Golden LEAF STEM Initiative August 2012 · Golden LEAF STEM Initiative August 2012 Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina 4 development to strengthen

Golden LEAF STEM Initiative

August 2012

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina 1

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Golden LEAF STEM Initiative Grant Descriptions .................................................. 2

Appendix B. Site Visit Focus Group Protocol ................................................................................ 6

Appendix C. Pilot Elementary, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Teacher Attitudes

toward STEM Surveys .................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix D. Pilot Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Attitudes towards

STEM Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix E. Pilot Golden LEAF STEM Implementation Rubric & Grantee Results.................. 38

Appendix F. Pilot Upper Elementary (4-5th) Student Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix G. Pilot Middle and High School Student (6-12th) Attitudes toward STEM Survey

Item-level Results ......................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix H. Pilot Student Survey Results by Demographic Characteristics .............................. 65

Appendix I. Word Clouds from Summer STEM Evaluation Institute 2012................................. 76

Appendix J: Pilot Elementary Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results ....... 77

Appendix K. Pilot Science Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results ............ 82

Appendix L: Pilot Technology Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results ...... 85

Appendix M: Pilot Engineering Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results .... 88

Appendix N. Pilot Mathematics Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results .... 90

Appendix O. Pilot Teacher Survey Results by Demographic Characteristics .............................. 93

Appendix P. Spring 2012 Webinar Agenda .................................................................................. 97

Appendix Q. Summer STEM Evaluation Institute 2012 Agenda ................................................. 98


August 2012


Appendix A. Golden LEAF STEM Initiative Grant Descriptions

Table A1. Size and Scope of Golden LEAF STEM Initiative, June 2011 – June 2014

Grant

Grade-

levels

impacted

Participating

elementary

schools*

Participating

middle

schools**

Participating

high schools

Estimated

teachers

impacted

Estimated

students

impacted

A 6-8 16 5 - 48 4,000

B 6-9 - 6 7 64 5,000

C 4-9 3 - 1 44 700

D 6-8 - 4 - 28 1,200

E 8 - 12 - 48 1,536

F 4-8 4 1 - 5 700

G 6-8 1 7 - 60 600

H 6-8 - 1 - 2 500

I 4-12 1 2 1 75 1,200

J 4-9 5 2 1 75 1,877

K 4-9 16 4 6 127 5,069

L 4-9 2 2 2 70 2,457

M 6-8 - 4 - 24 2,300

N 4-8 68 38 - 522 4,750

Total 116 88 18 1,192 31,889

* Includes K-6 and K-8 schools. ** Includes 5-6 schools.

ACCESS: Accessing Core Content and Ensuring Success in STEM (Catawba County Schools): This

Golden LEAF grant will be used by Catawba County Schools to implement a comprehensive STEM

program. The Science Education for Public Understanding Project (SEPUP) will be used to transform

teaching and learning using an issue-based science curriculum in life, earth and physical sciences. Project

Lead the Way will be expanded from the 8th grade program Gateway to Technology to the 7th grade

Design and Model course, and establish the Introduction to Engineering and Design at a feeder high


August 2012


school in year two. The CyberKids program will be expanded to serve the other four middle schools as an

afterschool enrichment experience. Champions in Education and the NC Center for Engineering

Technology will partner with the district to connect the project with industry experiences.

Algebra 1 STEM Grant (Davidson County Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to

support Davidson County Schools' STEM Initiative which is aimed at strengthening efforts to increase

graduation rates and improve student success in Algebra 1 by implementing the new Future Ready Core

and Common Core Standards in mathematics. Through this initiative DCS plans to improve teaching and

learning by equipping 7th thru 9th grade math classrooms with SMART technology classrooms and

implementing a comprehensive professional development program for teachers. Funds will also be used

to establish Project Lead the Way (PLTW) and add PLTW's Gateway to Technology program at middle

schools in west Davidson County. DCS will partner with Davidson County Community College to

establish career pathways in health sciences, global logistics, creative enterprises and advanced

manufacturing / pre-engineering. Students completing PLTW at the high school level will have an

opportunity to earn up to ten engineering technology credits at the community college.

Alleghany CREST (Alleghany County Schools): This grant will assist Alleghany County Schools to

develop and implement a comprehensive STEM Education Plan that will initially serve students in grades

4-9. The funds will be used to: participate in the LASER K-12 Planning Institute; support professional

development activities focused on inquiry, project and problem based instruction; further develop the use

of technology as an instructional intervention tool; establish Project Lead the Way at the middle school

level; and provide dual credit opportunities with Wilkes Community College that are aligned with area

industry's workforce requirements.

North Carolina Eastern Region STEM (Craven County Schools, Jones County Schools, Lenoir

County Public Schools, Wayne County Public Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to

assist the NC Eastern Region in partnering with Craven, Jones, Lenoir and Wayne County Schools to

establish modular labs in the middle schools to drive relevant STEM content that is linked to industry

needs in the region. The labs will allow teachers to use project and problem-based instruction to apply

math and science concepts to real world problems. Each district will create an articulated pipeline from

middle school to high school to post-secondary education and into the workforce by targeting area

industry employment needs.

Leveraging North Carolina’s Biotechnology & Motorsports (Cabarrus County Schools, Kannapolis

City Schools, Richmond County Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist the NC

Biotechnology Center and its partners with implementing an innovative program using the lure and

tradition of motorsports and the new vision of biotechnology in the region (healthcare and nutrition) to

create relevant, fun and challenging educational activities to expose students in middle school grades to

STEM skills and learning experiences that are closely connected to industry clusters in the region.

MCS STEM Initiative (Madison County Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to

support Madison County Schools in expanding current programs aimed at establishing a comprehensive

approach to STEM education. Funds will be used to: implement the Engineering is Elementary (EIE)

program in grades 4 & 5; establish a Project Lead the Way (PLTW) program at the middle school level;

provide enrichment and summer experiences for 9th grade students; and support professional


August 2012


development to strengthen teacher content knowledge at all levels. Madison County Schools will connect

students with industry experiences through programs such as Educators in Industry, Economic Summit,

Innovative Summit and others.

NC A&T University Regional Collaborative for Excellence in STEM (Bertie County Schools,

Edgecombe County Public Schools, Gates County Schools, Martin County Schools, Pitt County

Schools, Wilson County Schools): This Golden LEAF grant will support the NCA&T Regional

Collaborative for Excellence in STEM a comprehensive and inclusive program that targets the

enhancement of STEM education and learning outcomes for middle school aged children in six counties

in eastern NC: Bertie, Edgecombe, Gates, Pitt, Wilson and Martin. NCA&T will partner with local school

districts to assess, design, and implement programs focused on STEM education tailored to the needs and

capabilities of these rural schools to improve STEM education. The project will use 3 major strategies in

its approach. 1) Push-Pull Mentoring, 2) Professional Development Institute for Teaching and Learning,

3) Community Empowerment Network to build community engagement and capacity around the issues of

economics, education and health disparities.

PLTW/Ashe County Schools (Ashe County Schools): The purpose of this grant is to assist Ashe

County Schools with implementing Project Lead the Way for middle school students as part of a

comprehensive workforce strategy. The effort is part of the county's strategic plan to develop a pipeline of

workers for employment in area industry that are partners in this project (GE Aviation, Leviton, Gates

Corporation, American Emergency Vehicles, United Chem-Con and Ashe County Hospital). Students

will be exposed to careers through industry visits and classroom projects associated with industry

volunteers.

