{"id":11165,"date":"2021-10-29T19:20:49","date_gmt":"2021-10-29T19:20:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2022-02-18T20:57:23","modified_gmt":"2022-02-18T20:57:23","slug":"assessing-stem-identities-in-intergenerational-informal-stem-programming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-21\/issue-4-21\/science\/assessing-stem-identities-in-intergenerational-informal-stem-programming","title":{"rendered":"Assessing STEM identities in Intergenerational Informal STEM Programming"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Many people in the United States do not have positive experiences in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education that foster the development and maintenance of STEM identities throughout their lifetimes. STEM identity refers to a person\u2019s self-conception as someone who understands, uses, and contributes to a STEM field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many perspectives can be found as to what constitutes STEM education. Ellis et al. (2020) recognized consensus on four aspects of integrated STEM education: (a) incorporates real-world contexts to promote student engagement and meaningful learning (Bryan et al., 2015; Burrows et al., 2017; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Sanders, 2009), (b) focuses on student-centered pedagogies (Bryan et al., 2015; Kelley & Knowles, 2016), (c) emphasizes developing 21st-century competencies (e.g., creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration) (Bryan et al., 2015; Honey et al., 2014), and (d) makes explicit connections between STEM disciplines (Bryan et al., 2015; Burrows et al., 2017; English, 2016; Herschbach, 2011; Honey et al., 2014; Kelley & Knowles, 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this paper, STEM is understood as representing any of the individual fields in science, technology, engineering, and math. Of the four fields, technology is the one that lacks a clearly defined role in STEM education. Ellis et al. (2020) found that a technology perspective, where students use authentic STEM tools and techniques, had the greatest impact on learning science content and practices. This finding aligns with a definition of technology from the Project 2016 Phase I Technology panel report (Johnson, 1989) that defined technology as a process that applies knowledge, skills, and tools to solve problems (see also Ellis et al., 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the greatest challenges in science teacher education is understanding how to design STEM programming that provides opportunities for positive experiences that promote identification with STEM fields. Developing a person\u2019s STEM identity can lead to increased participation and sustained engagement in these disciplines (Archer et al., 2010; Basu & Barton, 2007; Calabrese Barton et al., 2013; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Stets et al., 2017). According to the National Research Council (NRC & Bell, 2009), \u201cIt is an important goal that all members of society identify themselves as being comfortable with, knowledgeable about, or interested in science\u201d (p. 46).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NRC\u2019s recommendation that learners in informal environments develop the capacity to \u201cthink about themselves as science learners and develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science\u201d (NRC & Bell, 2009, p. 4) is theoretically and empirically grounded in the conceptualization of identity as connected to engagement in social contexts (Carlone, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A STEM identity is one type of social identity where one develops an affinity toward a STEM field. Gee (2000) described multiple types of identities people have throughout their lifetimes that are foregrounded depending on differing social environments and continually changing as a social process. Affinity identities are recognized by groups that share a common interest and develop a set of shared distinctive practices. Members are often more connected to the practices and experiences than to other group members. They connect to other people and sustain their membership through distinctive group practices.            <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our research involved the continued development and implementation of the Conservation Science and Technology Identity (CSTI) survey, by which we sought to provide an empirical method to determine STEM identity profiles of informal science program participants. The STEM identity profiles were based on previously determined identity constructs of competence, performance, recognition, and a newly emergent construct, ways of seeing and being. The surveys provided a means for (a) making identity constructs empirically accessible, (b) revealing STEM identities of recruited participants in informal science learning opportunities, and (c) revealing the positive outcomes of participation for those taking advantage of informal programs like our workshop. Building on our previous research (Rodriguez et al., 2020), this paper presents the first 2 years of data from a multiyear study and was exploratory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our research is important as it supports the ability to characterize the historical STEM identities of those who access informal STEM programs and the impact of the program on their STEM identities. More specifically, the CSTI survey can assist programs in revealing the historical STEM identities of participants to determine if programs are effective in promoting newly forming STEM identities or supporting already well-established STEM identities. In other words, equity in informal science programs can be supported by empirically assessing STEM identity to determine program accessibility and effectiveness. This information is especially important, since if informal science programs are only accessed by students with already well-developed science identities these programs may serve to increase inequities for underrepresented students (Dawson, 2017; Feinstein & Meshoulam, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

