INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Research Article
Jul 03, 2022 225 117

Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study

Alice Morgan 1 * ,
Dave Smaldone 1,
Steven Selin 1,
Jinyang Deng 1,
Marion Holmes 2
1 Recreation, Parks, & Tourism Resources, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA2 Adventure West Virginia, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA* Corresponding Author
Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2022, 18(4), e2294, https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this mixed methods concurrent triangulation study was to assess the vocational relevancy of adventure STEM for sixth grade students attending the Science Adventure School (SAS), a residential, informal education program focused on delivering adventure STEM education to low-income, rural students. Specifically, this study sought to research any changes in STEM attitudes, including science interest (Eccles, 2007; Gilmartin et al., 2007) and science career interest (Sadler et al., 2011) as a result of participating in SAS. In the quantitative phase of the study, curriculum relevancy and STEM attitudes were assessed with a pre- and post- adventure STEM experience survey. The qualitative portion of the study consisted of semi-structured in-person interviews with 14 students and eight teachers shortly after their SAS experience to gain additional insights into the results of the statistical analysis and identify how students and teachers see the relevancy of adventure STEM curriculum. This study’s findings add to the body of adventure STEM literature and lends support to the positive benefits of engaging youth in adventure STEM programming.

KEYWORDS

STEM education adventure education informal education outdoor learning

CITATION (APA)

Morgan, A., Smaldone, D., Selin, S., Deng, J., & Holmes, M. (2022). Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2294. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214
Harvard
Morgan, A., Smaldone, D., Selin, S., Deng, J., and Holmes, M. (2022). Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2294. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214
Vancouver
Morgan A, Smaldone D, Selin S, Deng J, Holmes M. Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4):e2294. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214
AMA
Morgan A, Smaldone D, Selin S, Deng J, Holmes M. Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4), e2294. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214
Chicago
Morgan, Alice, Dave Smaldone, Steven Selin, Jinyang Deng, and Marion Holmes. "Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2022 18 no. 4 (2022): e2294. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214
MLA
Morgan, Alice et al. "Adding Relevancy to STEM Interest Through Adventure Education: A Mixed Methods Study". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 18, no. 4, 2022, e2294. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12214

REFERENCES

  1. Abels, S. (2015). Scaffolding inquiry-based science and chemistry education in inclusive classrooms. In N. L. Yates (Ed.), New developments in science education research (pp. 77-96). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
  2. ACT. (2017). STEM education in the U.S.: Where we are and what we can do. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/STEM/2017/STEM-Education-in-the-US-2017.pdf
  3. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescece: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about sciences, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001
  4. Alrashidi, O., Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2016). Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies, 9(12), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p41
  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<70::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
  6. 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’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10086
  7. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  8. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
  9. Brown, M. (2010). Transfer: Outdoor adventure education’s Achilles heel? Changing participation as a viable option. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 14(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03400892
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
  11. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). SAGE.
  12. Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The prospect of an ‘A’ in STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 10-15.
  13. Dewey, J. (1939). Experiential education. Collier.
  14. Dogan, U. (2015). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 553-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891759
  15. Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300205
  16. Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci, & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199-210). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11546-016
  17. Fishbein, M. (1966). The relationships between beliefs, attitudes and behavior. In Feldman, S. (Ed.) Cognitive consistency, motivational antecedents and behavioral consequents. Academic Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-2828-0.50012-X
  18. Gawronski, B. (2007). Attitudes can be measured! But what is an attitude? Social Cognition, 25(5), 573-581. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.573
  19. Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10039
  20. 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 980-1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20179
  21. Gilmer, T. C. (2007). An understanding of the improved grades, retention and graduation rates of STEM majors at the Academic Investment in Math and Science (AIMS) Program of Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 8(1&2), 11-21.
  22. Glen, S. (2014). Cronbach’s alpha: Simple definition, use and interpretation.https://www.statisticshowto.com/cronbachs-alpha-spss/
  23. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Education-Primer.pdf
  24. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
  25. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
  26. Ham, S. (2016). Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose. Fulcrum Publishing.
  27. Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2012) Achievement growth: International and U.S. state trends in student performance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534652.pdf
  28. Herrera, F. A., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Maintaining initial interests: Developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career aspirations among underrepresented racial minority students. https://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/downloads/AERA%202011%20-%20Herrera%20and%20Hurtado%20-%20Maintaining%20Initial%20Interests.pdf
  29. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2010). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education. Contemporary Science Education, 9, 1459-1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9
  30. Hossain, M., & Robinson, M. (2012). How to motivate US students to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533548.pdf
  31. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  32. Hsu, H., & Lachenbruch, P. A. (2005). Paired t test. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05929
  33. Hughes, R. M., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979-2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9345-7
  34. Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500068435
  35. Jenkins, E. W., & Pell, G. (2006). The relevance of science education project (ROSE) in England: A summary of findings. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/152736.htm
  36. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
  37. Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 51-89). SAGE.
  38. McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2000). A longitudinal qualitative study of school motivation and achievement. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441815.pdf
  39. Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. (2013). The use of Likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(3), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst079
  40. Miner, J. L., & Boldt, J. R. (2002). Outward bound USA: Crew not passengers. Mountaineers Books.
  41. Murphy, C. (2003). Literature review in primary science and ICT. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/futl73/futl73.pdf
  42. Noonan, R. (2017). STEM jobs: 2017 update. https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/migrated/reports/stem-jobs-2017-update.pdf
  43. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1638
  44. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
  45. Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802036734
  46. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle, & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41-60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6989-3_3
  47. Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. American Journal of Health Education, 35(2), 66-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611
  48. Priest, S., & Gass, M. (2017). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Human Kinetics.
  49. Riedinger, K. (2015). Identity development of youth during participation at an Informal Science Education Camp. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 453-475.
  50. Riedinger, K. A. (2011). Identity development of middle school students as learners of science at an informal science education camp [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.
  51. Ringholz, R. (2000). On belay: The life of legendary mountaineer Paul Petzoldt. Mountaineers Books.
  52. Rittmayer, M. A., & Beier, M. E. (2009). Self-efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue, & E. Cady (Eds.), Applying research to practice (ARP) resources (pp. 2-12). CASEE.
  53. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
  54. Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1876
  55. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
  56. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
  57. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE (the Relevance of Science Education). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1-17.
  58. Snow, J., & Mann, M. (2013). Qualtrics survey software: handbook for research professionals. Qualtrics Labs, Inc.
  59. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.802463
  60. Taylor, S., & Treacy, A. (2013). Just Dedoose it! Making mixed methods data analysis manageable. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association. Jackson Hole, WY, USA.
  61. Terrell, S. R. (2012). Mixed-methods research methodologies. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 254-280. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1819
  62. Thorne, S. (1994). Secondary analysis in qualitative research: Issues and implications. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, 18(1), 263-279.
  63. Turner, S., Ireson, G., & Twidle, J. (2010). Enthusiasm, relevance and creativity: Could these teaching qualities stop us alienating pupils from science? School Science Review. 91(337), 51-57.
  64. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315422657
  65. Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. Venture.
  66. Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., & Sponarski, C. C. (2017). Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189
  67. Walsh, V., & Golins, G. (1976). The exploration of the outward bound process.
  68. West Virginia University. (2020). The science behind the sport. https://sciencebehindthesport.wvu.edu/
  69. Young, M., & Glanfield, K. (1998). Science in post-compulsory education: Towards a framework for a curriculum of the future. Studies in Science Education, 32, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560125

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.