Lessons Learned from a Primary Grade Engineering and Computer Science-focused STEM Intervention

• In Event: STEM Interventions for Talent Development: An Interactive Symposium on Evidence-Based Models Developed Through Javits Projects

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes

Objectives include (a) to summarize across multiple student and teacher outcome and response analyses respectively, and (b) to explore lessons learned across a multi-year research and demonstration project within the context of pandemic interruptions.

2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
Our theoretical framework is STEM talent development (Krishler et al, 2021). Although applicable across multiple domains, the talent development framework encourages domain-specific conceptualizations and interventions (Feldhusen, 1994; Preckel, et al, 2020; Subotnik et al, 2011; Subotnik et al, 2023). Thus, a sustained STEM-focused intervention, Project X, serving students from low-income households and underrepresented groups aligns with a domain-specific talent development framework which addresses both cognitive and psychosocial factors.

3. Methods, techniques or modes of inquiry

In terms of methods, techniques or modes of inquiry, we summarize both quantitative and mixed methods analyses. The intervention served two cohorts across 19 schools in low-income communities. Participants include ~3,027 students, 99 classroom teachers, 19 Gifted and talented specialists, and 19 administrators. With respect to the intervention, the project implemented Youth Engineering Solutions (YES) curriculum developed in part through National Science Foundation funding (Cunningham, 2021). The curriculum includes science content and skills taught through engineering design challenges. Linked to the YES curriculum units are trade book biographies and teaching guides focused on scientific habits of mind, the constraints of engineering design, and the application of computational thinking (Wright & Gotwall, 2027; Whitehurst, 2029; Ball & Cohen, 1996). Teachers participated in professional learning (PL) prior to the project implementation; sustained technical assistance was provided throughout the project.

4. Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials

Quantitative data sources included three instruments developed for the project: (a) Biography Information and Opinion Survey (BIOS), (b) Above-Level STEM Assessment (created with released TIMSS and MAP items), and (c) Gifted Identification Principles (universal screening and local norms). Additionally, student state accountability tests and teacher referral and placement data were collected. Qualitative data sources included: (a) teacher interviews, (b) focus groups, and (c) PL reflections.

5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions/warrants for arguments/point of view

• As a result of PL, teachers experienced professional growth and expressed both preparedness and excitement for teaching engineering to students. They observed growth in students’ engagement in both engineering and biography (see Table 1).
• Teacher knowledge of universal screening and local norms increased; the number of students referred for identification increased (see Table 2).
• Both teachers and students experienced significant growth in knowledge of biography during implementation; students experienced significant growth in enjoyment of biography. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3, students who received the intervention scored statistically significantly higher on knowledge of biography than students in comparison schools.
• Students’ STEM knowledge statistically significantly increased on an above-level STEM assessment (see Table 4 and Table 5).

Findings will be elaborated during the session.

6. Scientific/scholarly significance of the study or work

School interventions employing sustained PL with evidence-based, rigorous curriculum and personalized technical assistance increase the likelihood of improved student achievement and affective outcomes and teacher gains in knowledge and enthusiasm for STEM.

Authors

• Monica Meadows, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

• Ann E. Robinson, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

• Jill L. Adelson, Adelson Research & Consulting, LLC

• Keila Moreno Navarrete, University of Arkansas at Little Rock