STEM Identity Authoring<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The theoretical lens used to frame this research is STEM identity authoring, which evolved out of broader research on identity, specifically Gee\u2019s (2000) theory of multiple identities. Gee postulated that individuals have many identities that are continuously changing as a social process throughout their lifetimes. Different identities are foregrounded depending on different social situations (Varelas et al., 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lave and Wenger (1991) noted how \u2018\u2018one way to think of learning is as the historical production, transformation, and change of persons\u2019\u2019 (pp. 51\u201352). Developing identities throughout one\u2019s lifetime is, in effect, learning as it encompasses a transformation and change of persons (see also Varelas et al., 2011). Developing a STEM identity refers to the ways individuals come to recognize themselves as feeling comfortable engaging in STEM pursuits and being around others who engage in similar pursuits. This identity includes seeing oneself as being able to understand science concepts, engage in science performances, and be recognized by others as belonging in that field (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three factors found to contribute to identification with a STEM field are (a) competence \u2013 knowledge and understanding of core disciplinary concepts, (b) performances \u2013 engagement in disciplinary practices to accomplish consequential pursuits, and (c) recognition \u2013 acknowledging one\u2019s competences and performances and having others acknowledge them (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Hazari et al., 2015). A fourth \u2013 emerging \u2013 construct examined in this research that may contribute to STEM identity authoring is ways of seeing and being \u2013 that is, the values, attitudes, and behaviors that result from immersion within a scientific discipline such as conservation science (Hill et al., 2017; Jaber & Hammer, 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Science competences are scientific skills, knowledge, and understandings gained through education, training, or other salient experiences (Klieme et al., 2008) and should not be considered an intrinsic trait of individuals. Developing competence involves opportunities to participate in scientific performances and have those performances interpreted and recognized as demonstrating competence in scientific understandings (Carlone 2012; Carlone et al., 2011; Gresalfi et al., 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A person\u2019s self-recognition of competence may be defined according to a priori definitions of what constitutes good science in a specific situation (Carlone 2012; Kelly et al., 1998). Group level meanings of competence are situational and determine who is recognized as competent or not (Carlone 2012; Gresalfi et al., 2008; Lottero-Perdue & Brickhouse, 2002). According to Erikson (1968), individuals are inclined to seek mastery in social interactions, but competence becomes part of identity only when it is recognized by meaningful others (Cote & Levine, 2002; Josselson, 1996) and internalized (Hazari et al., 2015). Further, and specifically related to this research focused on exploring informal learning spaces, McLaughlin et al. (2001) found that students who were unsuccessful demonstrating competence in formal learning environments \u2013 many from nondominant backgrounds \u2013 may have more success showing competence on the same content in informal learning spaces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performances<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Performances are actions involved in creating and sharing new competences in scientific knowledge and understandings. Members of a group with common purposes and expectations develop specific practices for shared ways of talking and using tools (Carlone, 2012; Kelly, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Individuals with common interests and shared distinctive practices develop into affinity groups (Gee, 2000), or communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), where members may be more connected to the practices and experiences than to other members of the group. Often their membership is sustained through the practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gee (2011) defined performance as \u201csocially recognized and institutionally or culturally supported endeavor that usually involves sequencing or combining actions in certain specified ways\u201d (p. 17). Scientific performances involve practices that support building explanations or solving problems and include investigative, communicative, and epistemic practices. Investigative performances are those of inquiry (e.g., observation, questioning, collecting and analyzing data, testing ideas, and developing solutions). Communicative practices are ways of sharing information and ideas. Kelly and Licona (2018) referred to epistemic practices as those used to make sense of phenomena (e.g., inferring, justifying, evaluating, and legitimizing scientific knowledge). These scientific performances constitute the act of doing science, which is at the core of being a scientist (Todd & Zvoch, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The third construct found to be important in developing STEM identity is recognition. Recognition includes both recognition by others and self-recognition of competences and performances. Engaging in scientific performances provides opportunities for others to recognize an individual\u2019s competence in a STEM field (Barton et al., 2008; Carlone, 2004; Kang et al., 2019; Polman & Miller, 2010). Recognition can be positive feedback (e.g., praise, special privileges, or gifts) that acts to integrate STEM identity or negative feedback (e.g., criticism, slights, or