Northern Illinois University
STEM Interest and Engagement (STEM IE)

Our analysis of time use and setting was only for the scheduled STEM time. Like most summer STEM programs, the programs that we studied allocated time for routines, like restroom and snack breaks, and most allocated some time for recreation. We did not analyze time use during those routines. In eight of the nine programs, we collected data during two general types of planned STEM activities, which were typically split either between morning and afternoon or on alternating days: "classroom" lessons during which youth learned mathematics or science content in more formal ways and "field" or "enrichment" lessons. For one program, we were able to collect data only during the "classroom" session.

We describe activity settings in three ways. First, we determined how much time was spent doing the following activities: Practicing Basic Skills (e.g., completing worksheets, doing drills); Program Staff Led Presentations (e.g., demonstrations, lectures); Field Trip/Guest Speaker Presentations (e.g., demonstrations, lectures); Lab Activity (e.g., collecting and/or analyzing data to learn about a phenomenon); Creating a Product (e.g., building or making); or not STEM-based (e.g., off-task unstructured, physical activity breaks, ice-breaker/relationship building). Second, we determined with whom youth were working: individually, large group, or small group. This aspect of the coding was important because it indicated how much time youth had to collaborate and interact with one another while learning. Collaborating and building relationships with others is an important goal of ISL programs and contributes to STEM learning. Third, we determined where the activity took place: indoors or outdoors, program space or community space, and whether they were in a vehicle. The activity settings were coded from the videotape and validated by entries in the observer s field notes.

We examined how program activities were related to youths perceptions of their experiences in the program. In particular, we looked at youth reports of their engagement, their perceptions of their learning, and how challenging and relevant their experiences were in the different type of activities and settings.

Time Use

Overall Time Spent in Activities and Settings

As shown in Figure 1, during scheduled STEM learning time, there was a significant amount of time (43% on average) during which participants were not focused on STEM content or activities, although this varied significantly across both programs and individual ALs (although individual are not shown in the figure). This included time that was used for other purposes (ice-breaker/relationship building, physical activity breaks) as well as time that the majority of youth were waiting, transitioning without some STEM-related content, or off task. In previous studies, we found similar trends on the percentage of time that was not focused on learning in school day science classrooms as well. Learning time can get lost during scheduled content time in several ways:

1. Transitions both within and between settings.
2. Youth finish at different times and those finished first do not have alternative activities.
3. Materials are not prepared in advance.
4. Directions are not clear, and (e) ice-breaker or "get to know you" activities that build relationships are embedded in the time allocated to STEM content.

Programs also tended to vary substantially in the amount of time dedicated to supporting basic skills development, typically in mathematics; creating a product; and the degree to which activities were staff led. Each of these three activity types were found to range from very little time dedicated to that activity in some programs to close to 30% to 40% or more in others (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Activities that were not focused on STEM were the most common, on average.

Otherwise, activities differed greatly among the sites. Adventures in Mathematics spent the most time on basic skills and staff-led activities, while Uptown Architecture spent the most amount of time creating products. Very little time was spent across sites on lab activities.

As shown in Figure 2, a distinct minority of the time was spent in collaborative activities. The majority of time was spent in whole-group activities. Youth worked by themselves approximately 24% of the time and in small groups about 21% of the time, although this did vary by program.

Figure 2. On average across all sites, youth spent the majority of their time in activities working as a whole group.

However, opportunities to collaborate in different grouping strtegies varied by site, with Zoology Partners spending the largest percentage of time in whole groups and Uptown Architecture spending the largest percentage of time in small groups.

Figure 3. The classroom space was, by far, the most utilized location for STEM activities.

There was some variation in other locations that were used, Uptown Architecture spent the least time in classrooms, spending their time instead in indoor community and outdoor program spaces. Zoology Partners and Island Explorers spent meaningful amount of time outdoors in the community.

 

How Program Activities Were Related to Youth Experience

Creating a product stood out from all other activities in that it was associated with so many positive experiential outcomes. Youth were more engaged when they are creating products. They also reported greater challenge, relevance, and learning.

Youth reported substantially higher learning when they were participating in activities meant to develop basic skills than when doing other activities. They also saw this activity as relevant perhaps because it would be useful to them in school. They did not report being particularly challenged by basic skills activities, however.

Youth reported that what they were doing had higher relevance to them when listening to a field trip speaker than they reported during any other activity. This response highlights the importance of engaging community partners in youth activities.