engaging students in stem-related subjects
TRANSCRIPT
Engaging students in STEM-related subjects. What does the research evidence say?
Debra Panizzon and Martin Westwell
June 2009
2
Introduction
Considerable evidence exists regarding the declining number of students selecting science
from Year 10 into Years 11 and 12 (Ainley et al., 2008; DEST, 2006; Fullarton et al., 2003) in
Australia, with less research exploring student transition between secondary and tertiary
study. Importantly, the phenomenon that we are experiencing is not unique with many OECD
countries facing similar difficulties in terms of student participation and engagement in the
enabling sciences in the secondary years of schooling (i.e., physics, chemistry and
mathematics) (Osborne & Collins, 2001; OECD Global Science Forum, 2006; Sj berg &
Schreiner, 2005). Evidence of this emerging international concern was tabled and discussed
during a meeting of the OECD attended by 17 delegations from western countries in 2005.
Trying to meet the variety of needs of our students is difficult. For example, in attempting to
address a science for all agenda (Fensham, 1985) we need to allow all students the
opportunity to develop a designated level of scientific literacy (Goodrum et al., 2001;
Osborne, 2006) by the time they complete compulsory schooling (i.e., Year 10 in Australia).
As defined by the OECD (2006: 12) scientific literacy refers to:
An individual s scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify
questions, to acquire new knowledge, to explain scientific phenomena, and
to draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues,
understanding of the characteristics of science as a form of human
knowledge and inquiry, awareness of how science and technology shape
our material, intellectual and cultural environments, and willingness to
engage in science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a
reflective citizen.
However, in achieving this goal it is critical that we also meet the needs of our high-
achieving students who may be interested in pursuing careers in science. Clearly, if we are to
cater for this diversity of students we require a differentiated curriculum that ensures
engagement with scientific contexts that are meaningful for the range of students (Rennie &
Goodrum, 2007) we teach in our classrooms.
In this paper, we identify a range of factors impacting the choices students make in relation to
science and mathematics. These factors emerge from a review of the science education
literature that has accumulated over the last thirty years. Hence, what is represented here is
a synthesis of evidence about this critical area based upon educational research, not
anecdotal communications or reports. Unfortunately, it is not possible to refer to all the
literature but access to any of the literature cited in this paper will lead to more examples of
research that helps unpack the complexity of this critical educational issue.
3
Factors impacting student choices in STEM areas
The Commonwealth Government s independent Review of Teaching and Teacher Education
(DEST, 2003) identified a number of national issues for Australia in relation to science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education including:
• a decline in the proportion of students who complete Year 12 studies in
physics, chemistry, biology and advanced mathematics;
• insufficient numbers of well-trained and highly able teachers in science,
technology and mathematics;
• a disinclination among primary school teachers to teach science,
exacerbated by primary teachers relatively low levels of interest and
academic attainment in science and mathematics;
• teaching that does little to stimulate curiosity, interest, problem-solving, and
depth of understanding; and
• students who do not do well at school (including a large proportion of
Indigenous students) who often leave at the minimum permitted age.
In a recent report entitled Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition the extent of the issue appears even more extreme with latest
research suggesting that the “life aspirations for the majority of students are formed before
the age of 14” (Tytler et al., 2008: viii). A review of this report along with other science
education literature identifies a range of factors impacting student choices around STEM that
align within four broad categories: Students, Teachers, Parents, and Other. A synthesis of
the major factors highlighted in the science education literature is provided in Figure 1.
Based upon this extensive bank of literature we know that the Student-related factors focus
around Identity with students needing to build a perception of themselves as competent
STEM practitioners (Archer et al., 2007; Tytler et al., 2008). Intricately linked to this notion of
identity are factors around student achievement (Goodrum et al., 2001; Hattie, 2003;
McPhan, 2008), attitudes and motivation (Lindal 2003; Lyons, 2006), and interest (Panizzon
& Levins, 1997). Reports from the Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) project
(Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2007; Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2005), also raise gender differences as
another influential variable for particular countries. While Australia was not actually included
in the ROSE project, data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) for
2006 identified no overall gender differences for Australian students in terms of their scientific
literacy. However, males significantly outscored females for mathematical literacy for PISA
2006 (Thomson & De Bortoli, 2008).