penalties) that acts to inhibit STEM identity integration (Kerpelman et al., 1997; Todd & Zvoch, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For recognition from others to foster STEM identification, it must be internalized as self-recognition (Hazari et al., 2015). Recognition that depends on demonstrations of scientific competence and performances connects the constructs of STEM identity. Recognition of other identities, however, may work to promote or constrain identification with STEM fields (Archer et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2017; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Ceglie, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ways of Seeing and Being<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The final construct, ways of seeing and being, is an emerging construct that needs further examination to determine what role, if any, it plays in STEM identification. Ways of seeing and being involves the reciprocating interaction between attitudes, values, and beliefs toward a STEM field (i.e., ways of seeing) that motivate a person\u2019s actions in that field (i.e., ways of being).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ways of seeing and being adds the affective domain to demonstrations of competences and performances. Hill et al. (2017) proposed discovery orientation as a similar construct examining the affective domain of learning. Feelings of interest, curiosity, and the enjoyment of discovery were found to be important to science learning (Farrington et al., 2012; Trujillo & Tanner, 2014; Watt et al., 2012). Jaber and Hammer (2015) examined the link between epistemic affect \u2013 the feelings involved when engaged in science performances that come from knowledge building \u2013 and epistemic motivation \u2013 the desire to continue with these sense-making activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These two studies undergird the first half of this new construct (ways of seeing). Ways of being involves behaviors that reciprocally reinforce these feelings and motivations. Carlson (2010) looked at how immersion, participatory engagement, and struggle in nature affects a sense of aesthetic appreciation. To generalize to any STEM field, when a person is immersed in a field of science, participates in, and struggles to make sense of it, they develop an appreciation for that field of study. Ways of seeing and being combines these ideas and applies them to the development of STEM identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of conservation science, when a person is learning about nature through participatory engagement (i.e., performances) to make sense of natural phenomena (developing competence), they develop certain attitudes, values, and beliefs, such as aesthetic appreciation (ways of seeing), that motivate them to take actions, such as engagement in projects, to protect or conserve natural areas (ways of being). Through their actions, the person develops a STEM identity in that field as they are recognized by others and themselves as being a certain kind of person (e.g., naturalist, conservation scientist, or environmentalist).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For each of these constructs, our research examined their relationship to identification with conservation science and technology. Further, in this current research, especially in the context of the conservation projects undertaken where the application of technology (e.g., geospatial and mapping technologies) was used extensively to support intergenerational teams\u2019 accomplishment of their pursuits, we also recognized the role technologies could play in shaping STEM identity authoring. Next is a review of the literature on STEM identity authoring in informal STEM programs<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literature Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

STEM Identity Authoring in Informal STEM Programs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The NRC (2009) described informal STEM learning (ISL) programs as places where all people, regardless of age or background, can explore science, technology, engineering, and math to develop their identification and agency in these fields. Identification with a field refers to how people see themselves as being able to understand, use, and contribute to the field. Agency is the capacity to act independently, make decisions and contributions to the field. McLaughlin et al. (2001) found that many learners who experienced failure in formal school science may demonstrate competence in informal settings. The NRC further detailed two goals of ISL programs: (a) to develop and nurture STEM identities, and (b) to increase participation by historically underrepresented populations in STEM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bell et al. (2017) recognized the need for ISL programs to be designed intentionally to promote practice-linked identification. ISL programs have many features that contribute to their potential to promote STEM identification. Dierking et al. (2003) discussed the correlation between participant choice and participant needs and interests. Learners often choose ISL programs because they are already interested in the subject, or they recognize a need to learn more about aspects of the field. ISL programs are attractive to many learners because they are often learner-motivated, open-ended, and collaborative (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Griffin, 1998).