Dimensions of Success for STEM Learning (DOS): Observation Tool for Assessing STEM Learning in Out-of-School Time Settings 4H Webinar June 16, 2009

Background

Why Is STEM Afterschool Assessment Important? Informal Learning in Science Afterschool (ILSA) Survey Data – Over half of programs (55%) had no formal evaluation for science programming, N=736 (Dahlgren et al., 2008) Increasing concern about declining interest in STEM and STEM careers (Campbell et al., 2002; Jacobs & Simpkins, 2005; NSF, 2008) Concern about assessment of STEM afterschool

New STEM Assessment Tools Program rather than Outcome Inquiry Science Instruction Observation Protocol (ISIOP) Still in development Classroom (school-based) STEM observation tool Dimensions of Success in STEM Learning (DOS)

Development of DOS

What does DOS offer? Observation tool to assess quality of science programming – Informal Learning/Inquiry Based – Afterschool Programming Flexible so can be used to assess science programming outside of these domains Easily modifiable – DOS can be used with other assessment tools Add DOS to broader program assessment (e.g. PPRS) to specifically evaluate science programming – DOS can be used to assess a range of program types (e.g. community based, local affiliate of larger organization, etc.)

What does DOS offer? Tool designed to be used by evaluators with varying assessment experiences – Experience in science/education highly recommended but not required – Evaluation experience highly recommended but not required Supplemental materials – Detailed Rating Rubric High Reliability – (94% initial IRR) – Clear language based on observable phenomena Curtail differences of interpretation

NSF Framework Categories* Awareness, Knowledge or Understanding of STEM concepts, processes, or careers Engagement or Interest in STEM concepts, processes, or careers Attitude towards STEM-related topics or capabilities Behavior resulting from engagement STEM activities Skills based on engagement in STEM activities *Friedman (2008)

Engagement or Interest Attitude Behavior Skills Programmatic Features Engagement/Interest Content Knowledge & Competence and Reasoning Career Knowledge/Acquisition & Attitude/Behavior Awareness Knowledge or Understanding

Dimensions of Success: Assessment Domains and Dimensions

Mechanics of DOS

Rating Sheet Qualitative Descriptions Quantitative Rating Type Directly into the Sheet Space will Expand Automatically

Recommendations for Using Tool At least two observers – Especially important during start of assessment Establish reliability of observer(s) (IRR) Write field notes of observation – Use field notes to be reflective about observation Do not rate activity immediately after observing – Have time to reflect on observation and then rate activity Complete rating before next observation Each observer should rate the activity individually and come together to have a focus group discussion to reach consensus

Program AProgram CProgram B Observer 2Observer 1

Program AProgram CProgram B Observer 2Observer 1

Insert rubric

Training

Final Discussion

References/Suggested Reading Campbell, P. B., Jolly, E., Hoey, L., & Perlman, L. K. (2002). Upping the numbers: Using research- based decision making to increase diversity in the quantitative disciplines. Report Commissioned by the General Electric Foundation. Dahlgren, C. T., Noam, G. G., & Larson, J. D. (2008). Findings for year one data for the Informal Learning and Science Afterschool Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Friedman, A. (Ed). (2008). Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Jacobs, J. E., & Simpkins, S. D. (eds.) (2005). Leaks in the pipeline to math, science, and technology careers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Science Foundation. (January 10, 2008). Science education brings together government and corporate leaders. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from the National Science Foundation Web site: Yohalem, N., Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. with Fisher, S. & Shinn, M. (2007 March) Measuring Youth Program Quality: A Guide to Assessment Tools. Washington, D.C.: The Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc.

Contact Information If you have any further questions, please contact: