Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Planning an Informal STEM Event? Try the Assets-based Approach to Planning and Research for Informal STEM Events

Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2024, pp. 1-16
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 783 DOWNLOADS: 390 Publication date: 15 Jan 2024
ABSTRACT
A recent yet brief literature search indicated a gap regarding informal STEM events program planning and evaluation models represented in research. This paper presents a hybrid program planning model that combines a logic model and an assets-based outcome model. The combination of these models provides a basis for the program planning of informal STEM events. To start, the program planning model presented in this paper asks planners to focus on the strengths of the prospective K–12 and postsecondary schools’ staff and resources while compiling a list of specific results (outcomes) they want to obtain from a potential event; the outputs correlated to the outcomes, and inputs needed for activities planned for the informal STEM event. Above and beyond this, additional model components should help future informal STEM event planner(s) host a well-attended informal STEM event and reflect, modify, and improve the program for future iterations by conducting informal/formal research.
KEYWORDS
logic model, assets-based outcome model, informal STEM events, program planning and evaluation (PPE)
CITATION (APA)
Meadows, J., Baker, J., Dzenga, N., Hinkel, S., & Wilson, C. A. (2024). Planning an Informal STEM Event? Try the Assets-based Approach to Planning and Research for Informal STEM Events. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.711
REFERENCES
  1. Allen, S., & Peterman, K. (2019). Evaluating informal STEM education: Issues and challenges in context. New Directions for Evaluation, 161, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20354
  2. Bargerhuff, M. E. (2013). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in a [STEM] school. American Secondary Education, 41(3), 3–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43694164
  3. Basham, J. D., Marino, M. T., Hunt, C. L., & Han, K. (2020). Considering STEM for learners with disabilities and other diverse needs. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.). Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 3–16). Routledge.
  4. Bell, J., Falk, J., Hughes, R., Hunt, G., Parrish, J., Ruffin, M., Sacco, K., Troxel, G. (2016). Informal STEM education: Resources for outreach, engagement and broader impacts. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). http://drbob.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/107996069/CAISE_Broader_Impacts_Report_2016.pdf
  5. Bergdall, T., (2003). Reflections on the catalytic role of an outsider [Unpublished paper]. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-bergdall.pdf
  6. Boyle, P. G. (1981). Planning better programs. McGraw-Hill.
  7. Buskey, J. H., & Sork, T. J. (1982). From chaos to order in program planning: A system for selecting models and ordering research. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 54–59). University of Nebraska, Department of Adult and Continuing Education.
  8. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.tntech.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/advancing-stem-education-2020-vision/docview/853062675/se-2?accountid=28833
  9. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association.
  10. Bybee, R. W. (2018). STEM education: Now more than ever. National Science Teachers Association.
  11. Colakoglu, M. H., (2018). Integration of transdisciplinary STEM approach to single discipline-based national education systems. In M. Shelley & S. A. Kiray (Eds.), Education Research Highlights in Mathematics, Science, and Technology 2018 (pp. 94–112). International Society for Research in Education and Science.
  12. Culclasure, B. T., Daoust, C. J., Cote, S. M., & Zoll, S. (2019). Designing a logic model to inform Montessori research. Journal of Montessori Research, 5(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v5i1.9788
  13. Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67, Medical Teacher, 34(5), e288–e299. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
  14. Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement (Series Paper No. 157). Centre for Strategic Education. https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396072630.pdf
  15. Garibay, C., & Teasdale, R. M. (2019). Equity and evaluation in informal STEM education. New Directions for Evaluation, 161, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20352
  16. Green, L., & Kreuter, M. (2004). Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  17. Harvard Family Research Project. (2002). Learning from logic models in out-of-school time (Brief). Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://archive.globalfrp.org/out-of-school-time/publications-resources/learning-from-logic-models-in-out-of-school-time
  18. Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School science and mathematics, 112(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00110.x
  19. Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  20. McCawley, P. (2001). The logic model for program planning and evaluation. The University of Idaho Extension. https://www.extension.uidaho.edu/publishing/pdf/CIS/CIS1097.pdf
  21. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2015). Using logic models. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.) Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 62–87). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386
  22. Meadows, J. R., Baker, J., & Wendt, S. (2020). Fab Fridays: Fostering elementary teacher candidate preparation through informal STEM events. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 54(2). https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE54.1/WNSH4279
  23. Oliva, P. F. (2009). Developing the curriculum (7th ed.). Pearson
  24. Reed, C. S., & Brown, R. E. (2001). Outcome-asset impact model: Linking outcomes and assets. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00024-6
  25. Sanders, M. E. (2012). Integrative STEM education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, Design, & engineering education (Vol 2., pp. 103–117). Griffith Institute.
  26. Scott, D. L., Sharma, R., Godwyll, F. E., Johnson, J. D., & Putnam, T. (2020). Building on strengths to address challenges: An asset-based approach to planning and implementing a community partnership school. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 24(2), 69–83. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/2070
  27. Siregar, N. C., Gumilar, A., Warsito, W., Amarullah, A., & Rosli, R. (2023). Enhancing STEM learning for all: A paper concept of accessible resources. Ibn Khaldun International Journal of Applied Sciences and Sustainability, 1(1), 58–68. https://ejournal.uika-bogor.ac.id/index.php/IIJASS/article/view/14309
  28. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, T. Kellaghan (Eds.) Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 279–317). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  29. Sork, T. J., & Caffarella, R. S. (1989). Planning programs for adults. In S. B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham (Eds.) Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 233–245). Jossey-Bass.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License