Project RESTE: Relevant Engineering, Science, and Technology Education (Johnston County

Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist Johnston County Schools with a STEM

education framework that combines curriculum/instruction, professional development, policy, student

support and community collaboration. The target schools have high numbers of minority students and

students living in poverty with overall student achievement below the county average. The district will

partner with Duke University and NC State to develop integrated lessons in engineering concepts within

core subject areas and work with Johnston CC to align the project to technical programs offered by the

college (machining, biotechnology, welding and others).

Project STEM Stars (Asheboro City School): This Golden LEAF grant will be used by Asheboro City

School System to transform teaching and learning in grades 4-9 science classes through 3 goals: (1)

provide intensive professional development to science teachers; (2) focus on rising 9th graders through

targeted preparation for success in STEM courses; and, (3) support cohorts of middle school students to

participate in summer and after school enrichment activities in partnership with Randolph CC. Student

experiences will include biotechnology, industrial technology, machining and green energy.

Rockingham STEM (Rockingham County Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to

establish a partnership between Rockingham Schools (RCS), NCA&T University, National Teaching

Network (NTN) and Rockingham County Business & Technical Center with a goal of enhancing the

ability of RCS teachers to effectively educate students in science, technology, engineering and math.


August 2012


STEM Connect (Edenton-Chowan Schools, Perquimans County Schools): The purpose of this

Golden LEAF grant is to assist Perquimans County Schools, Edenton-Chowan Schools, and the College

of the Albemarle to implement a STEM initiative that integrates: 1) a regional career focus targeting area

industry; 2) professional development for math and science teachers in inquiry-based learning, supporting

technologies, and STEM careers; 3) leadership development for administrators, lead teachers and support

staff; 4) vertical collaboration across elementary, middle, high, and post-secondary schools and the

business community; 5) access to resources to improve content rigor and relevance to improve student

engagement; and 6) community engagement and partnerships.

STEM Project for Surry (Surry County Schools): The purpose of this Golden LEAF grant is to assist

Surry County School's with taking the next step in framing a base foundation to accomplish a long-term

vision of extending the district's 1:1 technology initiative within the scope of a STEM content focus for

all schools, PK-12 within the county. The primary focus of this proposal is to establish Project Lead the

Way at the middle school level. Project leaders will work with Surry CC to vertically align secondary

course offerings to workforce training programs offered at the college and provide dual credit

opportunities.

WNC LASER (Asheville City Schools, Avery County Schools, Buncombe County Schools,

Cherokee County Schools, Clay County Schools, Graham County Schools, Haywood County

Schools, Henderson County Schools,Jackson County Schools, Macon County Schools, Madison

County Schools, McDowell County Schools, Mitchell County Schools, Polk County Schools,

Rutherford County Schools, Swain County Schools, Transylvania County Schools): The purpose of

this Golden LEAF grant is to assist North Carolina’s Western Region Education Service Alliance

(WRESA) with initiating a comprehensive Science Education initiative for the 18 school districts in its

service area. The effort builds on previous work in the region to improve science instruction and integrate

technology as a tool to enhance teaching and learning.


August 2012


Appendix B. Site Visit Focus Group Protocol

GLF STEM Teacher Focus Group Questions 2011-2012 School Year

Questions

1. To begin, let’s go around the circle. Please tell us your name and the grade and subject

area that you teach.

2. There is a lot of talk here in NC and nationally about STEM education. What do you all

think of when you hear the term “STEM education”? There’s no right or wrong answer.

3. We’re obviously here to learn about the Golden LEAF STEM Initiative, from which your

district has a grant. What do you know of STEM efforts going on in your district?

4. What curriculum are you using this year? Is this a change from previous years? What do

you like or not like about it?

5. Describe some of the professional development offered to you regarding STEM

education.

a. What has been the most valuable part of it?

b. How would you improve the training?

6. Have students’ opportunities to engage in STEM material changed at all this year?

a. During school? After school?

b. For which students?

c. What brought about the changes?

7. Have students’ attitudes towards STEM subjects changed at all this year?

a. What influenced/s those attitudes?

8. Here we have a shorter question followed by a broader, related question. Have you seen a

marked change in student learning in your STEM classes so far this year?

a. If yes, what do you think caused it?

i. If not any of the GLF activities: Why do you think those activities have not

impacted student learning?


August 2012


b. If no: What in-school factor do you think would be most likely to increase their

students’ learning in STEM?

9. What obstacles or challenges have you encountered as you (pick one based on previous

answer) (a) have begun the Golden LEAF STEM Initiative grant work? Or (b) have tried

to improve STEM teaching and learning in your school?

10. We want to help bubble-up ways to improve STEM programs in schools like yours. Is

there anything we missed or is there anything else you would like to share about your

experiences with STEM teaching and learning this year?


August 2012


Appendix C. Pilot Elementary, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Teacher

Attitudes toward STEM Surveys

Elementary Teacher

Confidence and Efficacy

Pilot Survey – Dec. 2011

DIRECTIONS:

On the following pages is a series of statements. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or

disagree with each statement by filling in the appropriate circle. If you are not sure about a

question or you can't answer it, fill in the circle under 0.

Even though some statements are very similar, please answer each statement. There are no

"right" or "wrong" answers. The only correct responses are those that are true for you. Whenever

possible, let the things that have happened to you help you make a choice.

PLEASE FILL IN ONLY ONE ANSWER PER QUESTION.

The development of this

survey was partially supported

by the National Science

Foundation under Grant No.

1038154.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0

1. When a student does better than

usual in science, it is often because

the teacher exerted a little extra

effort.

2. I am continually finding better

ways to teach science.

3. When the science grades of

students improve, it is most often

due to their teacher having found a

more effective teaching approach.

4. I know the steps necessary to teach

science concepts effectively.

5. I am not confident that I can

monitor science experiments well.

6. If students are underachieving in

science, it is most likely due to

ineffective science teaching.

7. I am not confident that I can teach

science effectively.

8. The inadequacy of a student’s

science background can be

overcome by good teaching.

9. The low science achievement of

students cannot generally be

blamed on their teachers.

10. When a low achieving child

progresses in science, it is usually

due to extra attention given by the

teacher.

11. I understand science concepts well

enough to be effective in teaching

science.

12. Increased effort in science teaching

produces little change in students’

science achievement.

13. The teacher is generally responsible

for the achievement of students in

science.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0

14. Students’ achievement in science is

directly related to their teacher’s

effectiveness in science teaching.

15. If parents comment that their child

is showing more interest in science

at school, it is probably due to the

performance of the child’s teacher.


explain to students why science

experiments work.

17. I am confident that I can answer

students’ science questions.

18. I wonder if I have the necessary

skills to teach science.

19. Effective science teaching has little

influence on the achievement of

students with low motivation.

20. Given a choice, I would not invite

the principal to evaluate my science

teaching.

21. When a student has difficulty

understanding a science concept, I

am not confident that I know to

how to help the student understand

it better.

22. When teaching science, I am

confident enough to welcome

student questions.

23. I don’t know what to do to turn

students on to science.

24. Even teachers with good science

teaching abilities cannot help

students learn science.


usual in mathematics, it is often

because the teacher exerted a little

extra effort.


ways to teach mathematics.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0

27. When the mathematics grades of





mathematics concepts effectively.


monitor mathematics activities

well.


mathematics, it is most likely due

to ineffective mathematics

teaching.


mathematics effectively.

32. The inadequacy of a student's

mathematics background can be


33. The low mathematics achievement

of students cannot generally be



progresses in mathematics, it is

usually due to extra attention given

by the teacher.

35. I understand mathematics concepts

well enough to be effective in

teaching mathematics.

