350 likes | 488 Views
Pilot STEM in OST Evaluation Preliminary Report. March 2012 University of California , Irvine. Study Sample Selected. 17 programs in 9 Regions participating Pilot Evaluation Study Regions 1, 2, 3 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Total of 65 sites recruited 52 Elementary 9 Middle School 4 K-8
E N D
Pilot STEM in OST EvaluationPreliminary Report March 2012 University of California , Irvine
Study Sample Selected • 17 programs in 9 Regions participating Pilot Evaluation Study • Regions 1, 2, 3 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 • Total of 65 sites recruited • 52 Elementary • 9 Middle School • 4 K-8 • Criteria for Selecting Study Sample: • Range of STEM curriculum approaches • Range of student age groups (grades 3-12) • Diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, representative of students in the State of California • Internet access
Overview of Evaluation Activities: Selected Study Sites engage in the following activities: • Administer pre (fall 2011) and post (spring 2012) online student surveys • Administer online staff surveys at two time points: pre (fall 2011), and end-of-year (spring 2012) • Document Weekly Stem Activities—to be recorded daily by site implementers on STEM Activity Documentation Forms • Provide UC Irvine with copies of program schedule and lesson plans
Pilot Study Launch Fall 2011 • Activities to date: • Selection of pilot study sample sites • Set up of staff pre-survey and student pre-survey online links • Communication with pilot study sites: • Email sent informing Program Liaison of selected sites and overview of evaluation activities to be carried out • Individual emails sent to STEM Implementers at each study site including: • Individual staff IDs assigned & instructions distributed for staff surveys • Site IDs assigned & instructions distributed for student surveys • STEM Activity Documentation Form (electronic and hard copies) distributed with instructions & envelopes for returning forms to UC Irvine • Packages sent to each study site or program liaison with: • Hard copies of STEM Activity Documentation Forms and instructions • Prepaid and addressed envelopes completed forms to UC Irvine
Winter 2012 Evaluation Activities • Follow-up Communications & Reminders: • Program liaisons sent a list of study sites and corresponding staff IDs and site IDs Nov. 30/Dec. 1, 2011 • Reminders sent to Program Liaisons & STEM Implementers • Reminders to complete surveys and begin sending STEM Activity Documentation Forms • Accounting of data collected from their program sites • All site and staff codes and survey instructions resent with email • Ongoing contact with program Program Liaisons & STEM Implementers by phone and email
Data Collected to Date—March 15 2012 • 90 staff pre-surveys have been completed • 35 sites have completed 1,277 student pre-surveys • Preliminary results of Staff and Student Pre-Surveys summarized in slides that follow • 103 STEM Activity Documentation forms received reporting on 310 Individual Stem Activities • Items reported by STEM implementers about each activity include: • Date and Duration of Activity • Name of activity • STEM content area addressed • Number of students and grade level • 4 point ratings of • Level of student Engagement • Level of challenge • Overall assessment of success of activity • Data are being entered in the data base for analysis and will be correlated with staff survey data and student survey site level data.
Summary STAFF Pre-Survey Data Data collected December 2011–March 2012
Summary of Staff Pre-Survey Results 90 staff surveys collected between November 2011 and March 2012 73% respondents female. 1/3 are between 18 and 25 years old. 72% are 35 or under.
