The Role of a Single Sex Informal Education Program on Young women’s Long-Term Interest and Persistence in STEM

1. The Role of a Single Sex Informal Education Program on Young women’s Long-Term Interest and Persistence in STEM 2013 Annual Association for Science Teacher Education Conference Charleston, SC Roxanne Hughes, Ph.D. National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

2. Why Focus on Women? • Women represent less than 25% of physics and some engineering fields and yet represent 50% of the US population (NSF, 2011; US Census Bureau, 2010). • Research on elementary school students demonstrates that girls and boys show similar levels of interest in STEM. As students move to middle school, a gender gap in interest begins to occur (AAUW, 2010; Miller, Blessing, & Schwartz, 2006; Shakeshaft, 1995; Spielhagen, 2008; Williams & Ceci, 2007). • Research suggests that one explanation for this gender gap can be found in identity frameworks – young girls are less able to identify with STEM fields and therefore begin to lose interest (Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz, 2000; Carlone, 2003; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Tan & Calabrese Barton, 2008).

3. Efforts to Improve Girls’ STEM Identities • Exposure to female role models in STEM • Exposure to relevant and hands-on activities in various STEM fields • Often through informal STEM education efforts

4. Single Sex Programs • Some of these programs have manifested into single sex programming that focuses on girls in a single sex environment as a way to promote their confidence to express their interest in STEM (Spielhagen, 2008). • Protests by ACLU and NOW who see these as discriminatory and not equal (Salomone, 2003). • Yet the number has increased.

5. How this study fits within the debate • Most studies on informal STEM education (and single sex) tend to focus on immediate impact (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Farland-Smith, 2012; Hay & Barab, 2001; Watermeyer & Stevenson, 2010) • Longitudinal studies have shown mixed results in terms of impact (Demetry, Hubelbank, Blaisdell, Sontgerath, Nicholson, Rosenthal, & Quinn, 2009; Fadigan & Hammrich, 2004; Jayaratne, Thomas, & Trautmann, 2003). • This study adds to the previous longitudinal studies by focusing on the impact of a single sex STEM informal education program on girls’ long term persistence in STEM as measured through: • interest in STEM activities, • understanding of science knowledge, • reflection on science and the nature of science, • engagement in scientific practices, • and identity.

6. Conceptual Framework • National Research Council report outlines six pieces to any assessment of informal STEM education programs (NRC, 2009). • Learners will “experience excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and physical world. • Learners “come to generate, understand, remember, and use concepts, explanations, arguments, models, and facts related to science.” • Learners “manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the natural and physical world.” • Learners “reflect on science as a way of knowing; on processes, concepts, and institutions of science; and on their own process of learning about phenomena” • Learners “participate in scientific activities and learning practices with others, using scientific language and tools” • Learners “think about themselves as science learners and develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science” (4) • These six pieces were combined with research on STEM identity (Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz, 2000; Carlone, 2003; Carlone & Johnson, 2007) to analyze the data collected for this study.

7. Conceptual Framework

8. The “GIRLS” camp • Began in 2006 with 16 girls (rising 6th through 9th graders) • Since 2007 has included two camps for total of 32 girls (GIRLS I for rising 6th and 7th graders and GIRLS II for rising 8th and 9th graders) • 2-week camp that exposes middle school girls to STEM careers through: • hands-on activities that are relevant to their lives; • opportunities to interact with female STEM professionals who can talk about their work and serve as possible role models; • opportunities to engage in the process and community of science • The camp is a fee-based camp, however, one-third of the spots are scholarship supported so that lower income students can participate

9. Example of Camp Activities

10. Research Methods • Pre/post survey each camp: • Quantitative: understanding of NOS (Lederman et al., 2002); STEM interest, attitudes toward STEM; perceptions of STEM careers and professionals; and self-efficacy in STEM (AWE, 2010). • Qualitative: open ended questions • Every three years a follow-up survey is emailed to past participants (2009, 2012). • STEM interest; perceptions of STEM professionals and careers; engagement in STEM.

11. Coding • To determine STEM interest over time, the following questions were coded to determine level of STEM interest: favorite subject, career interest, college major. • Students who identified a STEM subject as their favorite were given a STEM code. STEM career and major interests were categorized according to definite interest (it was specifically mentioned) or possible interest (it was one of many interests including non-STEM). • The questions that attempted to understand how GIRLS affected participants’ interest over time were: How has your interest in STEM changed since participating in GIRLS? And, What effect do you think GIRLs has had on you? • Responses were first coded to identify whether the camp has a positive impact. These responses fell into two categories: No change because already interested; increased interest in STEM. • In terms of how the camp affected each person, there were five common themes that arose from the open-ended responses: • learned more about STEM careers; • improved confidence in pursuing STEM; • improved team work and collaboration abilities; • increased understanding of STEM and reduced stereotypes about STEM; • and motivated student to pursue STEM.