36. Increased effort in mathematics

teaching produces little change in

students' mathematics achievement.



mathematics.

38. Students' achievement in

mathematics is directly related to

their teacher's effectiveness in

mathematics teaching.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0


is showing more interest in

mathematics at school, it is

probably due to the performance of

the child's teacher.

40. I am confident that I can explain to

students why mathematics works.


students' mathematics questions.


skills to teach mathematics.

43. Effective mathematics teaching has

little influence on the achievement

of students with low motivation.


the principal to evaluate my



understanding a mathematics

concept, I am not confident that I

know how to help the student

understand it better.

46. When teaching mathematics, I am


student questions.

47. I don't know what to do to turn

students on to mathematics.

48. Even teachers with good

mathematics teaching abilities

cannot help students learn

mathematics.


August 2012


Science Teacher

Confidence and Efficacy Pilot Survey – Dec. 2011

DIRECTIONS:








The development of this survey

was partially supported by the

National Science Foundation under

Grant No. 1038154.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0




effort.


ways to teach science.








monitor science experiments well.





science effectively.










teacher.



science.


produces little change in students'

science achievement.



science.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0

14. Students' achievement in science is

directly related to their teacher's





performance of the child's teacher.



experiments work.


students' science questions.


skills to teach science.





the principal to evaluate my science

teaching.



am not confident that I know to

how to help the student understand

it better.



student questions.


students on to science.



students learn science.


August 2012


Technology Teacher


DIRECTIONS:











Grant No. 1038154.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0


usual in technology, it is often


extra effort.


ways to teach technology.

3. When the technology grades of





technology concepts effectively.


monitor technology activities well.


technology, it is most likely due to

ineffective technology teaching.


technology effectively.


technology background can be


9. The low technology achievement of




progresses in technology, it is


by the teacher.

11. I understand technology concepts


teaching technology.

12. Increased effort in technology


students' technology achievement.



technology.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0


technology is directly related to


technology teaching.



technology at school, it is probably

due to the performance of the

child's teacher.


explain to students why technology

works.


students' technology questions.


skills to teach technology.

19. Effective technology teaching has





technology teaching.


understanding a technology


know to how to help the student


22. When teaching technology, I am


student questions.


students on to technology.


technology teaching abilities cannot

help students learn technology.


August 2012


Engineering Teacher


DIRECTIONS:











Grant No. 1038154.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0


usual in engineering, it is often


extra effort.


ways to teach engineering.

3. When the engineering grades of





engineering concepts effectively.


monitor engineering activities well.


engineering, it is most likely due to

ineffective engineering teaching.


engineering effectively.


engineering background can be


9. The low engineering achievement




progresses in engineering, it is


by the teacher.

11. I understand engineering concepts


teaching engineering.

12. Increased effort in engineering


students' engineering achievement.



engineering.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0


engineering is directly related to


engineering teaching.



engineering at school, it is probably


child's teacher.


explain to students why

engineering works.


students' engineering questions.


skills to teach engineering.

19. Effective engineering teaching has





engineering teaching.


understanding an engineering


know to how to help the student


22. When teaching engineering, I am


student questions.


students on to engineering.


engineering teaching abilities


engineering.


August 2012


Math Teacher


DIRECTIONS:











Grant No. 1038154.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0




extra effort.











well.




teaching.


mathematics effectively.










by the teacher.



teaching mathematics.



students' mathematics achievement.



mathematics.


August 2012


Strongly

Disagree

1

Somewhat

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Somewhat

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I don’t

know

0









the child's teacher.

16. I am confident that I can explain to

students why mathematics works.


students' mathematics questions.
















student questions.






mathematics.

GLF STEM Baseline Report

April 2012

Appendix D. Pilot Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Attitudes

towards STEM Surveys

Upper Elementary School (4 – 5th)

Student Attitudes towards STEM Pilot Survey – Dec. 2011

DIRECTIONS:

There are lists of statements on the following pages. Please mark your answer sheets by marking

how you feel about each statement. For example:

Example 1: Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I like doing math.

First: As you read the statement, think about your life and how you feel. Do you agree or

disagree with the statement when you think about yourself? How strongly do you agree or

disagree?

Second: Fill in the circle that best describes how you feel. If you are not sure about a question,

fill in the circle under “I don’t know.”

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers – how you feel is the best answer!




Grant No. 1038154.


August 2012



1. Math

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. Math has been my worst subject.

2. Math is an important life skill.

3. When I’m older, I might choose a

job that uses math.

4. Math is hard for me.

5. When I am older, I will need to

understand math for my job.

6. I am the type of student who does

well in math.

7. I can understand most subjects

easily, but math is difficult for me.

8. In the future, I could do harder

math problems.

9. I can get good grades in math.

10. I am good at math.

2. Science

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. I feel good about myself when I

do science.

2. I might choose a career in science.

3. After I finish high school, I will

use science often.

4. When I am older, knowing

science will help me earn money.


understand science for my job.

6. I know I can do well in science.

7. Science will be important to me in

my future career.


easily, but science is hard for me

to understand.


science work.


August 2012


3. Engineering and Technology

Please read this paragraph before you answer the questions.

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. I like to imagine making new

products.

2. If I learn engineering, then I can

improve things that people use

every day.

3. I am good at building or fixing

things.

4. Understanding engineering will

help me earn money.

5. I am interested in what makes

machines work.

6. Designing products or structures

will be important in my future

jobs.

7. I am curious about how

electronics work.

8. I would choose a job that

involves building things

9. I want to be creative in my future

jobs.

10. Knowing how to use math and

science together will help me to

invent useful things.

11. I believe I can be successful in

engineering.

Engineers use math and science to invent things and solve problems. Engineers design and

improve things like bridges, cars, machines, foods, and computer games. Technologists build,

test, and maintain the designs that engineers create.


August 2012


4. 21st Century Learning

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. I can lead others to reach a goal.

2. I like to help others do their best.

3. I usually know how to do the right

thing.

4. In school and at home, I can do things

well.

5. I can and usually do act responsibly.

6. I respect all children my age even if they

are different from me.

7. I try to help other children my age.

8. When I make decisions, I think about

what is good for other people.

9. When things do not go how I want, I can

change my actions for the better.

10. I can make my own goals for learning.

11. I can use time wisely when working on

my own.

12. When I have a lot of homework, I can

choose what needs to be done first.

13. I can work well with all students, even if

they are different from me.

5. Your Future

Below is a list of types of work that you could do when you are older. As you read about each

type of work, you will know if you think that work is interesting. Fill in the circle under the

words that describe how interested you are in doing that when you are older.

There are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The only correct responses are those that are true for

you.

Not at all

Interested

1

Not So

Interested

2

Interested

3

Very

Interested

4

1. Physics: People study motion, gravity and what

things are made of. They also study energy, like how a

swinging bat can make a baseball switch directions.

They study how different liquids, solids and gas can be

turned into heat or electricity.

2. Environmental Work: People study how nature

works. They study how waste and pollution affect

the environment. They also invent solutions to

these problems.


August 2012


Not at all

Interested

1

Not So

Interested

2

Interested

3

Very

Interested

4

3. Biology: People work with animals and plants and

how they live. They also study farm animals and the

food that they make, like milk. They can use what they

know to invent products for people to use.

4. Veterinary Work: People who prevent disease in

animals. They give medicines to help animals get

better and for animal and human safety.

5. Mathematics: People use math and computers to

solve problems. They use it to make decisions in

businesses and government. They use numbers to

understand why different things happen, like why some

people are healthier than others.

