Running head: OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION:

Outline for Redrawing Secondary STEM Education:

Applying E-Learning Theory as Supplemental Education Services

Kay L. Venteicher

University of Maryland University College

OMDE 670

April 15, 2017

OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 1

Outline for Redrawing Secondary STEM Education:

Applying E-Learning Theory as Supplemental Education Services

I. Introduction - purpose of research

A. Importance of STEM

1. STEM innovation (Carnevale, Smith, & Melton, n.d.; Hill, 2007; and

Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, and Doms, 2011).

2. STEM in society (Hill, 2007; and Langdon et al., 2011).

3. STEM work force (Carnevale et al., n.d.; Langdon et al., 2011; and U.S.

Department of Education, n.d.).

B. Historical background

1. What is STEM? (Carnevale et al., n.d.; Hill, 2007; Langdon et al., 2011;

and U.S. Department of Education, n.d.)

2. STEM education (Aparicio, Bacao, and Oliveira, 2016)

3. Stakeholders and partnerships (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, and Koehler,

2012; Daggett, 2014; Department for Professional Employees, 2016; and

U.S. Department of Education, n.d.)

C. Goal of research

1. Discuss how e-learning theory is used as supplemental education services

to utilize for secondary STEM education in current programs

OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 2

2. Identify student factors and access barriers which limit access to

secondary STEM education

3. Describe best practices of e-learning supplement education services that

could provide greater access to STEM education for underrepresented

groups

II. Literature Review

A. STEM definitions

B. Underrepresented students in STEM education

1. Socio-Economic Status (SES) (Carter, 2006; Chen, 2013; and Jaggars,

2011).

2. Ethnicity/race (Anderson and Kim, 2006; Leaper, Farkas, and Brown,

2012; Ortiz & Sriraman, 2015; and Xu and Jaggars, 2013).

3. English as Second Language (ESL)/citizenship status (Jaggars and Xu,

2010; and Jaggars, 2011)

4. Gender/women (Conway, 2009; Hardin and Longhurst, 2016; Hill,

Corbett, and St. Rose, 2010; Leaper, Farkas, and Brown, 2012; Weber,

2011; Weber, 2012; and Weber and Custer, 2005

5. Geographical and space limitations (Queen and Lewis, 2011).

OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 3

C. Academic preparation (Bettinger, Boatman, and Long, 2013; Jaggars and Xu,

2010; and Xu and Jaggars, 2011).

D. Analysis of applied e-learning theoretical framework

1. Student screening (Weber, 2012).

2. Course scaffolding (Roche, O'Neill, and Prendergast, 2016; Weber and

Custer, 2005; and Yeo, and Quek, 2014

3. Warning/risks (Wang, 2012; White, and Tesfaye, 2011).

E. STEM content education areas (Peters-Burton, Lynch, Behrend, and Means,

2014; Weber, and Custer, 2005).

1. Classroom (Locke, 2009; Sharkawy, 2015; Ritz, 2009; and Mills and

Angnakoon, 2015).

2. Secondary STEM education programs and schools. Overview of STEM

offerings: a). IBP/AP programs, b). summer education programs, c). DE

programs, and d). early access programs.

3. Mentorship programs and contests/competitions

III. Methodology

A. Review of current and past literature primary source used for research was

conducted through the University of Maryland University College Library and

Google Scholar.
OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 4

B. Literature sources included peer-reviewed papers from academic journals,

research studies, and research papers. Gray literature from government agencies

and nongovernmental organizations included to fill information gaps.

C. Information used for understanding of current practices of e-learning

supplemental education services - identify best practices.

IV. Analysis

A. Evaluation of applied current e-learning elements of learning technologies and

instructional strategies to improve STEM secondary education access.

B. Evaluation of STEM Education Programs/Partnerships (Daggett, 2014; Kuenzi,

Matthews, and Mangan, 2006; and The White House, 2016)

C. Evaluation of STEM Supplemental education support services (Payo, 2008;

Phillips, McCallum, Clemmer, and Zachariah, 2016; Ritz, 2009; and U.S.

Department of Education, 2004).

V. Conclusion
OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 5

References

Anderson, E., & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and

technology. American Council on Education.

http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/Resources/Publications/ACE-MinorityStudents.pdf

Boatman, A., Long, B. T., & Bettinger, E. P. (2013). Student supports: Developmental education

and other academic programs. The Future of Children. 23(1), 93-115.

