Longitudinal Analysis of T-STEM Academies: How Do Texas Inclusive STEM Academies (T-STEM) Perform in Mathematics, Science, and Reading?
Author :
Abstract
This study examines standalone inclusive STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) schools—T-STEM (Texas - STEM) in Texas—that operate as autonomous units. Researchers tracked two cohorts of ninth grade students of T-STEM and non-T-STEM schools between 2008 and 2011 to examine how schools’ performances changed over times by school type in school level reading, mathematics, and science passing scores. To ensure that T-STEM schools and non-T-STEM schools have similar demographic compositions and achievement indicators, propensity score matching was used. After matching, the sample used for the analyses was nine T-STEM versus 27 non-T-STEM schools from 2008 and 18 T-STEM versus 52 non-T-STEM schools from 2009. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to examine each cohort to determine how schools’ performance changed over three years on mathematics, science, and reading TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) scores. Although each group had statistically significant growth for each of their three-year periods, there was no statistically significant difference between T-STEM schools and non-T-STEM schools.
Keywords
Abstract
This study examines standalone inclusive STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) schools—T-STEM (Texas - STEM) in Texas—that operate as autonomous units. Researchers tracked two cohorts of ninth grade students of T-STEM and non-T-STEM schools between 2008 and 2011 to examine how schools’ performances changed over times by school type in school level reading, mathematics, and science passing scores. To ensure that T-STEM schools and non-T-STEM schools have similar demographic compositions and achievement indicators, propensity score matching was used. After matching, the sample used for the analyses was nine T-STEM versus 27 non-T-STEM schools from 2008 and 18 T-STEM versus 52 non-T-STEM schools from 2009. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to examine each cohort to determine how schools’ performance changed over three years on mathematics, science, and reading TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) scores. Although each group had statistically significant growth for each of their three-year periods, there was no statistically significant difference between T-STEM schools and non-T-STEM schools.
Keywords
- Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12, 23-37. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about STEM about conceptions of STEM in education and patnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 311. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 5-9. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30-35. Cetin, S. C., Corlu M. S., Capraro M. M., & Capraro R. M. (2015). A longitudinal study of the relationship between mathematics and science: the case of Texas. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2(1), 13-21. Cross, T. L., & Frazier, A. D. (2010). Guiding the psychosocial development of gifted students attending specialized residential STEM schools. Roeper Review, 32, 32-41. Guo, S. Y., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48, 96-122. Johnson, C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: Challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 45-55. Maxwell, S. E., & Delany, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Publishers. Offer, J., & Mireles, S. V. (2009). Mix it up: Teachers’ beliefs on mixing mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 10, 146-152. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010). Measuring innovation: A new Perspective-online version. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/innovationstrategy/measuringinnovationanewperspective-onlineversion.htm Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61-70. Raju, P. K., & Clayson, A. (2010). The future of STEM education: An analysis of two national reports. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 11, 25-28. Sahin, A. (2015). How does the STEM S.O.S. model help students acquire and develop 21st century skills? In A. Sahin, (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching: STEM students on the stage (SOS) (pp. 171-186). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Sahin, A., Gulacar, O., & Stuessy, C. (2014). High school students’ perceptions of the effects of science Olympiad on their STEM career aspirations and 21st century skill development. Research in Science Education.1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9439-5 Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM-related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 13-26. Sahin, A., (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 7-13. Schachter, A. (2011). Helping STEM take root. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77, 28-32. Schmidt, S. J., Bohn, D. M., Rasmussen, A. J., & Sutherland, E. A. (2012). Using food science demonstrations to engage students of all ages in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Food Science Education, 11, 16-22. SRI International. (2010, Nov). Evaluation of the Texas high school project: Second comprehensive annual report. Retrieved from http://www.sri.com/work/publications/evaluation-texas-high-school-projectsecond-comprehensive-annual-report Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, J. (2009). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32(1), 7-16. Teo, T. W. (2012). Building potemkin schools: Science curriculum reform in a STEM school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 659-678.
- Thomas, J., & Williams, C. (2010). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17-24.
- Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 1-12.
- Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16, 26-35.
- Young, V. M., House, A., Wang, H., Singleton, C., & Klopfenstein, K. (2011, June). Inclusive STEM schools: Early promise in Texas and unanswered questions. In National Research Council Workshop on Successful STEM Education in K-12 Schools, Washington, DC.