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many ISL programs emphasize increasing motivation and confidence over factual knowledge (Fields, 2007; Johnsen, 1954). Other features of ISL programs that may influence the development of participants\u2019 STEM identities are (a) unique locations, (b) authentic projects that promote exploration and curiosity, (c) apprenticeship models based on inquiry and hands-on activities (Barab & Hay, 2001; Gibson & Chase, 2002; Markowitz, 2004; Sondergeld et al., 2008), and (d) access to scientists and specialized equipment (Barab & Hay, 2001; Markowitz, 2004; Robbins & Schoenfisch, 2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ISL environments have been found to promote STEM identification in underrepresented groups who may not have engaged in disciplinary practices in formal science spaces. Many girls have been found to lack opportunities to engage in science practices in school (Alexander et al., 2012; Hill et al., 2010; Jovanovic & King, 1998; Tan et al., 2013), but when engaged in informal science, they have been found to develop science identities (see also Todd & Zvoch, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measuring STEM Identity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Development of a STEM identity has been conceptualized with both intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Aschbacher et al., 2010), reflecting cognitive and social constructs. This conceptualization has led to a variety of methods of assessing STEM identities. Much of the research on STEM identity has used qualitative methods, which provide a rich understanding of identity as a social construct (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Herrera et al., 2012; Sfard & Prusak, 2005). Intrinsic factors such as interest (Hazari et al., 2010), self-efficacy, and competence beliefs (Eccles et al., 2015), as well as extrinsic features such as participation (Crowley et al., 2015), recognition, sense of community, and affiliation (Carlone & Johnson, 2007) are all thought to be involved (Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018) and present a variety of features to measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers have attempted to quantify aspects of STEM identity through various methods (McDonald et al., 2019; Starr, 2018; Young et al., 2013). McDonald et al. (2019) developed a single-item STEM professional identity overlap measure for assessing STEM identity emphasizing typicality. STEM Typicality refers to how much a person feels similar to people who work in STEM fields (Tobin et al., 2010). McDonald et al.\u2019s assessment looks at the overlap between students\u2019 perception of themselves and STEM professionals. While the measure has been able to differentiate between majors and nonmajors in STEM, it lacks the nuances of examining individual constructs and how they may intersect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hazari et al. (2015) also focused on typicality by asking students whether they see themselves as a biology, chemistry, or physics person. One issue with this study is its suggestion that the construct of science identity is static, conceived of as an all-or-nothing proposition, and being a scientist cannot be learned (McDonald et al., 2019). In a different approach, Young et al. (2013) created a multi-item scale examining the importance of science to one\u2019s self-concept. Their main objective was to see the effect of female science professors on the science cognitions of female undergraduates, including attitude, identification, and stereotypes. Their survey was specific to their goal and not meant to measure individual constructs of STEM identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vincent-Ruz and Schunn (2018) examined the role of science identity on middle and high school student participation in optional science experiences. Their survey examined only two constructs, self-recognition as a science person, and recognition from others. While previous studies have assessed different aspects of STEM identity, none have sought to measure all the constructs included in our CSTI survey or to develop identity profiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purpose and Research Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In our previous research (Rodriguez et al., 2020), we recognized the value in developing a survey instrument that could empirically assess a person\u2019s STEM identity as a tool for informal science learning researchers and programmers (i.e., individuals who plan and lead ISL programs). More specifically, we identified the need for the CSTI survey we developed in relation to (a) the importance of the development and maintenance of a STEM identity for persistence in engaging in science-related work (Carlone & Johnson, 2007), (b) the lack of reliable, quantitative measures supported by research on the constructs of identity, (c) the value of empirical instruments to help determine who is accessing informal STEM programs, and (d) the impact of informal science learning programs on STEM identification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While our initial research helped us to provide early evidence of the promise of the CSTI survey, we recognized how this current research would be important to further explore the reliability and functionality of the survey. Research Question 1 addressed the further testing of the instruments: How does an increase in sample size (n<\/em>) affect the reliability of the instrument?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also wanted to begin exploring what the survey could help us understand about our informal STEM learning program. Our overarching question was, How can the conservation identity instruments inform ISL programmers of the effects of their programs on the STEM identity of participants? This question includes whether the STEM identity characterizations of participants were different across the different sites where we held our workshops and about ways STEM identity constructs might change over time from our participants\u2019 engagement in long-term conservation projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Questions 2-5 addressed our overarching question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. What can the pre-workshop surveys tell us about how the historical science and technology identities of adults and teens participating in the workshops compare?