6. Medicine: People learn how the human body works.

They decide why someone is sick or hurt and give

medicines to help the person get better. They teach

people about health, and sometimes they perform

surgery.

7. Earth Science: People work with the air, water, rocks

and soil. Some tell us if there is pollution and how to

make the earth safer and cleaner. Other earth scientists

forecast the weather.

8. Computer Science: People write instructions to run

a program that a computer can follow. They design

computer games and other programs. They also fix and

improve computers for other people.

9. Medical Science: People study human diseases

and work to find answers to human health

problems.

10. Chemistry: People work with chemicals. They invent

new chemicals and use them to make new products,

like paints, medicine, and plastic.

11. Energy/Electricity: People invent, improve and

maintain ways to make electricity or heat. They also

design the electrical and other power systems in

buildings and machines.

12. Engineering: People use science, math and

computers to build different products (everything from

airplanes to toothbrushes). Engineers make new

products and keep them working.


August 2012


6. About Yourself

How well do you expect to do this year in your:

Not Very

Well

1

OK/Pretty

Well

2

Very Well

3

English Class?

Math Class?

Science Class?

Thank you for taking this survey! This is the end!

Yes No Not Sure

Do you know any adults who work as

engineers?


scientists?


mathematicians?


August 2012


Middle and High School (6 – 12th)

Student Attitudes towards STEM Pilot Survey – Dec. 2011

DIRECTIONS:

There are lists of statements on the following pages. Please mark your answer sheets by marking

how you feel about each statement. For example:

Example 1: Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

I like engineering.

As you read the sentence, you will know whether you agree or disagree. Fill in the circle that

describes how much you agree or disagree.

Even though some statements are very similar, please answer each statement. This is

not timed; work fast, but carefully.

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers! The only correct responses are those that are true for

you. Whenever possible, let the things that have happened to you help you make a choice.




Grant No. 1038154.


August 2012



1. Math

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. Math is important for my life.


3. I would consider choosing a career

that uses math.

4. Math is hard for me.

5. I will need a good understanding of

math for my future work.

6. I am the type to do well in math.

7. I can handle most subjects well, but I

cannot do a good job with math.

8. I am sure I could do advanced work

in math.

9. I can get good grades in math

10. I am good at math.

2. Science

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. I am sure of myself when I do

science.

2. I would consider a career in science.

3. I expect to use science when I get out

of school.

4. Knowing science will help me earn a

living.

5. I will need science for my future

work.



my life’s work.

8. I can handle most subjects well, but I

cannot do a good job with science.

9. I am sure I could do advanced work

in science.


August 2012


3. Engineering and Technology

Please read this paragraph before you answer the questions.

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. I like to imagine creating new

products.


improve things that people use every

day.

3. I am good at building and fixing

things.

4. Understanding engineering concepts

will help me earn a living.


machines work.

6. Designing products or structures will

be important for my future work.

7. I am curious about how electronics

work.

8. I would choose a career that involves

building things

9. I would like to use creativity and

innovation in my future work.


science together will allow me to

invent useful things.

11. I believe I can be successful in a

career in engineering.

Engineers use math, science, and creativity to research and solve problems that improve

everyone’s life and to invent new products. There are many different types of engineering,

such as chemical, electrical, computer, mechanical, civil, environmental, and biomedical.

Engineers design and improve things like bridges, cars, fabrics, foods, and virtual reality

amusement parks. Technologists implement the designs that engineers develop; they build,

test, and maintain products and processes.


August 2012


4. 21st Century Learning

Strongly

Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

5

1. I am confident I can lead others to

accomplish a goal.

2. I am confident I can encourage others

to do their best.

3. I am confident I can make moral

decisions.

4. I am confident I can produce high

quality work.

5. I am confident I can act responsibly.

6. I am confident I can respect the

differences of my peers.

7. I am confident I can help my peers.

8. I am confident I can include others’

perspectives when making decisions.

9. I am confident I can make changes

when things do not go as planned.

10. I am confident I can set my own

learning goals.

11. I am confident I can manage my time

wisely when working on my own.

12. When I have many assignments, I can

choose which ones need to be done

first.

13. I am confident I can work well with

students from different backgrounds.


August 2012


5. Your Future

Here are descriptions of subject areas that involve math, science, engineering and/or technology,

and lists of jobs connected to each subject area. As you read the list below, you will know how

interested you are in the subject and the jobs. Fill in the circle that relates to how interested you

are.

There are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The only correct responses are those that are true for

you.

Not at all

Interested

1

Not So

Interested

2

Interested

3

Very

Interested

4

1. Physics: is the study of basic laws governing the

motion, energy, structure, and interactions of

things and matter. This can include studying the

nature of the universe. (aviation engineer,

alternative energy technician, lab technician,

physicist, astronomer)

2. Environmental Work: involves learning about

physical and biological processes that govern

nature and working to improve the environment.

This includes finding and designing solutions to

problems like pollution, reusing waste and

recycling. (pollution control analyst,

environmental engineer or scientist, erosion

control specialist, energy systems engineer

and maintenance technician)

3. Biology and Zoology: involve the study of living

organisms (such as plants and animals) and the

processes of life. This includes working with farm

animals and in areas like nutrition and breeding.

(biological technician, biological scientist, plant

breeder, crop lab technician, animal scientist,

geneticist, zoologist)

4. Veterinary Work: involves the science of

preventing or treating disease in animals.

(veterinary assistant, veterinarian, animal

caretaker, livestock producer)

5. Mathematics: is the science of numbers and their

operations. It involves theory, computation, and

algorithms used to solve problems and summarize

data. (accountant, applied mathematician,

economist, financial analyst, mathematician,

statistician, market researcher, stock market

analyst)


August 2012


Not at all

Interested

1

Not So

Interested

2

Interested

3

Very

Interested

4

6. Medicine: involves maintaining health and

preventing and treating disease. (physician’s

assistant, nurse, doctor, nutritionist, emergency

medical technician, physical therapist, dentist)

7. Earth Science: is the study of earth, including the

air, land, and ocean. (geologist, weather

forecaster, archaeologist, geoscientist)

8. Computer Science: consists of the development

and testing of computer systems, designing new

programs and helping others to use computers.

(computer support specialist, computer

programmer, computer and network technician,

gaming designer, computer software engineer,

information technology specialist)

9. Medical Science: involves researching human

disease and working to find new solutions to

human health problems. (clinical laboratory

technologist, medical scientist, biomedical

engineer, epidemiologist, pharmacologist)

10. Chemistry: uses math and experiments to search

for new chemicals, and to study the structure of

matter and how it behaves. (chemical technician,

chemist, chemical engineer)

11. Energy: involves the study and generation of

power, such as heat or electricity. ( electrician,

electrical engineer, heating, ventilation, and air

conditioning (HVAC) technician, nuclear

engineer, systems engineer, alternative energy

systems installer or technician)

12. Engineering: involves designing, testing, and

manufacturing new products (like machines,

bridges, buildings, and electronics) through the

use of math, science, and computers. (civil,

industrial, agricultural, or mechanical engineers,

welder, auto-mechanic, engineering technician,

construction manager)


August 2012


6. About Yourself

How well do you expect to do this year in your: Not Very

Well

1

OK/Pretty

Well

2

Very Well

3

English Class?

Math Class?

Science Class?

Thank you for taking this survey! This is the end!

Yes No Not Sure

Do you plan to go to college?

If so, please list what college(s)

you are interested in attending.

Yes No Not Sure


engineers?


scientists?


mathematicians?


April 2012

Appendix E. Pilot Golden LEAF STEM Implementation Rubric & Grantee Results

STEM Program Implementation Rubric

and

Golden LEAF STEM Initiative Results from Pilot Administration,

November 2011 – January 2012

Page 2 contains 11 “STEM Attributes,” or characteristics and strategies of effective STEM programs - a framework created by the North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction. The remainder of the document is a pilot STEM program implementation rubric based on these 11 attributes. The rubric was created by The

Friday Institute, with backing from The Golden LEAF Foundation, to support schools and districts to build their STEM programs. __________________________________________________________________________

HOW TO USE THIS RUBRIC:

The rubric acts as a framework for building STEM programs and is based on the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s list of 11 STEM-program

attributes.

It outlines a four-stage implementation continuum for key elements of each of the 11 attributes, with the Target level of implementation at the far right. With

your leadership team, discuss each page of the rubric and highlight the cells that best describe your school or program.

Where you see space in the table, make notes about your school or program. What does your STEM school or program look like? What is/are 1-3 action steps

that your school or program might take to advance in these areas? These notes can act as a reminder or future reference point in future planning meetings.


August 2012


North Carolina Department of Public Instruction STEM Education Schools and Programs

HIGH SCHOOL STEM Attribute Implementation Rubric

STEM Attributes describe a quality STEM Education school or program. There are criteria for each Attribute to describe an Early,

Developing, Prepared, or Targeted school or program. These criteria will assist schools in understanding the steps to become a prepared or

targeted quality program. STEM Attributes are based on local, state and national research and public feedback from 125 practitioners,

educators, and business leaders.

STEM Attributes

Reference STEM Implementation Rubric

Early Developing Prepared Target

Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

curriculum, aligned with state, national, international and industry standards

A1) Project-based learning with integrated content across STEM subjects

A2) Connections to effective in and out-of-school STEM programs

A3) Integration of technology and virtual learning

A4) Authentic assessment and exhibition of STEM skills

A5) Professional development on integrated STEM curriculum, community/industry

partnerships and postsecondary education connections

A6) Outreach, support and focus on underserved, especially females, minorities, and

economically disadvantaged

On-going community and industry engagement


August 2012


B1) A communicated STEM plan is adopted across education, communities and

businesses

B2) STEM work-based learning experiences, to increase interest and abilities in fields

requiring STEM skills, for each student and teacher

B3) Business and community partnerships for mentorship, internship and other STEM

opportunities that extend the classroom walls

Connections with postsecondary education

C1) Alignment of student’s career pathway with post-secondary STEM program(s)

C2) Credit completion at community colleges, colleges and/or universities


August 2012


Early (Starting) Developing Advanced (Prepared) Target

TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Project-based learning is used rarely in

1-2 subject(s)/grade level(s), providing

few learning experiences that have

high potential for student engagement

(e.g. using technology tools,

participating in issues- or community-

based activities, and completing

capstone projects that address real-

world problems)

Project-based learning is used

occasionally in more than 2 STEM

subjects/grade levels, providing

some learning experiences have

high potential for student

engagement (e.g. using technology

tools, participating in issues- or

community-based activities, and

completing capstone projects that

address real-world problems)

Project-based learning is used

frequently in all STEM subjects at all

grade levels so that many learning

experiences have high potential for

student engagement (e.g. using

technology tools, participating in

issues- or community-based activities,

and completing capstone projects that

address real-world problems)

Project-based learning is used regularly across multiple

subjects at all grade levels, so that a majority of learning

experiences have high potential for student engagement

(e.g. using technology tools, participating in issues- or

community-based activities, and completing capstone

projects that address real-world problems)

n = 3 n = 9 n = 1 n = 1 14

No common planning time focuses on

integrating teaching and learning

across grades/content areas

Annual common planning time

focuses on integrating teaching and

learning across grades/content

areas

Biannual common planning time

focuses on integrating teaching and

learning across grades/content areas

Quarterly common planning time focuses on integrating

teaching and learning across grades/content areas

n = 2 n = 5 n = 3 n = 4 14

Teachers occasionally share lessons

and activities through infrequent,

common planning and professional

learning community meetings

In their professional learning

communities teachers occasionally

share lessons and activities that

promote higher-level thinking

In their professional learning

communities teachers frequently share

and co-create new or improved

activities that promote higher-level

thinking

In their professional learning communities teachers

regularly share and co-create new or improved activities

that promote higher-level thinking

n = 4 n = 7 n = 3 − 14

Up to 25% of teachers make explicit

efforts to integrate STEM across core

subjects, requiring students to

synthesize knowledge across

disciplines

26-50% of teachers make explicit

efforts to integrate STEM across

core subjects, requiring students to


disciplines

51-75% of teachers make explicit

efforts to integrate STEM across core

subjects, requiring students to


disciplines

Over 76% of teachers make explicit efforts to integrate

STEM across core subjects, requiring students to

synthesize knowledge across disciplines

n = 9 n = 4 n = 1 − 14

Computer labs or classrooms are

transformed into collaborative spaces

and project work areas when

necessary

At least one space is available

specifically for student collaboration

and project work

At least 2 facilities and spaces are

available specifically for student

collaboration and project work

Multiple facilities and spaces are available for face-to-

face and virtual collaboration among students and

teachers, including small group learning areas, project

rooms, inquiry studios, and exhibition spaces

n = 5 n = 4 n = 3 n = 2 14

Physical Space

(A1) Curriculum : Project-based learning (PBL) with integrated content across subjects

Frequency of PBL

Multi-subject PLCs

STEM PLCs

Frequency of

STEM Integration


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Program has limited engagement with

a STEM network, participating in

occasional cross-sector partnerships

and collaborations

Program has occasional

engagement with a STEM network

and is seeking to establish a few

partnerships with other schools,

communities, post-secondary

institutions, and business/industry

Program frequently engages in a

STEM network, maintaining several

partnerships with other schools,

communities, post-secondary

institutions and business/industry

experts and resources

The program continuously engages in a STEM network,

maintaining multiple partnerships and establishing new

ones that connect schools to communities, post-

secondary institutions and STEM business/industry

experts and resources

n = 4 n =6 n = 3 − 13

Program leaders and participants do

not access and share research and

best practices related to their program

goals

Program leaders and participants

occasionally access and share

research and best practices related

to their program goals, and

occasionally use this data for

program improvement

Program leaders and participants

frequently access and share research

and best practices related to their

program goals, and use this data for

program improvement

Program faculty/staff regularly access and share

research and best practices related to their program

goals, and use this data for program improvement

n = 2 n = 6 n = 5 − 13

Leaders are creating plans to provide

opportunities for students to meet

STEM professionals and to participate

in STEM learning environments

outside school (e.g. field trips, clubs,

competitions, study trips, internships,

and summer/afterschool/weekend

programs taught by STEM teachers

and/or industry professionals)

Direct experiences with STEM

professionals and STEM learning

environments both during and

outside school are available to

students 1-2 times throughout the

year (e.g. field trips, clubs,

competitions, study trips,

internships, and

summer/afterschool/weekend



Direct experiences with STEM

professionals and STEM learning

environments both during and outside

school are available to students

several times throughout the year

(e.g. field trips, clubs, competitions,

study trips, internships, and

summer/afterschool/weekend



Direct experiences with STEM professionals and STEM

learning environments both during and outside school

are available to students continuously throughout the

year (e.g. field trips, clubs, competitions, study trips,

internships, and summer/afterschool/weekend programs

taught by STEM teachers and/or industry professionals)

n = 7 n = 4 n = 1 n = 1 13

(A2) Curriculum: Connections to effective in- and out-of-school programs

STEM Network

Research &

Development

Students and

STEM

Professionals


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Common technology resources linked

to standards and curriculum have

been identified

Common technology resources

linked to standards and curriculum

are available for teachers and

students; up to 50% of students

have mastered common technology

applications

Common technology resources linked

to standards and curriculum are being

used by most teachers and students;