Staff Survey—Level of Education Achieved • Nearly half (48%) have attended college or have an AA degree • 42% have B.A. Degrees or higher
Staff Reflect the Diversity of Students and Communities Served
Staff Position in Afterschool Program • 40% staff have less than one year in current position • 33% have more than 5 years in position • 27% have 1-3 years in position
62% have some experience as a classroom aide or TA 23% 1-5 years 14% more than 5 years 37% reported having some classroom teacher experience 15% 1-5 years 10.5% more than 5 years 15% have some school administrative staff experience 8% student support staff experience Few staff report any administrative experience (6%) Staff Experience in other School Settings
Variety of STEM Activities Implemented Prompt: In your current position, do you implement any STEM activities with students? If so, please specify which types of activities (select all that apply):
Prior Experience & Time per Week Implementing STEM • 30 %have no prior experience implementing STEM at another program • Prompt: In your current position, how much time per week do you spend implementing STEM activities with students? • 22% spend NO time implementing STEM • Nearly half (49%) do at least 30 minutes to 2 hours of STEM per week
Staff Meetings Around STEM • 21 % report never discussing STEM at staff meetings • 55% discuss STEM in staff meetings at least once a month to once a week Frequency of Staff Discussion of Program and STEM Issues n =90
Compensation for Staff Meetings ( n = 89) • 66% staff report being compensated for all meetings • 10% for most meetings • 7% for some meetings • 15% receive no compensation for meetings • 2% staff report having no meetings
Training and Support • A little over half (52%) of staff surveyed have had at least 1-4 sessions of Stem Related Training in the past academic year • 42 % have had NO Stem Training n = 90
Staff Relations with Teachers • 32% never speak with classroom teachers about STEM concepts taught in classroom During the past academic year, how often have you discussed…
Staff Relations with Parents • 76% of staff report never holding STEM-Related events for parents • 36% say they never speak with parents about STEM activities n = 89
Staff Outcome Measures Beliefs & Sense of Competency • Two staff outcome measures: • 5 point rating scale • strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, strongly agree [some reversed coded] • Staff beliefs about STEM in the afterschool program. • Example Items • I think the students enjoy doing STEM Activities • In general, I think these students [in the afterschool program] are very capable of doing hands-on science activities • I don’t think there is enough time at the program for students to learn much about STEM • Staff sense of competency implementing STEM in the afterschool program • Example Items • I have a strong background in at least one area of STEM • I do not know enough about Science, Technology, Engineering and/or Mathematics to teach any of them well • I feel confident about teaching Science, Technology, Engineering and/or Mathematics in the afterschool program
Summary Student Pre-Survey Data Data collected December 2011–March 2012
Student Survey Sample • 1,277 in Full Sample • 51% Boys and 49% Girls Grade and Gender of Student Respondents
Time to Complete Survey • 51%students overall report taking 15 minutes or less to complete survey • 55% Middle School & 28% Elementary students report taking 9 minutes or less
Survey taking Experience • The majority of students find the surveys Easy to Read, Understand • and Answer • 83-85% state “mostly true” or “really true” Full sample: n = 1200
Student OutcomesPre-Survey Results • 1,277 surveys completed by students grades 3-8 • Eight scales: • Work Habits • Misconduct • Social Competencies • Math Efficacy • Science Efficacy • Interest and Engagement in STEM • Future Outlook • Science Career Aspirations
Work Habits • Work Habits—mean of 6 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true, 4 = really true) • Sample items include: • “I work well by myself” • “I finish my work on time.” Full Sample n = 1,277 SD = .67 Alpha = .81
Misconduct • Misconduct—mean of 9 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (0 = never, 3 = more than once a week) • Lower score means LESS misconduct • Sample items include: • “I have gotten into a fight at school” • “I have taken something that belongs to someone else.”
Social Competencies • Social Competencies—mean of 7 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (1 = not at all true, 4 = really true) • Sample items include: • “I work well with other kids” • “I can tell other kids what I think, even if they disagree with me.”
Math Efficacy • Math Efficacy—mean of 4 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (1 = not at all true, 4 = really true) • Sample items include: • “I expect to do well in math” • “I am interested in math.”
Science Efficacy • Science Efficacy—mean of 4 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (1 = not at all true, 4 = really true) • Sample items include: • “I expect to do well in science” • “I am interested in science.”
Excited, Engaged and Interested Science Learner [PEAR-Harvard] • Excited, Engaged & Interested Science Learner—mean of 24 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) • Some items reverse coded • Sample items include: • “Science is something I get excited about.” • “I am curious to learn more about science, computers or technology.” • “Science is boring” • “I pay attention when people talk about recycling to protect our environment.” • “I enjoy visiting science museums or zoos.”
Future Outlook • Future Outlook—mean of 7 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) • Sample items include: • “I will go to college.” • “I will have a job that I enjoy doing.”
Science Career Aspirations • Science Career Aspirations—mean of 4 items • Assessed on a 4-point scale: (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) • Sample items include: • “I will have a career in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics.” • “I will graduate with a college degree in a major area needed for a career in science.”
Next Steps • Initiate Post-Survey administration: April 15, 2012-June 15, 2012 • Ensure staff have received information, instructions and forms for completing Activity Documentation Forms • UC Irvine to Request sample copies of site schedule and weekly lesson plan • Final analysis of pre/post student and staff outcome measures and program implementation data • Refinement of measures for 2012-13 STEM in OST evaluation study