009 group indicates that the STAR Program
contributes strongly to the participant’s engagement and sustained effort to study science
during college. Considering the overwhelming number of undergraduate students who do
not persist in a science related study in college reported by NCES (2009), programs like
STAR can work to effectively try to retain students within the science disciplines.
Across all three questions to assessing the STAR Program’s influence on
participant’s interest to continue studying science after graduating high school, there are
strong and consistent evidence that this unique high school experience provides a
platform that facilitates a positive experience for students to engage in scientific study
during college. The positive experiences and attitudes towards challenging scientific
research student develop in STAR helps to create expectation to engage in similar
experiences in college. This expectation and value placed on a particular experience have
powerful motivation benefits to help promote and sustain interest in science throughout
college.
Academic Preparation of the STAR Program
Among all participants, data indicates that the STAR program provided a positive
level of influence on improving both their understanding of scientific principles and
knowledge of scientific techniques and procedures. The data from questions looking at
academic preparation provides clear evidence that participants viewed their experience in
the STAR Program as a helpful in their comprehension and practice of science. This
dimension of the student’s experience sheds light on the benefits that can be utilized
later in their undergraduate coursework and the opportunity to secure a position working
in a laboratory in college. Early exposure and training in these skills are invaluable to
incoming first year college students and can be vital in their early success in college as
they pursue a science degree.
Since these AP courses help prepare college bound high school students for the
rigor of college level science coursework, the STAR Program proves to be an experience
on par with these AP science courses. In order to assess the participant’s perception of
the program’s rigorousness as a scientific course, the survey asked participants to
evaluate the rigorousness of the STAR program with other AP science courses they had
taken. Participants were asked to evaluate the STAR Program and other AP science
courses, such as AP Chemistry, AP Physics, and AP Biology, in a four level scale of
rigorousness. The raw data from the survey reported that participants viewed the STAR
Program as very rigorous in comparison to the other AP courses they completed in high
school. Data gathered from this portion of the survey found that participants viewed the
STAR Program as comparably rigorous as AP Biology and AP Chemistry. There was
not a significant difference between how participants viewed the rigorousness of the
STAR Program and their AP Chemistry and AP Biology courses. A close look at these
comparisons shows that the STAR Program’s level of rigorousness based on frequency
was rated as being above AP Biology and below AP Chemistry. These results from level
of rigorousness with data concerning interest in continuing scientific study help to show
that the STAR Program experience is beneficial towards student success through
preparation and motivation.
Together with data collected regarding participant perception of their preparation
for college level science courses and rigor of the program, the STAR Program shows
consistent influence in supporting students in their success through college. Lack of
STEM course preparation has often been the reason most college students are unable to
graduate with a STEM degree. The STAR Program provides not only the academic rigor
of other AP science courses that will help their transition from high school to college
level science, but also provides students with science content that will help build a
foundation for what they will encounter in more science intensive curriculum.
Participants of the STAR Program are thus better prepared holistically for their higher
education experience. The College Board (2010) estimates students should spend
approximately five hours a week engaged in laboratory time, equivalent to amount of
time a undergraduate student spends in one college level chemistry laboratory course.
Students in the STAR Program engage in at least 10 hours a week of laboratory work in
addition to their previous or current classroom laboratory work. Thus, STAR students
have more time accumulated in laboratory experience to prepare them for the conceptual
and practical laboratory skills of college level science courses.
Implications
After 20 years, the success of the STAR program has continuously shown that
the academic potential of students can be pushed further when given the right
opportunities. Students in high school are capable of handling challenging scientific
content when given the proper structures of support to help guide their learning. If
America expects to produce the best and brightest students, it must allow them to take
advantage of all the opportunities that can be provided to them that will allow them to
learn and grow. These opportunities are tied to learning experiences that allow students
to be challenged in nontraditional methods often seen in inquiry and problem based
learning.