51-85% of students have mastered

common technology applications

Common technology resources linked to standards and

curriculum are being used by all teachers and students;

more than 86% of students have mastered common

technology applications

n = 3 n = 4 n = 4 n = 3 14

A few virtual, computer-based, mobile,

and other technology tools are used

infrequently to support teaching and

learning

Virtual, computer-based, mobile,

and other technology tools are

used occasionally to support

teaching and learning through

activities such as web-based

lessons, projects requiring students

to use computer applications and

other online learning activities

Virtual, computer-based, mobile, and

other technology tools are used

frequently to support teaching and

learning through activities such as

web-based lessons, projects requiring

students to use computer applications

and other online learning activities

Virtual, computer-based, mobile, and other technology

tools are integrated seamlessly into teaching and

learning, including web-based lessons on standards-

based content, projects requiring students to use

computer applications, online communication between

and among teachers and students, etc.

n = 4 n = 4 n = 4 n = 1 13

Teachers have occasional access to

digital instructional resources for

STEM

Teachers have frequent access to


STEM

Teachers have on-demand access to


STEM throughout the entire school,

and teachers receive occasional

STEM resource notifications and

updates

Teachers have on-demand access to digital

instructional resources for STEM in various instructional

settings (e.g. school, home, community) and teachers

receive regular STEM resource notifications and updates

n = 5 n = 6 n = 1 n = 2 14

Teachers and administrators rarely

have access to tech support for both

maintenance and consulting

Teachers and administrators

occasionally have access to tech

support for both maintenance and

consulting

Teachers, administrators and

students have frequent access to tech-

support for both maintenance and

consulting

Teachers, administrators and students have on-demand

access to tech-support for both maintenance and

consulting

n = 2 n = 1 n = 6 n = 5 14

(A3) Curriculum: Integration of technology and virtual learning

Tech Support

Tech Resources

for Teachers

Integrated

Technology

Common

Technology


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Teachers are being encouraged and

supported to use multiple indicators of

student success, including

performance, project-based and

portfolio assessments

As many as 50% of teachers use

multiple indicators of student

success, including performance,

project-based and portfolio

assessments

51-75% of teachers use multiple

indicators of student success,

including performance, project-based

and portfolio assessments

All teachers and students are immersed in a student-

centered learning environment that supports the use of

multiple indicators of success, such as performance,

project-based and portfolio assessments

n = 7 n = 4 n = 1 n = 1 13

Teachers do not share assessment

strategies (e.g. formative, benchmark

and summative assessments or

performance-based assessments)

A couple times a year teachers

share assessment strategies (e.g.

formative, benchmark and

summative assessments or

performance-based assessments);

they occasionally co-create

assessments

Teachers collaborate quarterly to

discuss strategies for analyzing

student performance and for using

results to inform instruction, and to

develop multiple measures of student

success (e.g. formative, benchmark,

summative, and performance-based

assessments)

Teachers collaborate at least monthly to discuss

strategies for analyzing student performance and for

using results to inform instruction, and to develop

multiple measures of student success (e.g. formative,

benchmark, summative, and performance-based

assessments)

n = 1 n = 4 n = 7 n = 1 13

Students, teachers and administrators

rarely celebrate high-quality student

work in STEM

Students, teachers and

administrators celebrate high-quality

student work in STEM with

occasional on-site and online

exhibits

Students, teachers and administrators

celebrate high-quality student work in

STEM with frequent on-site and online

exhibits

Students, teachers and administrators celebrate high-

quality student work in STEM through on-going student

exhibits on-site, online and/or in state and national

forums

n = 7 n = 4 n = 1 n = 1 13

Program leadership occasionally

honors and encourages innovation

among students

Program leadership frequently

honors and encourages innovation

among students

Program leadership and program

participants frequently honor and

encourage innovation among both

faculty and students

Program culture consistently honors, encourages and

incentivizes innovation among faculty, students, parents,

and others

n = 6 n = 4 n = 3 − 13

(A4) Curriculum: Authentic assessments and exhibition of STEM skills

Authentic

Assessments

Teachers

Collaboratively

Develop

Assessments

Culture of

Innovation

Celebrate STEM

Work


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Teachers participate in large group

professional development sessions to

acquire basic STEM skills

Teachers participate in large group

professional development sessions

focusing on building capacity to

integrate STEM effectively into

content areas, with follow-up that

facilitates implementation

Individual teachers have unique

STEM professional development

goals and are able to tailor as much

as 50% of their professional

development activities to meet their

individual needs

Individual teachers have unique STEM professional

development goals and are able to tailor over 75% of

their professional development activities to meet their

individual needs

n = 8 n = 3 n = 1 n = 2 14

Job-embedded approach to

professional development, with

opportunities for practice and

reflection, is rarely used




reflection, is occasionally used




reflection, is frequently used

Job embedded approach to professional development,

with opportunities for practice and reflection, is regularly

used

n = 2 n = 5 n = 1 n = 5 13

Professional development resources

lack specificity and focus on

standardized, scripted teaching

strategies

Professional development

resources occasionally focus on

specific STEM content for specific

types of student-learners

Professional development resources

frequently focus on specific STEM

content for specific types of student-

learners

Professional development resources regularly focus on

specific STEM content for specific types of student-

learners

n = 2 n = 9 n = 1 n = 1 13

Teachers participate in less than 9

hours per year of STEM professional

development, which addresses

content, community/industry

partnerships and connections with

post-secondary education

Teachers participate in 9-18 hours

per year of STEM professional





Teachers participate in 19-29 hours

per year of STEM professional





Teachers participate in 30 or more hours per year of

STEM professional development, which addresses

content, community/industry partnerships and

connections with post-secondary education

n = 5 n = 7 − n = 1 13

Individualized PD

Job-embedded PD

Specific to

Student-Learners

Frequency of PD

(A5) Curriculum: Professional development on integrated STEM curriculum, community/industry partnerships and connections

with post-secondary education


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

A few program leaders have

articulated what the culture of trust,

inquiry and creativity looks like,

emphasizing the inclusion of all

students and adults in this culture

A core group of program

participants maintain a culture of

trust, inquiry and creativity,



A culture of trust, inquiry and creativity

exists throughout a majority of

participants in the program,



A strong culture of trust, inquiry and creativity exists

between and among participating students, teachers

and administrators, emphasizing the inclusion of all


n = 4 n = 5 n = 3 n = 1 13

No policies and practices that support

equity and access for all students

Policies and practices that support


identify under-represented or

struggling students; they engage as

much as 50% of those students

Policies and practices that support


identify under-represented or

struggling students; they engage 51-

75% of those students

Policies and practices that support equity and access

for all students identify and engage over 75% of under-

represented or struggling students

n = 1 n = 5 n = 2 n = 5 13

1 in-school programs inspires under-

represented and struggling students

to be excited about STEM subjects

and introduces the students to careers

in STEM fields

2 or more in-school programs

inspire under-represented and

struggling students to be excited

about STEM subjects and introduce

the students to careers in STEM

fields

2 or more in-school programs and 1-2

out-of-school programs inspire under-

represented and struggling students

to be excited about STEM subjects

and introduce the students to careers

in STEM fields (e.g. direct

experiences with real STEM

professionals through summer bridge

programs and field trips facilitated by

community youth development

organizations)