Breiner, J. M., Johnson, C. C., Harkness, S. S., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A

discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and

Mathematics. 112(1), 3-11.

Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (n.d.). STEM. Retrieved from Georgetown

University: Center on Education and the Workforce website:

http://cew.georgetown.edu/STEM

Carter, D. (2006). Key issues in the persistence of underrepresented minority students. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 130, 33-46. http://dx.doi.org//10.1002/ir.178

Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES

2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf

Conway, K. M. (2009). Exploring Persistence of Immigrant and Native Students in an Urban

Community College. The Review of Higher Education 32(3), 321-352.

OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 6

Daggett, B, (2014). Addressing current and future challenges in education. Paper presented at the

22nd Annual Model Schools Conference, Retrieved from

http://www.leadered.com/pdf/2014MSC_AddressingCurrentandFutureChallenges.pdf

Department for Professional Employees. (2016). The STEM workforce: An occupational

overview. Retrieved from DPE website: http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-

fact-sheets/the-stem-workforce-an-occupational-overview/

Hardin, E. E., & Longhurst, M. O. (2016). Understanding the gender gap: Social cognitive

changes during an introductory STEM course. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 233-

239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000119

Hill, C. (2007). The Post-Scientific Society. Issues in Science and Technology Fall.

http://www.issues.org/24.1/c_hill.html.

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics. https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-

in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf

Jaggars, S. 2011. Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared students?

Retrieved from Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia

University website: http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-learning-

helpstudents.pdf

Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2010). Online learning in the Virginia Community College System.

Retrieved from New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 7

Research Center website: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-

learning-virginia.pdf

Kuenzi, J., Matthews, C. M., & Mangan, B. F. (2006). Science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf

Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now

and for the future. [ESA Issue Brief #03-11]. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics

and Statistics Administration.

Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2012). Adolescent Girls' Experiences and Gender-

Related Beliefs in Relation to Their Motivation in Math/Science and English. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 268-282.

Ortiz, A. & Sriraman, V. (2015) Exploring faculty insights into why undergraduate college

students leave STEM fields of study- A three-part organizational self-study. American

Journal of Engineering Education, 6(1), 43-60. Payo, R. (2008). NSDL K-12 science

literacy maps: A visual tool for learning. Knowledge Quest, 36(4), 50-52.

Phillips, J. A., McCallum, J. E., Clemmer, K. W., & Zachariah, T. M. (2016). A problem-solving

framework to assist students and teachers in STEM courses. Retrieved from Cornell

University Library website: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07853

Queen, B. & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary

school students: 2009-10, NCES 2012-008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.
OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 8

Ritz, J. M. (2009). A new generation of goals for technology education. Journal of Technology

Education, 20(2), 50-64

Roche, J., O'Neill, A., & Prendergast, M. (2016). An inquiry-based learning intervention to

support post-primary engagement with science, technology, engineering and

mathematics. European Journal Of Science And Mathematics Education, 4(4), 431-439

The White House, (2016). Progress report on coordinating federal science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. [Report]. Retrieved from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_budget_supplement_fy_

17_final_0.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, (2004). Innovations in Education: Creating Strong Supplemental

Education Services Programs, Options for parents, assistance for student

Wang, X. (2012). Modeling student choice of STEM fields of study: Testing a conceptual

framework of motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context.

White, S. & Tesfaye, C. L. (2011). Under-represented minorities in high school physics.

American Institute of Physics.

Weber, K. (2011). Role models and informal STEM-related activities positively impact female

interest in STEM. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3), 18-21.

Weber, K. (2012). Gender Differences in Interest, Perceived Personal Capacity, and Participation

in STEM-Related Activities. Journal Of Technology Education, 24(1), 18-33.

Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences toward technology education content,

activities, and instructional methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55-71.

OUTLINE FOR REDRAWING SECONDARY STEM EDUCATION: E- 9

Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2011). The effectiveness of distance education across Virginia's

community colleges: Evidence from introductory college-level math and English courses.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 360-377.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373711413814

Xu, D. & Jaggars, S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students

and academic subject areas. Retrieved from Community College Research Center, Teachers

College, Columbia University website: http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/adaptability-

to-online-learning.html