Current  Implementations  of  Integrated  STEM  Education  in  8  Inclusive  STEM  

High  Schools:  What’s  Important?  

 A  response  to  Chapter  5  of    

STEM  Integration  in  K-­‐‑12  Education

Sharon J. Lynch George Washington University (GWU)

OSPrI Project Staff

Erin Peters Burton (George Mason University), Tara Behrend (GWU), Barbara Means & Ann House (SRI International), Samuel Kaminsky,

Nancy Spillane, Mike Ford & Ed Han (GWU)

Prepared for NAE/NRC Briefing Meeting, June12, 2014

Context  for  Response •  Opportunity Structures for Preparation and

Inspiration (OSPrI) is a NSF-funded research study of inclusive STEM High Schools (ISHSs)

•  Current status of OSPrI Project:

--8 detailed case studies of ISHSs across US --Cross-case analyses of characteristics such as “integrated STEM education” --Developing a “theory of action” for successful ISHSs

Website: http://ospri.research.gwu.edu/

OSPrI  Study  high  schools  were  selected  because  they  are:

•  “Schools of choice” with reputations for

being challenging college preparatory STEM schools

•  Intentionally serving a wide range of students; no ethnic majority, SES varies, equal gender mix, etc.

•  Focused on integrated STEM education (to varying degrees)

They were carefully selected as “exemplar” ISHSs. These 8 schools have strong records of success.

School   Engineering  Requirements  

Integrated  STEM  Curriculum  

 San  Diego Gary  and  Jerri-­‐‑Ann  Jacobs  High  Tech  High  (HTH) (578  students)      

 1  required  class  PLTW  +  EPICS  

 Focus  on  student  production  and  performance  in  all  subjects.  Project-­‐‑based  learning.  Strong  community  connections.

Denver  Stapleton  High  School (DSST) (508  students)  

1  required  9th  grade 1  senior  elective

 Traditional  core  curricula  expanded  to  projects  in  last  two  years.  College  focus.

Goldsboro  ,  NC Wayne  School  of  Engineering  (WSE)   (325  students)  

 2  required  classes +  3  electives  offered  through CC    

 Moving  toward  project  based  learning;  community  service  integral  to  program.

 Manor,  Texas Manor  New  Tech  High  School  (MNTH)   (333  students)    

 2  required  classes,  PLTW  based  

 Cross-­‐‑disciplinary  courses;  Project  based  learning  for  all  classes.

School   Engineering  Requirements  

Integrated  STEM  Curriculum  

  Columbus,  OH Metro  High  School  (Metro) (394  students)

  1  required  class   1  elective  both  influenced  by  PLTW

 Integrated,  university  and  community-­‐‑based  STEM  learning  centers  in  last  two  years.

  Boston,  MA   Urban  Science  Academy  (USA) (576  students)

None  currently.  School  looking  to  partner  with  an  outside  non-­‐‑profit  to  run  a  course.

 Traditional  core  curricula.  Interdisciplinary  grade  level  projects.  

  Medical  High  School  (MedCTE);  College  Prep (639  students)

  None.  

 Regular  “core”  STEM  courses  +  medical  theme  courses  each  year.  Interdisciplinary  connections  made.

  Agriculture  High  School  (AgCTE);  College  Prep (565  students)

  None.  

 Regular  “core”  STEM  courses  +  5  agricultural  pathways.  Interdisciplinary  connections  +  strong  business/industry  community  component

Chapter  5:  Potential  and  Challenges  of  STEM  Integration

STEM Integration in K-12 Education lays out 3 elements of the educational system that can advance or hinder integrated STEM education: •  Standards •  Assessments •  Educator Expertise

Note: Advance or Hinder?

OSPrI  Study  Results  Suggest  these  Elements  for  Advancing  

Integrated  STEM  Instruction   •  Agile Administrative/Organizational Structure/

Leadership (Ford & Behrend, 2014)

•  Innovative Curriculum and Instruction (Lynch, Kaminsky & Behrend, 2014; Peters Burton, Han, & House, 2014)

•  “Cosmopolitan” STEM Teaching Staff (Bryk, Sebring,

Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010) in schools that provide structures to build integrated STEM learning communities (Spillane, 2014)

•  Student Supports that Build Social Capital (Lynch & Ross, 2014)

Agile  Administrative/Organizational  Structure/Leadership

Flexible, nimble and opportunistic (in a good way) Entrepreneurial

Collaborative with flattened hierarchies within ISHSs Example: Agricultural CTE HS Community connections—farm stand, small donations Business/industry connections—business partnership with well-know dairy/dessert firm College university connections—summer research internships School day schedule that allows the students to successfully run an 60 acre farm

“Cosmopolitan”  Teaching  Staff

Well-prepared in STEM content, pedagogy and practice Collaborative, innovative and ambitious

Personable, caring and hard-working Weekly, embedded professional development time

Examples: MNTH hires teachers who can create cross-disciplinary, project based learning (PBL) units and has taken leadership to teach other teachers during the summer. HTH often hires career-changers with experience in STEM and runs its own teacher preparation program to match the instructional expectations and values of HTH.

Innovative  Curriculum  and  Instruction Supported by Networks (PLTW; Ohio STEM, T-STEM, New

Tech High Network, 4H, FFA, etc.) Carefully Planned, Integrated STEM experiences

Requires research–type projects Uses the community as the classroom, outside the normal

school day, week or year. Examples: Metro High’s: Learning Center “Bodies” curriculum HTH’s collaboration with science museum exhibits Adaptation of PLTW in 3 schools—This is an engineering curriculum that has been adapted for integrated STEM.

Student  Supports  that  Build    Social  Capital

Personalized Positive school climate—STEM identities encouraged

Tutoring and other supports are normal and good Business/industry connections

Successful early college experiences Examples: DSST: Tutoring + mastery learning + communications technology set students up for success. Later, students connect with engineering programs at nearby university, prepared for success. HTH and Metro: Students go to any teacher in school to get help to complete projects that require integrating STEM ideas.

Which  elements  Hinder  or  Advance  Integrated  STEM  Education?

OSPrI Findings Chapter 5: Integrating

STEM Education

•  Agile Administrative/ •  Organizational

Structure/Leadership •  Innovative Curriculum

and Instruction •  Cosmopolitan STEM

Teaching Staff •  Student Supports that

Build Social Capital

•  Standards •  Assessment •  Educator Expertise

Thank  You Website:   h`p://ospri.research.gwu.edu/

OSPrI  Study  School  Programs  Fit  Definitions  of  Integrated  STEM  

Education •  Report: …a range of different [STEM] experiences that

involve some degree of connection…goals…include building STEM literacy and 21 C competencies; developing STEM-capable workforce; boosting interest and engagement in STEM. pp 2-3

•  OSPrI project uses:“…an interdisciplinary approach to

learning where rigorous academic concepts are coupled with real-world lessons as students apply science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in contexts that make connections between school, community, work, and the global enterprise enabling the development of STEM literacy and with it the ability to compete in the new economy “(Tsupros, Kohler, & Hallinen, 2009).

• 

Candidate  Critical  Components 1.  STEM-­‐‑focused  curriculum 2.  Reform  instructional  strategies  &  project-­‐‑based  learning 3.  Integrated,  innovative  technology  use     4.  Blended  formal/informal  learning  beyond  the  typical  school  

day,  week,  or  year   5.  Real-­‐‑world  STEM  partnerships 6.  Early  college-­‐‑level  coursework   7.  Well-­‐‑prepared  STEM  teaching  staff 8.  Inclusive  STEM  mission 9.  Administrative  structure 10.  Supports  for  under-­‐‑represented  students

Demographics  of  Four  ISHSs  (%  Female,  African-­‐‑American/Black,  

Hispanic,  White,  Asian,  Economically  Disadvantaged/Free  and  Reduced  Lunch  Eligible)

Texas  

Scho

ol  

State  

North  Carolina   Colorado   California  

Exemplar  OSPRI  Study  Schools  in  4  States:    

Student  Outcomes  (%Proficient  on  State  Assessments)

82 79

35 20

92 80 74

48

Mathematics

State School

84 83 49 54

94 94 79

54

Science

State School

Graduation  Rate  Comparisons    Across  4  States