Multiple in-school and out-of-school programs inspire

under-represented and struggling students to be excited

about STEM subjects and introduce the students to

careers in STEM fields (e.g. direct experiences with real

STEM professionals through summer bridge programs

and field trips facilitated by community youth

development organizations)

n = 1 n = 8 n = 1 n = 2 12

(A6) Curriculum: Outreach, support and focus on underserved students, especially females, minorities and economically

disadvantaged students

Culture of Trust

Recognize Under-

Represented

Students

Inspire Under-

Represented

Students


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Program leaders are researching and

planning in-school learning

opportunities that directly connect to

current work in STEM industries and

careers

1-2 in-school learning opportunities

per year are directly connected to

current work in STEM industries

and careers

Several in-school learning

opportunities are directly connected to

current work in STEM industries and

careers

In-school learning opportunities are frequently directly

connected to current work in STEM industries and

careers

n = 5 n = 5 n = 2 n = 1 13

Students rarely work and learn in

teams to frame problems and test

solutions

Students occasionally work and

learn in teams to frame problems

and test solutions, with clearly

defined individual and team

expectations

Students frequently work and learn in

teams to frame problems and test

solutions, with clearly defined

individual and team expectations

On a daily basis students work and learn in teams to

frame problems and test solutions, with clearly defined

individual and team expectations

n = 1 n = 6 n = 4 n = 2 13

Very few STEM teachers participate in

customized, applied learning

experiences in order to increase their

STEM content knowledge and

develop their pedagogy of inquiry and

problem-solving

As many as 25% of STEM teachers

participate in at least 1 customized,

applied learning experience in order

to increase their STEM content

knowledge and develop their

pedagogy of inquiry and problem-

solving (e.g. teacher fellowships,

externships, team-teaching with

STEM industry partners, etc.)

As much as 50% of STEM teachers

participate in at least 1 customized,

applied learning experience in order

to increase their STEM content

knowledge and develop their

pedagogy of inquiry and problem-

solving (e.g. teacher fellowships,

externships, team-teaching with

STEM industry partners, etc.)

All STEM teachers participate in customized, applied

learning opportunities in order to increase their STEM

content knowledge and develop their pedagogy of

inquiry and problem-solving (e.g. teacher fellowships,

externships, team-teaching with STEM industry

partners, etc.)

n = 7 n = 3 n = 1 n = 2 13

Teachers rarely interact with other

STEM professionals in business,

industry and higher education

Teachers occasionally have limited

interactions with other STEM

professionals in business, industry

and higher education

Teachers occasionally collaborate

with other STEM professionals in

business, industry and higher

education, developing together new

learning environments to empower

students to think critically and address

real-world problems

Teachers frequently collaborate with other STEM

professionals in business, industry and higher

education, developing together new learning

environments to empower students to think critically and

address real-world problems

n = 5 n = 6 n = 2 − 13

(B1) Community : Work-based learning experiences to increase interest and abilities in fields requiring STEM skills for each

student and teacher

Learning Directly

Connected to

Industries

Students Work in

Teams

Teachers Interact

with STEM

Industries

STEM

Professionals &

Lesson Planning


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Program leadership maintains some

collaboration within a STEM network

through the occasional exchange of

resources

Program leadership maintains

collaboration within a STEM

network through the exchange of

resources and the sharing of best

practices and lessons learned

Unified program leadership maintains

reciprocal and trusted collaboration

within a STEM network through the

exchange of resources and the

sharing of best practices and lessons

learned

Unified leadership maintains reciprocal and trusted

collaboration within a STEM network through

transparent interactions and decisions, open

communication, exchange of resources, sharing of best

practices and lessons learned, and reinforcement of

shared visions and goals

n = 6 n = 3 n = 2 n = 2 13

Communication tools, such as social

media platforms, newsletters,

webinars, and meetings are used

infrequently to communicate externally

Communication tools, such as

social media platforms, newsletters,


occasionally to communicate

externally

Communication tools, such as social

media platforms, newsletters,


frequently to communicate externally

Communication tools, such as social media platforms,

newsletters, webinars, and meetings are used regularly

to communicate externally

n = 5 n = 6 n = 1 n = 1 13

A team of stakeholders rarely

assembles to discuss STEM

education problems or to create long-

term funding streams

A team of stakeholders assembles

roughly every 2-3 years to discuss

STEM education problems,

including long-term funding; these

individuals include the district

leadership team, local business

partners, and other STEM industry

professionals

A team of stakeholders assembles

annually to continue building long-

term funding streams; these

individuals include the district

leadership team, local business

partners, and other STEM industry

professionals

A team of stakeholders assembles semi-annually to

maintain long-term funding streams; these individuals

include the district leadership team, local business

partners, and other STEM industry professionals

n = 7 n = 1 n = 4 − 12

(B2) Community: Business and community partnerships for mentorships, internships and other opportunities extend the

classroom walls

Trusted

Collaboration in

STEM Network

Communication

Tools

Stakeholders &

Funding


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

The leadership team creates a basic

STEM program plan in which 1-3

STEM Attributes are evident

The leadership team creates a

detailed STEM program plan

grounded in research and in which

3-7 STEM Attributes are evident

The leadership team, which includes

at least one student, creates a

detailed STEM program plan

grounded in research, aligned with

district strategic plans focused on

student achievement in STEM and

demonstrates evidence of 7-10 STEM

Attributes

The leadership team, which includes multiple students,

leads stakeholders in a collaborative decision-making

process to create a STEM program plan grounded in

research, aligned with district strategic plans and

demonstrating evidence of 10 or more STEM Attributes

n = 5 n = 7 n = 1 − 13

The leadership team’s minimal

communication of a STEM program

plan and other activities with teachers

and key stakeholders maintains

limited participation and buy-in

The leadership team’s occasional

communication of a STEM program

plan and other activities with

teachers and key stakeholders

develops some participation and

buy-in

The leadership team’s frequent

communication of the STEM program

plan and other activities with teachers

and key stakeholders secures

increased participation and buy-in and

bolsters sustainability of the initiative

The leadership team’s constant communication of the

STEM program plan and other activities with teachers

and key stakeholders secures maximum participation

and buy-in and bolsters sustainability of the initiative

n = 2 n = 6 n = 5 − 13

Student data on STEM performance is

available annually to administrators

and teachers and is rarely used to

inform instructional and programmatic

decision-making

Student data on STEM

performance is available annually

to administrators and teachers and

is used yearly to inform

instructional and programmatic

decision-making

Student data on STEM performance

is available quarterly to administrators

and teachers and is used to inform

instructional and programmatic

decision-making and to support

continuous improvement throughout

the year

On-demand, up-to-date student data on STEM

performance is available to administrators and teachers

and is used to inform instructional and programmatic

decision-making

n = 6 n = 2 n = 4 n = 1 13

Limited discretionary funds are

allocated for implementation of STEM

strategies

Discretionary funds and other

resources are allocated to advance

implementation of some STEM

strategies outlined in the program

plan

Discretionary funds and other

resources are allocated to advance

implementation of most of the STEM

strategies outlined in the program plan

Discretionary funds and other resources are allocated to

advance implementation of all the STEM strategies

outlined in the program plan

n = 4 n = 2 n = 4 n = 1 11

(B3) Community: "STEM Attributes" are evident in leadership's, teachers' and counselors' plans of work and are communicated to