12. Participants • Campers who participated in one summer or more of the camp from 2006 to 2011 (n=144, 38 of these students participated two summers). • Of the 144 unique individuals, 60 (42%) have responded to one or both follow up surveys • The lead researcher has been a participant observe since 2007

13. Demographics Demographics of All Campers Demographics of Follow-up Campers

14. Breakdown of Respondents Year of Camp Participant Represented by Longitudinal Cohort 2009 Grade levels at time of contact (n= 29) 2012 Grade levels at time of contact (n=39)

15. Results of Longitudinal Surveys • All of the respondents (n=60 distinct respondents not double counting those who responded in 2009 and 2012) were interested in STEM before coming to the camp as evidenced by their applications. • Forty nine of these participants (88%) still listed a science or math course as one of their favorite courses in 2009 and/or 2012, demonstrating continued interest over time. • All of the respondents mentioned a positive effect of the camp on their interest, understanding or motivation in STEM, providing evidence of the long-term benefits of the camp programming • One of the most cited successful aspects of the program on continued interest was the opportunities thestudents had to interact with STEM professionals who introduced them to a variety of STEM careers through hands on activities.

16. Specifically Mentioned Aspects

17. Varying Effects of Camps • Increased interest in STEM, but may not be considering a STEM career: • “Due to GIRLS, I understand different sciences and how they interact with each other and society. I also have a broader perspective of how things work” (2012 survey response from 2010/11 camper.) • Despite not having an interest in a STEM career, this camper did learn more about STEM through participation in the camp. This meets the camp goals in that it exposed her to STEM and helped her develop a better understanding of STEM careers.

18. Better Understanding • Relevance to their own lives (43%) • “GIRLS allowed me to view different fields of science and explained in depth the complexity of science in everyday life” (2012 response from 2007/08 camper). • “GIRLS reinforced my interest in science and it also made me realize that there was more to science than just what was taught in the school room” (2009 response from 2007/08 camper). • Better understanding of STEM careers (40%) • “Before GIRLS I didn't really know what a forensic scientist did or what a marine biologist did. But now that I have been exposed to those careers, I can make an educated decision about what I want to do when I grow up” (2012 response from a 2007/08 camper).

19. Better understanding leads - for some - to improved interest. • Fifty seven percent of the participants (n=34) were interested in a STEM career, with an additional 14% (n=8) listing it as a possibility at least two or more years after participating in camp. • According to the respondents the camp motivated participants to pursue STEM careers by motivating them to take advanced STEM courses (n=9) and/or persist in a STEM career (n=8). • GIRLS “solidified that interest” (2012 response from a 2009 camper) • GIRLS “opened my eyes to the kinds of careers I could have in science and confirmed my career goals” (2009 response to a 2008 camper).

20. Gender Aspect • The GIRLS program is unique in that it is a single sex camp that exposes girls to female STEM professionals along with hands on activities that improve their understanding of STEM. • This gendered exposure was mentioned by seven participants. • GIRLS “showed me that it was possible for women to be scientists” (2009 response from a 2007/08 camper). • It just helped me know that this is what I want to do. Ever since I was 10 I wanted to be a chemist, but I didn't know any girl chemists. I met women in science thru GIRLS and I can now see they aren't just geeky women in white coats (2009 response from 2008 camper). • GIRLS gave me a basis for my love of science. I had been to other science camps that also piqued my interest from a young age, but GIRLS was the first to show how women could be involved in science. Going to a science-focused university with a 60/40 ratio of men to women, it's exciting to see that the percentage of women in the sciences is increasing (2012 response from a 2007 camper). • The fact that this young woman still remembers her experience and can credit that experience as influencing her STEM career trajectory speaks to the effect of exposing young women to female role models in STEM

21. Unintended Positive Effects • Not directly part of the mission of the camp but positive nonetheless: • Increased confidence (n=6) • and improved abilities to work as a team member (n=6). • These results were only cited by students within one year of completing the program • This could indicate that these effects immediate rather than longitudinal effects of the camp and its structure. • One 2007/08 camper described the camp’s impact on her confidence in succeeding in STEM, “GIRLS has definitely given me more confidence that I want to get a job in science. It has also made me set higher goals for myself” (2009 response from a 2007/08 camper). • Similarly other students expressed that they learned what it was like to “collaborate as a scientist” (2012 response from 2011 camper).