Students in the STAR Program learn science through a model of inquiry and
problem based learning. Educators can learn from what has successfully taken place in
these laboratories and bring it into the classroom to effectively teach STEM content and
motivate students to engage in STEM. America’s weakening education system reflects
the need for change to take place in the classroom. In these times, students must learn
much more than what was asked of them 40 years ago, though schools still retain the
same model of instruction. In order to meet the demands of what students are expected to
learn and develop, the approach to how students are taught must also change to reflect
those expectations. Expectations for students to have the creative, innovative, and
rigorous character needed to become leading scientists must come from experiences
learning and practicing science the way scientists are making new discoveries.
Results of this study support the need for more partnerships between secondary
and postsecondary educational institution to provide students with similar STEM
experiences seen in the STAR Program. The partnership between USC and Bravo High
School is a model of how two different institutions with different stakeholders can
successfully achieve a shared interest. Science classrooms in public school are often
times unable to meet the needs of all students due to limited supplies, space, and modern
instruments. However, universities can help remove this limitation by providing the
resources high schools are unable to provide to many of its students.
While Bravo High School possess’ the privilege of existing adjacent to a
university campus like USC, not many other existing high schools share the same
privilege. However, with the recent popularity of charter schools operated by
universities, this study gives more reason for universities across the nation to taken on
such endeavors with programs similar to STAR in mind. Universities can establish their
own charter schools on their campus and allow students to engage in research
experiences similar to STAR.
The need to scale up the STAR Program is necessary. In order to reach out to
more students, similar programs must be established on other university campuses across
the nation to address the growing need to provide STEM education to underrepresented
groups. The proven success of the STAR program is evidence that it is reliable model to
implement in other institutions.
Over the past few decades, the relative complexity of high school science
curricula has grown. New methods of science education are needed to fulfill the
comprehensive knowledge we expect students to possess. The science community
overwhelmingly agrees that STEM education must move beyond facts and isolated
knowledge and more towards active learning and participation among students to develop
interest in learning STEM and pursuing a STEM career. High school science curricula
must expand opportunities to deliver rigorous science education that students will value.
The future science education will require partnerships to develop among institutes of
higher education and local high schools.
While public schools face many issues regarding the challenges of society such as
racism, sexism, and classism, programs like STAR can offer the opportunity to alleviate
those issues in public schools. Access to resources offered by the STAR Program will no
longer be restricted to those from privileged backgrounds or groups belonging to specific
communities. STAR can address the issues that often divide students from schools with
variable access to resources.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future studies in this project will attempt to gather more data on students who
completed STAR early in its inception. This study was greatly limited by the data sample
provided by individuals who have graduated from postsecondary education for over 10
years. The data provided by those individuals can give greater insight into the influence
of the STAR Program years graduating high school. Studies in the future will look into
the beliefs and intensions of students entering STAR and how it changes after one year of
participation in the program. In addition, collecting data from students before their
admission into the STAR Program and after they completed the STAR program will help
to identify the relative influence the STAR Program has on students over the course of
their participation.
The STAR Program must also look into gathering more data on its current
students. It must look more deeply into the underlying structures of the laboratory
experience that most effectively shapes the motivation and learning of students. While
the STAR program was not the first nor the only program providing high school students
with laboratory research experience, it is the only program integrating itself in to the
high school curriculum, thus allowing students to engage in an entire year in a laboratory.
This unique character of the STAR Program opens students to a vast number of variables
that do not exist in other short-term laboratory research experiences.
Limitations
One limitation pertaining to this study is that students selected to participate in
STAR are already interested in science and have achieved high grades in high school
science classes. Their recruitment and selection is based on their motivation and interest
in engaging in science. A second limitation to this study has been the challenge to recruit
as many participants to be involved with this study. After 20 years, many of the earlier
participants of the STAR Program were more difficult to reach or their contact
information was difficult to attain. This created a struggle to gather as many responses as
possible. A third limitation of this study was the uncertainty of participant cooperation in
completing the online survey. In order to gather as much data as possible, this survey
was very extensive consisting of over 80 questions. Many only 91 surveys were
completed out of the 119 that were received. Lastly, this study did not consider other
supportive services and programs that students participated in before, during, and/or after
participating in STAR that may or may not contributed to their outcomes.
