Sarah M. Dunifon
Outcomes in informal STEM learning can range from affective outcomes (think: feelings, attitudes, emotions), behavioral outcomes, content knowledge changes, skill development, and more. One common construct we see in our work is STEM engagement. Here, we’ll do a deep dive into what this concept is, how it might be incorporated into your program outcomes, and how evaluators think about assessing it.
What is STEM Engagement?
What does it mean to be “engaged” with STEM? Does it just mean that you’re participating in a STEM activity? Or is it that you’re focused and applying prior knowledge? What about if you’re really interested in a topic? Does that affect your “engagement”?
With so many different ways to think about this construct, we turned to the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) who conducted a series of interviews with STEM education experts on what STEM engagement means to them and how they employ the construct in their work.
Sara Yeo, an Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Utah who specializes in science and risk communication defines it as engagement with science on social media.
Christian Schunn, Professor of Psychology, Learning Science and Policy, and Intelligent Systems at the University of Pittsburgh views it as “what is happening in the moment” when a learner is experiencing an exhibit, classroom activity, or other learning experience. In other words, “the characteristics of the experience,” particularly with reference to the affective, cognitive, and behavioral features.
As noted by Dr. Schunn and then graduate student Paulette Vincent-Ruz, affective, cognitive, and behavioral engagement do not always happen in tandem. In some situations, a learner might experience high affective engagement (e.g., they are enjoying the activity) but low cognitive and behavioral engagement.
This differentiation between the affective, cognitive, and behavioral features of STEM engagement is really important. Understanding these characteristics of STEM engagement can help us better understand, measure, and describe learning experiences.
Let’s consider two fictional natural history museum visitor experiences to demonstrate this importance:
Visitor One comes to the museum to see an exhibit about pollinators - that alone might be STEM engagement. They chose to seek out a STEM learning experience and were physically present in the exhibit.
Visitor Two also sought out this exhibit but decided to further engage with the exhibit (rather than just walking through) by thoroughly reading signage, taking part in a hands-on activity, or thinking critically about STEM topics presented in the exhibit. Maybe they even mentally took those topics with them and discussed them later with friends.
As you can see, STEM engagement can be a complicated construct, with multiple characteristics and degrees of depth. It’s also important to note that the research is still developing and also varies depending on the learning context.
Sinha et al. (2015), for example, would add two characteristics to the aforementioned list (i.e., behavioral, affective, and cognitive): social engagement, and conceptual-to-consequential.
How can we measure STEM Engagement?
So, with all these different ideas about what STEM engagement is, how can we try to measure it?
Well, there are several strategies that one can employ to get a more accurate reflection of STEM engagement in our learners.
The first is to isolate the STEM engagement characteristic(s) you wish to focus on. Since we know that these characteristics do not always occur in tandem, it may be a good strategy to select the characteristic that is most important to your work and design for it alone. Or, perhaps you wish to assess all characteristics and therefore need to design an instrument that isolates and addresses all of them.
A second strategy is to use multiple methods. While self-report surveys seem to be the most commonly used method, some researchers are experimenting with observations, wearable technologies (which record bodily responses such as increased heart rate), interviews, time and attention spent at an exhibit, and other methods.
References:
Besley, J. (2018, June 13). What is STEM Engagement? An Interview with Sara Yeo. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. https://live-informalscience.pantheonsite.io/engagement/Sara-Yeo
Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. (2019). The Role of Engagement in STEM Learning and Science Communication: Reflections on Interviews from the Field. https://live-informalscience.pantheonsite.io/engagement
Grack Nelson, A. (2018, July 11). What is STEM Engagement? An Interview with Christian Schunn and Paulette Vincent-Ruz. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. https://live-informalscience.pantheonsite.io/engagement/Christian-Schunn
Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10: 273-307.
If you enjoyed this post, follow along with Improved Insights by signing up for our monthly newsletter. Subscribers get first access to our blog posts, as well as Improved Insights updates and our 60-Second Suggestions. Join us!