Within the Teacher domain, evidence highlights issues around the traditional pedagogical
approaches used by teachers (Goodrum et al., 2001; Peck & Barnes, 1999), perception of
science and mathematics (Bennett et al., 2005; McPhan et al., 2008; Osborne & Collins,
2001), and the impact of meaningless and irrelevant curricula (Rennie & Goodrum, 2007;
OECD, 2004) on student engagement (Fensham, 2000). However, one of the most
significant areas of concern to emerge from research studies is that school science and
mathematics is perceived by many students as being irrelevant and boring (Goodrum et al.,
2001; McPhan et al., 2008; Tytler, 2007). One means of addressing these issues is to move
towards a contextual approach to the teaching of science with a greater focus around the
relevance of science to society using inquiry and investigative approaches (Fensham, 2000;
Osborne, 2006; Rennie & Goodrum, 2007). Similarly, research in the mathematical fields
recognises the importance of inquiry and investigation along with the need for students to
develop higher-order and problem-solving skills (Barnes, 2000; McPhan et al., 2008;
Williams, 2005).
4
Figure 1: Major factors impacting student choice of STEM subjects and careers
In terms of Parental influence, studies demonstrate that high-achieving students in science
and mathematics are particularly influenced by the career aspirations and achievements of
their parents (Cleaves, 2005; Lyons, 2006; McPhan et al., 2008; Tytler et al., 2008). Clearly,
parents are likely to play a central role in the development of their child s identity beginning in
the formative years. However, the wider community too plays a critical role in how STEM
careers are perceived and valued. In developing countries, such as India and China, STEM
careers are valued by society and parents resulting in students actively engaging in these
careers as a means of improving their socioeconomic status to escape the poverty cycle
(Lowell & Salzman, 2007). Hence, it is these countries that are currently experiencing an
over-supply of citizens with qualifications in STEM-related fields while the OECD countries
struggle to fill available positions.
It is important to conceptualise that these factors do not exist in isolation but interrelate to
form a complex matrix that impact student choices in STEM over a period of time.
5
Major levers for change to guide educational policy
The complexity and interrelatedness of factors impacting student choices demonstrates that
the development of any educational strategy to improve student participation and
engagement in the STEM fields will require a multifaceted approach that targets major levers
for change. Figure 2 provides an overview of these levers for change and an indication of
how they fit into the framework of factors impacting student choice.
Public awareness of the role of STEM in society can have a broad influence on students,
parents and wider society. However, many public awareness events often have a limited
reach/penetration beyond those individuals who are already engaged or interested in STEM.
Such events serve to direct the already engaged in a particular direction. What is needed is a
broad public awareness campaign that increases the value of science and technology in the
general culture. If those individuals who influence young people s view of themselves
(including parents, teachers, peers, etc) are engaged with science then more students are
likely to engage and subsequently consider STEM-related education pathways and careers.
Figure 2: Major levers to address STEM challenge
6
Parental engagement, particularly in their children s science and mathematics education can
be difficult to elicit if it does not already exit (Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2007). Yet, it is clear from
the research that parents play a critical role in explicitly enthusing and supporting their
children to value the contribution the STEM has in their lives beyond the implicit support
given by general cultural value (as discussed above).
The expectation and admission processes to Further Education shapes the nature of senior
secondary science and mathematics, which in turn has an influence throughout secondary
and primary education. However, the transition of students from secondary school science
and mathematics and into university or VET education is less explored even though there
have been many discussions about broadening pathways to allow multiple access points for
students (Tytler, 2008). Anecdotally, the mechanisms for university admission often pervert
young people s aspirations, decisions and choices.
Many students are not aware of the landscape of STEM Careers available to them and the
pathways to these jobs. Without this appreciation it can be difficult for some students to make
meaning of their science and maths education.
The Curriculum content is important in terms of engaging students and the underlying
knowledge that they are expected to develop. However, more important as levers for change
are the quality and nature of the assessment items and tasks (which also constitute part of
the curriculum). This is because research demonstrates that what is assessed and how it is
assessed provides the clearest indication of what is valued about formal education (Black &
Wiliam, 1998; Cole, 1990; Hamilton, 2003).
The pedagogy implied by Quality Teaching is the most important lever for change in the short
and medium term. Increasing the quantity of high quality science and mathematics teachers
is an end into itself but is also crucially important for maximising impact at all other levels of
education. In particular, there is a critical role for Faculties of Education and Science in
universities to play in the preparation of future primary and secondary science and
mathematics teachers.
Conclusion
Research in science education highlights a number of issues around student participation
and engagement in the enabling sciences that are interdependent. However, there are in fact
few programs based on research evidence that highlight a sequence of strategies for
increasing student achievement, participation and engagement in the enabling sciences in
senior secondary schools. In contrast, there appears to be much greater emphasis around
strategies to enhance primary science education even though it has only been recently that
we have seen widespread adoption of research-based programs, such as Primary
Connections, by the various jurisdictions in Australia. If the kind of national action plan for
change in the enabling sciences developed by Rennie and Goodrum (2007) is to be adopted
and implemented across Australia, major work needs to be completed at a macro-scale with
a focus around educational systems and their policies.