Conclusions
If we expect the future generation of scientific minds to be the world leaders in
innovation and discovery, they must learn and practice science in such a way that
prepares them to engage in science in that fashion. The STAR Program’s approach in
exposing high school students to one year of university laboratory research is a
promising attempt to providing students with rigorous scientific experiences that
promotes further interest in pursuing science throughout their postsecondary education.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science
Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2001). Designs for Science
Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York
Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic
competence, motivation, and self-concept. New York, NY, US: Guilford
Publications.
Ashby, C. M. (2006). Higher education: Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics trends and the role of federal programs. testimony before the
committee on education and the workforce, house of representatives. GAO-06-
702TU.S. Government Accountability Office. 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC
20548. Tel: 202-512-6000; Web site: http://www.gao/gov. Retrieved from ERIC
Atwater, M. M., Colson, J., and Simpson, R. D. (1999). Influences of a university
summer residential program on high school students’ commitment to the sciences
and higher education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering 5: 1555.173
Blackler, F. and McDonald, S. (2000) ‘Power, Mastery and Organizational Learning’,
Journal of Management Studies 37(6): 833–51.
Blackwell, L. V., Snyder, L. A., & Mavriplis, C. (2009). Diverse faculty in STEM fields:
Attitudes, performance, and fair treatment. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 2(4), 195-205. doi:10.1037/a0016974
Bleicher, R. (1996) High school students learning science in university research
laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33: 1115-1133.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1991). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing.
Building Engineering and Science Talent (BEST). (2004, February). A bridge for all:
Higher education design principles to broaden participation in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from
www.bestworkforce.org/PDFdocs/BEST_High_Ed_Rep_48pg_02_25.pdf
California Department of Education (2009). California Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR): District and School Reports. Available online at
http://star.cde/ca.gov/star2009
Carline, J. D., & Patterson, D. G. (2003). Characteristics of health professions schools,
public school systems, and community-based organizations in successful
partnerships to increase the numbers of underrepresented minority students
entering health professions education. Academic Medicine, 78(5), 467-482.
Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, Race/Ethnicity, and
selective college admissions. A century foundation paperThe Century Foundation,
41 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021. Tel: 212-535-4441; Fax: 212-535-
7534; e-mail: info@tcf.org; Web site: http://www.tcf.org. Retrieved from ERIC
Carter, F. D., Mandell, M., & Maton, K. I. (2009). The influence of on-campus, academic
year undergraduate research on STEM ph.D. outcomes: Evidence from the
meyerhoff scholarship program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
31(4), 441-462. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373709348584
Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) in postsecondary education. stats in brief. NCES 2009-161National
Center for Education Statistics. Available from: ED Pubs. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup,
MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877-433-7827; Web site:
http://nces.ed.gov/help/orderinfo.asp. Retrieved from ERIC
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of
the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning:
Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
Dataquest. (2009). School Summary Data (CA Department of Education). Available
online at http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest
Davidson, E. S., & Smith, W. P. (1982). Imitation, social comparison, and self-reward.
Child Development, 53(4), 928-932. doi:10.2307/1129130
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice
Deci, Edward L. (Ed) (1), & Ryan, R. M. (. (. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-
determination research. Rochester, NY, US: University of Rochester Press.
Dewey, J. (1933) Experience and education. New York: Macmillan
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Guiding science instruction: The use of historical analyses., Report:
ED325368. 26p.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Engestrom, Y. (1999) ‘Activity Theory and Individual Social Transformation’, in Y.
Engestrom, R. Miettinen, and R. L. Punamaki (eds) Perspectives on Activity
Theory, pp. 19–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erkut, S., & Marx, F. (2005). 4 schools for WIE. evaluation reportWellesley Centers for
Women. Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02841. Tel: 781-
283-2510; Fax: 781-283-2504; Web site: http://www.wcwonline.org. Retrieved
from ERIC
Farrell, E., & Dweck, C. (1985). The role of motivational processes in transfer of
learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Fay, A. L., & Klahr, D. (1996). Knowing about guessing and guessing about knowing:
Preschoolers' understanding in indeterminacy. Child Development, 67(2), 689-
716.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement
in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to kirschner, sweller, and clark
(2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. Retrieved from
http://www.leaonline.com.libproxy.usc.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520701263368
Heinze, K. F., Allen, J. L., and Jacobsen, E. N. (1995) Encouraging tomorrow’s chemists.