22. Decline in STEM interest • Some participants described a decline in their STEM interest since participating in GIRLS, crediting this decline to experiences outside of the camp • For example, one participant explained, “I was really on fire for it [STEM] after GIRLS- but it started to decline once Physics came in” (2012 response from a 2006 camper). • And another discussed how she felt like she was not “good at science and math in school” believing that “school was ruining [her] interest in STEM” (2009 response from a 2006/07 camper). • This is an interesting finding to follow up with in more depth.

23. Limitations and Conclusions • We realize that we cannot directly connect GIRLS to the young women’s continued interest (or lack thereof), but we can demonstrate that this program is just one of hopefully many that can add to STEM persistence over time. • To better highlight identity trajectories, in-depth follow up with these participants and their families is required. Interviews with these participants and their families could highlight changes over time and better explain how identity is affected by both informal science education and formal science education. • Despite this piece, the present study adds to the literature in that it demonstrates that participation in informal science education programs were still mentioned by participants years after the participation, thereby indicating that these experiences still had some effect on some of the participants. • Some might argue that the self-selection issues (students were already interested in STEM when they applied to the camp) might detract from these findings. However, underrepresented minority students (particularly girls) tend to lose interest in STEM from middle school to college, despite having a high interest in elementary school. Therefore, programs that maintain that interest and expose adolescent girls to STEM careers are important to improving the number of girls who stay in the STEM pipeline.

24. References • American Association of University Women. (2010, February). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report). Washington, DC: Author. • Aschbacher, P.R., Li, E., & Roth, E.J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564-582. • Barab, S.A. & Hay, K.E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102. • Bell, R.L., Blair, L.M., Crawford, B.A., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. • Brickhouse, N.W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441-458. • Buck, G.A.; Plano Clark, V.L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y., & Cerda-Lizarrage, P., (2007). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Science Education, 92, p 688-707. • Carlone, H.B. (2003). (Re)producing good science students: Girls’ participation in high school physics. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(1), 17-34. • Carlone, H.B. & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187-1218. • Demetry, C., Hubelbank, J., Blaisdell, S., Sontgerath, S., Nicholson, M.E., Rosenthal, E., & Quinn, P. (2009). Supporting young women to enter engineering: Long-term effects of a middle school engineering outreach program for girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 119-142. • Fadigan, K.A. & Hammrich, P.L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835-860. • Farland-Smith, D. (2012). Personal and social interactions between young girls and scientists: Examining critical aspects for identity construction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 1-18. • Fields, D.A. (2009). What do students gain from a week at science camp? Youth perceptions and the design of an immersive, research-oriented astronomy camp. International Journal of Science and Education. 31(2), 151-171. • Gilmartin, S., Denson, N., Li, E., Bryant, A., & Aschbacher, P. (2007). Gender ratios in high school science departments: The effect of percent female faculty on multiple dimensions of students’ science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 980-1009. • Hay, K.E. & Barab, S.A. (2001). Constructivism in Practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 281-322. • Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G, Sadler, P.M., and Shanahan, M.C. (2010). Connecting high school Physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), pp. 978-1003. • Jayaratne, T.E., Thomas, N.G., & Trautmann, M. (2003). Intervention program to keep girls in the science pipeline: Outcome differences by ethnic status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 393-414. • Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. • Miller, P.H., Blessing, J.S., Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science and Education, 28(4), 363-381. • National Research Council. (2009).Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. Eds. P.Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, & M.A. Feder. Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and social sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. • National Science Foundation, (February, 2011). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. NSF 11-309. Table 9-37: Demographic characteristics of employed scientists and engineers by race/ethnicity and sex. Arlington, VA. • Painter, J., Jones, M.G., Tretter, T.R., & Kubasko, D. (2006). Pulling back the curtain: Uncovering and changing students’ perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 181-190. • Polman, J.L. & Miller, D. (2010). Changing stories: Trajectories of identification among African American youth in a science outreach apprenticeship. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 878-918. • Rittmayer, M.A. & Beier, M.E. (2009). Self-Efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Applying Research to Practice (ARP) Resources. Retrieved September 1, 2010 from http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPresources.aspx • Salomone, R.C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. • Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Reforming Science Education to Include Girls. Theory into Practice. 34(1), 74-79. • Spielhagen, F.R. (2008) Chapter 4: Having it our way: Students speak out on single-sex classes. In F.R. Spielhagen (Ed). Debating single-sex education: Separate and equal? (pp.32-46). Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. • Tan, E. & Calabrese Barton, A. (2008) From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie’s metamorphosis in an urban middle school science class. Science Education, 92(4), 567-590. • Watermeyer, R. & Stevenson, V. (2010). Discover!ng women in STEM: Girls into science, technology, engineering and math. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 2(1), 25-46. • Williams, W.M. & Ceci, S.J. (2007). Introduction: Striving for perspective in the debate on women in science. In S.J. Ceci.& W.M. Williams (Eds). Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.