stem education for all: why doesn’t this yet compute? shirley m. malcom, ph.d

STEM Education for All: Why Doesn’t this Yet Compute?

Shirley M. Malcom, Ph.D.

A History of STEM Participation

• Spotty before WWII

• Women’s wartime opportunities (the first “computers”— “Men built the machines, but women made them work”)

• Access to education for minorities (separate and unequal; not “science material”)


The Post-Sputnik Push

• NDEA and financial support for STEM study

• Teacher preparation

• New curricula

• Science experiences

• “Incidental inclusion”


Structural Barriers in STEM Education

• Segregation of schools and under-resourcing of schools serving URM students- Barriers to students w/ disabilities in schools

- Curricular options

• Cultural assumptions re: capacity and/or interest

• Program segregation (home ec vs. shop; “Girls High)


The Legal and Judicial Battles for Access

• Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)

• Titles VI and VII (1964)

• Executive Order 11246 (1965)

• Title IX (1972)

• Section 504 (1973)

• DeFunis vs. Odegaard (1974)

• Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke


The Legal and Judicial Battles for Access (cont’d)

• Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (1980)

• Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

• Adarand Contractors vs. Peña (1995)

• Grutter vs. Bollinger; Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003)

• Fisher vs. University of Texas-Austin (pending)

• Various state ballot initiatives


Cultural Battles for Access

• Civil rights movement

• Women’s movement

• Disability rights movement

• More “nuanced” movements within education (First Gen, minority males)


Historical Approaches and Interventions in the Out of School Space

• Mathematics as a “critical filter” 1973

• Overcoming Math Anxiety 1978

• Expanding Your Horizons (Math/Science Network) 1974

• MESA 1970; MEP 1973

• National Advisory Council on Minorities in Engineering 1974

• Minorities in Engineering: A Blueprint for Action

• AAAS Project on the Handicapped in Science 1975


What We Learned about STEM Education for All from Out of School Programs (from Equity and Excellence: Compatible Goals)

• Strong academic component in math, science, communications

• Highly qualified teachers who believe students can learn

• Emphasis on applications and career connections

• Interdisciplinary with hands-on opportunities, incorporation of computing

• Multi-year involvement

• Strong leadership with stable, committed staff


What We Learned from Out of School Programs (cont’d)

• Stable funding base, multiple sources

• Broad recruitment

• Multi-sector cooperation

• Opportunities for in-and out-of-school learning

• Parental involvement/community support

• Specific attention to race/gender related inequalities

• Professionals and staff who look like students

• Peer support systems/ no “tokens”

• Evaluation, follow-up, data collection

• “Mainstreaming” into institutional programs


What’s Needed In School and Out of School?

• A systems approach

• A clear vision

• Evidence-based strategies

• Content, Context, Culture and Community



A System of Solutions

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

For want of a horse the rider was lost.

For want of a rider the battle was lost.

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Why Doesn’t this Yet Compute?

• Schools that don’t work for all students (Belief, behavior, practice, policy)

• Accountability without support,using imperfect standards (e.g., teaching to bad tests) (Policy)

• College level programs that don’t work even for the students who get there-- Talking About Leaving

• “Weeding, not cultivating” (Belief)

• Teacher –centered rather than learner centered (Behavior)

• Disciplinary culture (“Hyper-competitiveness” of many STEM fields)


Framing the Problems

• Attrition

• Interest

• Preparation

• Hard work


Re-framing the Problems

• Retention

• Attraction

• Support

• Working smart


Challenges

• Messaging matters

• Money matters

• Where the learning environment is problematic

• The quality of the learning experience

• The culture of STEM

• Reward structure of the academy


Takeaway Lessons

• Learning from fields with large and consistent increases

• Looking at interventions within fields that share your challenges

• Looking at experiments/interventions in computer science


Life sciences

• Near universal course taking in high school

• High percentage of in-field teachers

• High percentage of female teachers

• Compelling topics

• “Connection to self/community”

• Critical mass


Medicine

• Removal of “informal’ barriers via legal remedy

• Perception of openness/fairness more applications from women

• More application more admissions

• Med schools in MSIs

• Compelling topics and strong attraction

• Socially attractive (image and visibility)

• Strong undergrad advisory infrastructure

• Clear pathway

• BUT…….


Institutions/Departments/Programs that Stand Out for Success

• STC’s vs. regular departments

• Physics vs. Applied Physics at Michigan

• Kati Haycock’s examples http://www.edtrust.org/dc/presentation/access-to-success-in-america-where-are-we-what-can-we-do-1


Lessons Learned from Successful Efforts

• Un-stack the K-12 deck (A’s are C’s; teacher assignment; course availability; remedial focus)

• Leadership- Student success a priority

• Tap into institutional culture to achieve student success

• “Faculty as problem solvers not problems to be solved”

• Data (disaggregated) for action

• Make mandatory the things that work


Lessons Learned (cont’d)

• Evaluate programs and make adjustments based on what is learned

• Develop and monitor retention plans

• Highlight the clear pathways to success (Rein in choices)

• Focus on course improvement of introductory and developmental courses

• Use effective advising models


Unpacking the Data

• Males and females

• Different URMs

• Different disabilities

• Males and females within each URM or disability group


% Women Bachelor’s Degrees, disaggregated by race/ethnicity in select “High Performance” STEM Fields, 2010


Agricultural sciences

48% Male

52% Female

42% Male

58% Female

Biological sciences Psychology

23% Male

77% Female

Source: Calculated from NSF, NCES 2010, Table 5.2

% Women Bachelor’s Degrees, disaggregated by race/ethnicity in select “Average Performance STEM Fields, 2010


Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences

39% Female

61% Male


42% Female

Mathematics and Statistics

42% Male

58% Male

% Women Bachelor’s Degrees, disaggregated by race/ethnicity in select “Average Performance STEM Fields, 2010


Chemistry

49% Female 51%

Male


30% Female

Chemical engineering

42% Male

70% Male

% Women Bachelor’s Degrees, disaggregated by race/ethnicity in select “Low Performance” STEM Fields, 2010


Physics

80% Male

20% Female

91% Male

9% Female

Electrical engineering Mechanical engineering

89% Male

11% Female


% Bachelor’s Degrees, disaggregated by race/ethnicity in “Low Performance” Computer Science, 2010


18% Female

82% Male


Computer sciences

The Way Forward

• Single-sex education in low performance fields? (Smith College and Picker Engineering)

• Critical mass

• Teacher preparation

• New curricula (more applications, cultural links, career connection)

• Experiences and career exploration (e.g., AAAS Entry Point!)

• “Deliberate inclusion” and questioning absence


stem education for all: why doesn’t this yet compute? shirley m. malcom, ph.d

Documents

staff stem education

bakke stem education

board of education

minority males stem

shop girls high stem

access contd science

handson opportunities

access brown