Journal of Chemical Education 72: 167-169
Gardner, D. P., & And Others. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. an open letter to the american people. A report to the nation and the
secretary of educationSuperintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No. 065-000-00177-2, $4.50). Retrieved from
ERIC
Gibson, H., Chase, C. (2002) Longitudinal impact of an inquiry based science program
on middle school students’ attitudes towards science. Science Education 86: 693-
705.
Hamilton, S. F., Hamilton, M. A., Hirsch, B. J., Hughes, J., King, J., & Maton, K. (2006).
Community contexts for mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology.Special
Issue: Youth Mentoring: Bridging Science with Practice, 34(6), 727-746.
doi:10.1002/jcop.20126
Helm, E., Parker, J., and Russell, M. (1999). Education and career paths of LSU’s
summer science program students from 1985 to 1997. Academic Medicine 74:
336-337.
Horn, L., & Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence
path through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of undergraduates 3 years
after entering 4-year institutions. Education Statistics Quarterly, 3(3), 65-72.
Johnson-Bailey, J., & Cervero, R. M. (2004). Mentoring in black and white: The
intricacies of cross-cultural mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 12(1), 7-21. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/13611260
42000183075
King, K. R. (2005). Why is discrimination stressful? the mediating role of cognitive
appraisal. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(3), 202-212.
doi:10.1037/1099-9809.11.3.202
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery
processes. MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
02142. Web site: http: //mitpress.mit.edu.
Knox, K. L., Moynihan, J. A., and Markowitz, D. G. (2003). Evaluation of short-term
impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived
knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology 12: 471-478
Koretz, D. (2009). How do american students measure up? making sense of international
comparisons. The Future of Children, 19(1), 37-51. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0023
Kuhn, D., & Park, S. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of
intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 111-124.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.003
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.
New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1990). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In J. W.
Stigler, R. A. Shweder & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on
comparative human development. (pp. 309-327). New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context.
Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2)
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions
and active learning. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297-306. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
Lott, K. H. (2003). Evaluation of a statewide science in service and outreach program:
Teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology 12:
65-80.
Malone, K. R., & Barabino, G. (2009). Narrations of race in STEM research settings:
Identity formation and its discontents. Science Education, 93(3), 485-510.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20307
Markowitz, D. G. (2004). Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school
summer science program on students' interest and perceived abilities in science.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 395-407. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1023/B:JOST.0000045467.67907.7b
Maton, K. I., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2004). Increasing the number of african american
PhDs in the sciences and engineering A strengths-based approach. American
Psychologist, 59(6), 547-556. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/journals
McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in
science education: An introduction. Science and Education, 7(6), 511-532.
Mertens, D. M., & Hopson, R. K. (2006). Advancing evaluation of STEM efforts through
attention to diversity and culture. New Directions for Evaluation, (109), 35-51.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ev.177
National Research Council (2000)). How People Learn, Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Directorate for Education and Human
Resources. (2006). Math and science partnership program: Strengthening
america by advancing academic achievement in mathematics and science. NSF-
05-069National Science Foundation. 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA
22230. Tel: 703-292-7000; e-mail: NSBoffice@nsf.gov; Web site:
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb. Retrieved from ERIC
Newcombe, N. S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., Gomez, L., Klahr, D., Linn, M., Miller, K., &
Mix, K. (2009). Psychology's role in mathematics and science education.
American Psychologist, 64(6), 538-550. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1037/a0014813
Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for
guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85(3), 223-238.
Richmond, G., and Kurth, L. (1999) Moving from outside to inside: High school
students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice if
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 677-697.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct
instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.libproxy.usc.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2006.00852.x
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based
learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on
kirschner, sweller, and clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91-97.
