I am very interested in the Stem Identity Profile you use.  Our project works to increase participation in STEM and interest in STEM related careers in under-served populations in the Nashville area.  

Is the identity profile available?

Hi Jeannie!

The profile definitely has been helpful in fostering conversations around STEM interest, connecting youth to things that they do not traditionally think of as "STEMy".  The instrument is not currently validated, and we use it primarily as a tool for eliciting thinking and conversation.  However, if you email Heidi (hbcarlon@uncg.edu) she can send you the information.

Hi Jason!

The NPMs are primarily high school-aged youth who facilitate activities with our middle school-aged participants.  Some of the NPMs have past NPM experience, and as we progressed in iterations of the BRIDGES segments, some of the youth who participated earlier in the project became NPMs.  

As for training, that varies depending on what is happening in the space.  Sometimes the NPMs act as helpers, but in many cases, the NPMs take charge of a specific tool or task and lead youth in engaging with that activity.  

Does that answer your questions?

Hi! I am particularly interested in the role of the near-peer mentors. Have you all explored what impact, if any, interacting with these near-peer mentors has on students' STEM identity or other student outcomes? For those NPMs who are alumni of the program, do you have a sense of their reasons or motivations for coming back to serve as NPMs? 

What an interesting project! I look forward to learning more about it. 

Hi Sally!

You're definitely right.  Consistently, the most influential experiences reported by most youth participants tend to be the visceral ones that engage curiosity using multiple senses.

As for transfer, we have had some testimonies from teachers who have shared that BRIDGES youth take on new, more authoritative roles in their classrooms, even extending beyond STEM classrooms in some cases.  We do not have any real quantitative data on this, but many BRIDGES youth seek to sustain engagement with the program over time, and their enthusiasm has been reported by several teachers.

Hi Phil! Thanks for thinking with us about the project. In terms of the interdisciplinary design: (1) The focus on (socio)environmental problems provides multiple interest hooks and pathways (leveraging ideas from connected learning here). This has played out in tremendously successful ways-- environmental problems EASILY provide context for disciplinary integration; (2) The pedagogical framework, which guides our curriculum development, emphasizes "doing good", "education/advocacy", and "investigation/disciplinary practices", which is another way to integrate the science, engineering, and computing; (3) Our STEM Profile Instrument mentioned above allows youth to have a thinking tool for how their interests and preferences (without "intervention") are, in fact, aligned with solving problems with science and engineering and/or communication and advocacy with computing. In this way, they begin to narrate "ideal" BRIDGES participants in broad, multi-faceted ways and most (all, so far?) narrate themselves and most of their friends as fitting into this celebrated subject position after the Saturday Academies; (4) Interestingly, the STEM profiles (altruist, conservationist, innovator, tinkerer, investigator, designer) are also an excellent way to recruit youth who would not otherwise pursue a "science" or "engineering" out-of-school learning experience.

So far, we haven't asked about how youth expand the framework and/or integration, but that has my wheels churning a bit. Yesssss! Great question.

Re: Youth, over time: There isn't quite enough data yet to understand what's happening over time, but we do have a longitudinal identity model that we're using to study the youths' identity work over time. Need to work in ways they improvise and recombine, as you suggest. If you have resources to think through this, let me know. 

Hi Phil,

Great questions. One way that we are designing to support student connections across disciplinary activities is through the use of technology to "do good" and investigate and solve problems. At our summer camp in June, students will have access to a variety of digital and physical tools in the afternoon to make and sense-make about their disciplinary learning during the morning camp activities. Students will be creating content to populate an interactive app about the state park and also have access to material and tools to make physical objects related to their experience as campers that they can take home with them. Our conjecture is that this time spent making will support students to make connections across disciplinary spaces and also to their lives and experiences as campers.

Sounds very cool. In our family robotics work we found that engaging families in ArtEngineering design centered on a meaningful story was very engaging and supported family-directed cultural resurgence (i.e., learning / using tech to communicate a story with social gravity to them). It seems like the population of the interactive app about the park based on their experiences might support a similar "story-design" effect (i.e., learning the tech to communicate an object-focused story to the user). Let us all know how it goes! 

Hi Terrell! Great questions!

(1) Teachers' reactions: I'm hoping one of them will hop on and answer this question. :) Here's my perspective, and Dr. Heredia, who's studying teacher sensemaking, can jump in too. So far, the teachers participated in the Saturday Academies as learners, to get a feel for our pedagogical framework, its benefits and limitations for their own school context, and its applicability to an after-school STEM club they designed this spring. There is a spectrum of responses in terms of roles teachers and youth can and should play in the learning settings. The interesting thing is that their views are ever-changing with new experiences. I expect shifting views, too, as they participate in instructor roles in our Summer Institute. It will be fun to see!

(2) Diversity: Our pedagogical framework emphasizes "doing good", "youth as educators/advocates", and "disciplinary practices". That broadens the scope of who can be a legitimate "STEM" person. Further, we talk explicitly about being a STEM person in terms that resonate with them-- e.g., altruist, conservationist, designer, innovator, investigator, and tinkerer. This helps with recruitment, and then we follow through on that promise ("this is designed for all kinds of youth") by designing our curriculum so that all kinds of youth feel as though "this is for me." That said, we need to keep working on this, questioning ourselves, our assumptions, and our approaches.