7
Postscript
The review presented here was used to inform the Premier s Science and Research
Council s Working Party on Science and Mathematics in South Australian Schools report
entitled: Engaging science and mathematics education – A five year strategy for South Australia (2009).
References
Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian
education. ACER Research Monograph 63. Retrieved 10th October 2008, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/ACER_Report.htm
Archer, L., Hollingworth, S., & Halsall, A. (2007). University s not for me – I m a Nike person : Urban, working-
class engagement of young people s negotiations of style , identity and education. Sociology, 41(2), 219-237.
Barnes, M. (2000). Magical moments in mathematics: Insights into the process of coming to know. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 33-43.
Bennett, J., Campbell, B., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2005). A systemic review of the effects on high school
students of context-based and science-technology-society (STS) approaches to the teaching of science.
Retrieved 5th June 2008, from http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/research/Projects/EPPI/bennettsaarmste.pdf
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
Cleaves, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science
Education, 27(4), 471-486.
Cole, N.S. (1990). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2-7.
Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST]. (2003). Review of teaching and teacher education.
Retrieved 28th February 2006, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/australias_future_advancing
_innovation.htm
Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST]. (2006). Youth attitudes survey: Population study on the
perceptions of science, mathematics and technology study at school and career decision making. Canberra,
ACT: DEST.
Fensham, P. (2000). Issues for schooling in science. In R. Cross & P. Fensham (Eds.), Science and the citizen for
educators and the public (pp. 73-77). Melbourne, Victoria: Arena Publications.
Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2003). Patterns of participation in year 12. LSAY Research
Report Number 33. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in
Australian schools: A research report. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs
(DETYA).
Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68).
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper delivered to the Australian
Council for Educational Research Conference. Retrieved 12th April 2007, from
http://www.acer.edu.au/workhops/documents/Teachers_Make_a_Difference_Hattie.pdf
Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to
upper secondary school. English summary of a dissertation. Retrieved 6th February 2004, from
http://www.mna.hkr.se/ ll/summary.pdf
Lowell, L. B. & Salzman, H. (2007). Into the eye of the storm: Assessing the evidence on science and engineering
education, quality, and workforce demand. Retrieved 1st May 2008, from
http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students experiences in their own words.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591-613.
McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008). Maths? Why not? Canberra, ACT:
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR].
8
OECD (2004). STI outlook 2004: National science, technology and innovation policies. Country responses to the
policy questionnaire. Retrieved 11th November 2004, from
http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,2340,en_2649_34269_34243548_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD Global Science Forum. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy
report. Retrieved 3rd September 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf
Osborne, J. (2006). Towards a science education for all: The role of ideas, evidence and argument. Paper
presented at the ACER Research Conference: Boosting Science Learning – What will it take? Retrieved 24th
March 2008, from http://www.acer.edu.au/research_conferences/2006.html
Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus group
study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
Panizzon, D. & Levins, L. (1997). An analysis of the role of peers in supporting female students choices in
science subjects. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 251-271.
Peck, R. & Barnes, M. (1999). Teacher and student perspectives on collaborative learning. In N. Scott, D. Tynan,
G. Asp, H. Chick, J. Dowsey, M. McCrae, J. McIntosh & K. Stacey (Eds.), Across the ages (pp. 296-305).
Melbourne, Victoria: Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Rennie, L. J. & Goodrum, D. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008-2012:
Background research and mapping. Retrieved 29th July 2007, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/94684C4C-7997-4970-ACAC-
5E46F87118D3/18317/Volume1final_28August2008.pdf
Schreiner, C. & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth s identity construction – two incompatible
projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R, Gunstone (Eds.), The Re-emergence of Values in the Science
Curriculum (pp. 231-248). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Sjøberg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different countries relate to science and technology?
Results and perspectives from the project Rose. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2),
1-17. Retrieved 5th September 2006, from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt
Thomson, S. & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. Retrieved 20th
December 2007, from http://www.acer.edu.au/news/2007_PISA.html
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australian s future.
Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Clark, J. C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in
STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Retrieved 4th July 2008, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/career_development/publications_resources/profiles/Opening_Up_Pathways.
htm
Williams, G. (2005). Improving intellectual and affective quality in mathematics lessons: How autonomy and
spontaneity enable creative and insightful thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Melbourne, Melbourne.