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. What can the surveys tell us about how the participants\u2019 STEM identities at different sites compare across the 2 years? <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. How do four identity constructs (i.e., science and technology competence, and science and technology ways of seeing and being) compare from pre- to postsurvey?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. How do all identity constructs compare from pre- to delayed postsurveys?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methodology<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Research Context and Design<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This research is part of a larger project funded by the National Science Foundation advancing informal stem learning (AISL) aimed at studying STEM identification in teens and adults working in intergenerational partnerships on authentic conservation projects. This project is a collaboration between the natural resources department, center for land-use education, and school of education in a large public university in the northeastern United States, in which we developed and implemented 2-day workshops on conservation science and geospatial technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the workshops, high school teens were paired with adult community partners and supported in developing collaborative community conservation projects over the year. The projects culminated in poster presentations at local and state conservation conferences. One goal of this study was to continue to develop and test the empirical instrument (i.e., CSTI survey) that we developed and reported on in our earlier research (Rodriguez et al., 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first research question addressed the goal of further testing the instruments\u2019 reliability. Research Questions 2-5 guided examination of the use of the instruments to reveal how the constructs of STEM identity intersected in the participants\u2019 historical STEM identities and how these constructs may be affected by an informal science learning program. To this end, the CSTI surveys were administered to high school students and their adult partners three times: (a) before the workshops, (b) after the workshops, and (c) at the conclusion of their community project. To answer Research Questions 2 and 3 we used a pretest-only design comparing historical STEM identity constructs between adults and teens and site locations. To answer Research Questions 4 and 5, we compared constructs over time and used a repeated measures design (Kraska, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The workshops aimed to promote mutual learning through instructional modules and field experiences in conservation science and geospatial technologies in preparation for the intergenerational partners to design and implement community-based conservation projects (Chadwick et al., 2018; see Appendix: Workshop Agenda<\/a>). The workshops and overall program are explained in the STEM for all 2019 video at this link: https:\/\/stemforall2019.videohall.com\/presentations\/1465<\/a> (Rodriguez et al., 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the workshops, the partners explored conservation science concepts such as changes in (a)  land-use, (b) forest health, (c) water resources, and biodiversity while learning how to use online mapping tools (Chadwick, et. al., 2018). Field activities included learning geospatial technologies such as epicollect, a mobile data gathering app to collect and organize water quality data from nearby streams, and Track Kit, a smartphone app that drops waypoints as you walk creating a trail map and allows users to add photographs to the waypoints. The data can then be uploaded to Google Maps to create an interactive trail map. A list of mapping tools used in the workshops and projects are at the website Maps & Apps for Community Conservation Project (https:\/\/uconnclear.maps.arcgis.com\/apps\/MapSeries\/index.html?appid=ddb72c20c2074562aec32682d8350be5<\/a>). Final projects are posted on the University of Connecticut Conservation Training Partnerships website (https:\/\/nrca.uconn.edu\/students-adults\/projects.htm<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The delayed posttest mirrored the pretest and was administered after participants concluded their projects with a conference presentation. The aim of administering the delayed postsurvey was to provide additional data on the impact of engagement in the yearlong community conservation project on the intergenerational partners\u2019 STEM identities. Figure 1 illustrates how the research design aligns program goals, research questions, and data analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1<\/strong>
Research Design Logic Model<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Setting and Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This study examined data from five workshops during the first 2 years of the program. The workshops were held at five different sites across a New England state, two the 1st year and three the 2nd. The first workshop took place in a rural area in the eastern region and the second in an urban area in the south-central section. The third workshop took place in a rural western area, the fourth in an urban central area, and the fifth in a rural northwestern section.        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ninety-eight participants, 44 adults and 54 teens, from 54 towns in the focal state and two neighboring states attended the workshops. Teen participants were recruited through high school science teachers and counselors and nonprofit youth service organizations. Adult participants were recruited through land trusts, conservation commissions, and nonprofit environmental organizations. Fifty percent of the participants were female, 78% were White, 11% were Black, 9% were Asian American, and 6% were Latinx. The teens came from 13 high schools and the adults represented 14 conservation groups. Adults ranged in age from 30 to 73 (Table 1).          <\/p>\n\n\n\n