Building trust with youth, offering opportunities for longer-term involvement and leadership opportunities, celebrating unique contributions, recruiting youth who may not be academically successful in traditional ways, etc. It really helps to have the teachers involved as integral partners because the families trust the teachers. We could not do what we do without the teachers!

Teachers are definitely grappling with the tension you described Terrell.

The teachers are developing and implementing an afterschool program that was designed to extend the work students did in the Saturday Academies. We have been working in the out-of-school space so that teachers would have more agency over how they organized and supported student learning goals. The teachers are recognizing how the students' participation in the Bridges programming connects to their standard curriculum and are leveraging these experiences as a resource to support student learning goals in the classroom. Often out-of-school learning environments are highlighted as an important resource for student learning in STEM. Our conjecture in this project is to understand how teachers might leverage afterschool settings for student STEM learning that is more than afterschool tutoring and test prep.

The first set of afterschool programs are just wrapping up and we are seeing variation in the amount of agency students had in each of the clubs. This is definitely an interesting question for our research team and one we are considering as we iterate on the design of our PD.

Hi Acacia!

Great question!  As part of our Saturday Academies, the youth present to community stakeholders about the solutions that they design.  For the group that engaged with issues of stormwater runoff in their schools, they were able to present to their principals and other school and district leaders.  One of the after-school programs that has taken place this Spring partnered with the local city officials to pilot the development of a rain garden that they would then build at the new city hall building.  In terms of transfer beyond their engagement in these kinds of spaces, we have not been collecting formal data there.  However, we anticipate that as youth begin to develop STEM identities, these identities will transfer into other aspects of their lives.

Hi Wanda!

We have seen Scratch used in a few different ways by the youth.  We present Scratch as an option, but do not frame it as an expectation.  As such, not all youth engage with Scratch.  Those youth that do use Scratch usually do so in the context of raising awareness of conservation issues.  Some youth create animations using characters to act out scenes that reflect elements of their experiences at BRIDGES.  We have also seen youth use games to engage their peers at school in issues surrounding the school.  Ultimately, we frame Scratch as one of many tools that can be used to accomplish goals defined by the youth.

Hi DeLene!

I posted a response to Wanda above -- let me know if that doesn't answer the Scratch part of your question.

As for giving up Saturdays, most youth are incredibly enthusiastic.  Charlene (the teacher in the video) also shared with us that youth from her school showed up extra early each Saturday and were disappointed when the Academies were over.  The teachers who are part of BRIDGES have been running after-school STEM clubs at their schools this spring as part of the BRIDGES project, and youth are sharing the same enthusiasm.  After each club ended, youth begged for more.  We have been incredibly fortunate to have such great teachers and youth working with us on this project!

We have three partner schools in three neighboring districts and there are two science teachers at each school that participate in the project. We have scaffolded the teachers experience over the course of the project in order to support them to develop after school clubs based on the BRIDGES pedagogical framework. This happened in PD during the Saturday Academies and a summer planning retreat, so far the teachers have participated in 60 hours of PD over 2 years.

The teachers chaperoned the students to the university and then participated in PD as their students were engaged with activities during the Saturday Academies. The goal in the first set of PD  was to engage teachers in a variety of activities primarily focused on their learning of the BRIDGES pedagogical framework and design principles. They observed students engaged in activity, engaged in activities with kids, reflected on their observations of students in and out of the programming, and engaged as learners in activities themselves (without students present). During the second set of Saturday Academies, our goal was to support them to develop their after school clubs as an extension of the work in BRIDGES. 

The teachers have also provided us with important feedback on the design of activities used with students and participated in a summer planning retreat for our upcoming Summer Institute. At the summer camp, the teachers will move into instructor roles and lead science and engineering activities for the youth at the camp.

You are definitely right in saying that we often learn through experience.  One thing we have experienced during this project is the power of adaptability and iteration.  We have had several activities that we have implemented several times, and they get better each time based on what we learn through doing.  In a project like ours, youth often surface ideas for solutions that we are not prepared for, which is great because this shows connections between youths' interests and the problem spaces.  The ability to adapt and think on our feet has proven invaluable throughout the project.

Thanks, DaLene, for the question! One lesson we've learned is how much work it is to be as nimble and rigorous as we can with the iterative design of the curriculum and research, as David describes above. It's helped to have some planning retreats where we all get on the same page about our pedagogical framework and design principles, holding those up for critical review and revision from all stakeholders on the leadership team (college faculty/RAs, teachers, community partners). 

Another lesson: Perhaps because we are in the midst of it now for our summer program, we've learned that recruitment is no joke. Running a STEM program for diverse youth who may not otherwise pursue or get chosen for this kind of activity demands a certain (re)framing of who would be a good participant (for recruiters, youth, and families) and what the experience entails. Youth who wouldn't sign up for a "STEM camp", for example, might sign up for a camp where you get to learn about animals in streams, tinker, or work on building an interactive app.