Schneider, B. (2003). Strategies for success: High school and beyond. In D. Ravitch
(Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 55–79). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Schneider, B., Swanson, C. B., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (1998). Opportunities for learning:
Course sequences and positional advantages. Social Psychology of Education, 2,
25–53.
Schunk, D. H. (1998). Peer modeling. In K. Topping, & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted
learning. (pp. 185-202). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Schunk, D. H. (1998). Teaching elementary students to self-regulate practice of
mathematical skills with modeling. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.),
Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. (pp. 137-159).
New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal
setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19(2), 159-172. doi:10.1080/10573560308219
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1989). Influence of peer-model attributes on children's
beliefs and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 431-434.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.431
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of african americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(5), 797-811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe:
What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
1(3), 139-168. doi:10.1037/a0012837
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math
coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 12(3), 243-270. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/10824660
701601266
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development (pp. 79-91). In
Mind in Society. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New
York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New
York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making
science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
White, J. L., Altschuld, J. W., & Lee, Y. (2006). Cultural dimensions in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics: Implications for minority retention
research. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6(2), 41-59.
Winkleby, M. A., Ned, J., Ahn, D., Koehler, A., & Kennedy, J. D. (2009). Increasing
diversity in science and health professions: A 21-year longitudinal study
documenting college and career success. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 18(6), 535-545. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1007/s10956-009-9168-0
APPENDIX
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Compared to other developed nations, America’s ranking continues to drop in math and science education. If America intends to develop a strong scientifically literate citizenry to fuel is technology driven economy, it must provide greater investments in effective STEM intervention programs for underrepresented students in secondary education. University research programs for high school students have shown positive effects in promoting scientific interest and among students. This focus of this study is the Science Technology and Research Program (STAR) that has existed for 20 years. The STAR Program is a partnership with USC and Francisco Bravo High School, a public high school in Los Angeles, offering students the opportunity to engage in a yearlong university laboratory research experience integrated into their curriculum. Using the responses from surveys submitted by former participants of the STAR Program, researchers found that participants developed significant interest in pursuing science and developing a stronger scientific literacy after leaving the program. Participants also report being well prepared for their science curriculum in college as a result of their experience in STAR. The program’s level of rigorousness was reported to be on par in comparison to other advanced science courses. The STAR Program is a proven model for promoting learning and interest in science and is a viable model to help increase, prepare, and retain the number of students entering post-secondary education with a STEM interest.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...
PDF
SciFest and the development of 21st-century skills, interest in coursework in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and preparation of Irish students for a globalized Ireland
PDF
Globalization, student participation in SciFest, 21st-century skill development, and female student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses in secondary schools in I...
PDF
Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…
PDF
Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher a...
PDF
Staff perceptions of critical challenges faced by Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) during the transition to junior high school
PDF
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
PDF
Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students
PDF
The mentorship of instructors and its impact on computer science interest among middle school girls: an evaluation study
PDF
Role and influence of globalization, multinational corporations, and foreign direct investment on educational policy and science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and inquiry-based instructi...
PDF
An examination of K-12 STEM integration by combining science inquiry with engineering design
PDF
Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...
PDF
Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...
PDF
Influence of SciFest on Irish students in developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and 21st-century skills in preparation for competing in a global economy
PDF
Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study
PDF
The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM
PDF
The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools
PDF
The advanced placement program: a case study of one urban high school
PDF
The role of globalization, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project‐based learning, and the national science and technology fair mandate in creating 21st‐century-ready students i...
PDF
Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development
Asset Metadata
Creator
Le, Terry
(author)
Core Title
Evaluation of the long term impact of a yearlong university high school laboratory research program on students’ interest in science and perceptions of science coursework
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Master of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
09/28/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
inquiry based learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,science interest,STEM
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(city or populated place)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Gaur, Seema (
committee member
), Maddox, Anthony (
committee member
)
Creator Email
terryle@usc.edu,theterryle@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3485
Unique identifier
UC163987
Identifier
etd-Le-4107 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-478870 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3485 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Le-4107.pdf
Dmrecord
478870
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Le, Terry
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
inquiry based learning
science interest
STEM