community-based organizations

STEM Program

Plan

Communicate

STEM Program

Plan

Program Data

Resource

Allocation


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

Teachers do not vertically plan within

and across (between elementary,

middle and high) schools

Teachers vertically plan within and

across (between elementary,

middle and high) schools every 2-3

years

Teachers vertically plan within and

across (between elementary, middle

and high) schools annually

Teachers vertically plan across grade levels and

between schools (elementary, middle, and high) schools

biannually

n = 3 n = 8 n = 2 n = 1 14

Career counselors and students have

brief and limited interactions

Career counselors and students

communicate virtually or face-to-

face at least quarterly about the

students’ future plans and how they

connect to their academic activities

Career counselors and students have

developed one-on-one relationships,

meeting face-to-face at least quarterly

to discuss, plan and track the

connections and alignment of

students’ pathways to careers and


Career counselors and students have developed one-on-

one relationships and use both face-to-face and virtual

communication frequently, including at least quarterly

face-to-face meetings, to plan, discuss and track the

connections and alignment of students’ pathways to

careers and post-secondary education

n = 8 n = 3 n = 1 − 12

Career counselors and teachers do

not meet to discuss the alignment of

students’ pathways to post-secondary

careers and education

Career counselors and teachers

meet annually to discuss the

alignment of students’ pathways to

post-secondary careers and

education

Career counselors and teachers meet

semi-annually to discuss the

alignment of students’ pathways to

post-secondary careers and education

Career counselors and teachers meet quarterly to

discuss the alignment of students’ pathways to post-

secondary careers and education

n = 2 n = 9 − − 11

Information about post-secondary

STEM programs and STEM career

topics is rarely accessed and shared

with counselors



topics is occasionally accessed and

shared with counselors



topics is frequently accessed and

shared with both teachers and

counselors

Information about post-secondary STEM programs and

STEM career topics is regularly accessed and shared

with both teachers and counselors

n = 4 n = 5 n = 2 − 11

(C1) Connections: Alignment with students' career pathways to post-secondary programs

Vertical Planning

Counselor &

Student

Relationships

Counselors &

Teachers

Communicate

Information

Sharing


August 2012



TOTAL GLF

STEM Initiative

Grantee

Responses (N)

STEM program/school includes no

formal course offerings for which

credit completion would be available,

but occasionally supports students to

enroll in courses offered by post-

secondary institutions

STEM program/school includes a

few course offerings for which

credit completion would be

available based upon a limited

agreement and relationship with a

post-secondary institution

STEM program/school includes

multiple course offerings for which

credit completion is available based

upon developing agreements and

relationships with 1-2 post-secondary

institutions; offerings were thoughtfully

selected based upon the school’s

resource needs and the student

population’s needs

STEM program/school includes a wide variety of course

offerings for which credit completion is available based

upon strong agreements and relationships with 2-3 post-

secondary institutions; offerings were thoughtfully

selected based upon the school’s resource needs and

the student population’s needs

− n = 4 n = 3 − 7

Less than 10% of target students are

enrolled in any credit completion

opportunities

10-50% of target students are

enrolled in any credit completion

opportunities

51-75% of target students are

enrolled in credit completion

opportunities

Over 76% of target students are enrolled in credit

completion opportunities

n = 2 n = 3 n = 1 n = 1 7

Some career counselors understand

the credit completion and post-

secondary enrollment process and

rarely advise students on this

opportunity

Career counselors understand the

credit completion and post-

secondary enrollment process and

occasionally advise students on

this opportunity

Both career counselors and STEM

teachers understand the credit

completion and post-secondary

enrollment process and occasionally

advise students on this opportunity

All career counselors and teachers thoroughly

understand the credit completion and post-secondary

enrollment process and regularly advise students on

this opportunity

n = 1 n = 6 n = 2 n = 1 10

(C2) Connections: Availability of credit completion with post-seondary institutions, including community colleges,

colleges and/or universities

Credit Completion

Availability

Student

Enrollment

Comprehensive

Advising


August 2012


References

Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2008). North Carolina Learning Technology Initiative (NCLTI) framework for planning. Raleigh, NC: Author. Available from

http://www.fi.ncsu.edu/assets/research_papers/nc-11-learning-technology-initiative-planning/nclti-planning-framework-.doc.

Ready, Set Go (2011). Statewide STEM Strategy. Raleigh, NC: Author.

Rowley, J. (2010). STEM Education Quality Rubrics. University of Dayton, Ohio

Texas High School Project T-STEM Initiative (2010). Texas Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics Academies Design Blueprint, Rubric, and Glossary. Available

from: http://ntstem.tamu.edu/Academies/blueprint.pdf

Wake County Public Schools STEM Schools Collaborative Network (2011). STEM School Readiness Self-Assessment V 1.0. Raleigh, NC: Author.

http://www.fi.ncsu.edu/assets/research_papers/nc-11-learning-technology-initiative-planning/nclti-planning-framework-.doc

http://ntstem.tamu.edu/Academies/blueprint.pdf


April 2012

Appendix F. Pilot Upper Elementary (4-5th) Student Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-

level Results

Table F1

Upper Elementary Student Attitudes toward Math, Science, Technology and Engineering, and

21st Century Learning

Survey Question

Percentage of respondents

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

Math


(n=888) 3.5% 9.4% 14.8% 38.1% 34.4%

2. Math is an important life skill.

(n=888) 3.3% 3.0% 3.9% 43.2% 46.5%

3. When I’m older, I might choose a

job that uses math. (n=885) 12.8% 16.3% 27.7% 30.6% 12.7%

4. Math is hard for me. (n=889) 25.3% 36.3% 18.7% 14.3% 5.4%


understand math for my job.

(n=887)

5.9% 9.5% 21.9% 39.2% 23.6%

6. I am the type of student who does

well in math. (n=888) 5.1% 11.4% 20.2% 38.5% 24.9%


easily, but math is difficult for me.

(n=888)

28.2% 35.4% 14.9% 17.3% 4.3%


math problems. (n=889) 5.0% 7.1% 11.6% 42.6% 33.8%


(n=889) 2.7% 4.6% 9.7% 44.4% 38.6%

10. I am good at math. (n=887) 3.3% 8.1% 17.5% 39.0% 32.1%

Science

1. I feel good about myself when I do

science. (n=880) 2.8% 6.5% 15.8% 47.4% 27.5%

2. I might choose a career in science.

(n=881) 10.3% 20.9% 26.9% 28.7% 13.2%

3. After I finish high school, I will

use science often. (n=879) 6.8% 16.2% 32.2% 34.2% 10.6%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

4. When I am older, knowing science

will help me earn money. (n=881) 5.6% 14.0% 31.4% 33.0% 16.0%


understand science for my job.

(n=880)

7.5% 17.6% 30.8% 29.3% 14.8%


(n=879) 1.8% 4.0% 10.6% 46.9% 36.8%


my future career. (n=880) 6.4% 15.5% 30.7% 29.4% 18.1%


easily, but science is hard for me to

understand. (n=881)

32.0% 37.1% 14.1% 13.2% 3.6%


science work. (n=878) 4.8% 8.3% 19.1% 38.2% 29.6%

Engineering and Technology

1. I like to imagine making new

products. (n=871) 4.9% 11.1% 18.0% 43.1% 22.9%



every day. (n=869)

4.0% 9.9% 23.0% 42.9% 20.1%

3. I am good at building or fixing

things. (n=870) 6.9% 15.2% 19.3% 35.1% 23.6%

4. Understanding engineering will

help me earn money. (n=867) 6.9% 12.3% 24.6% 35.2% 21.0%


machines work. (n=870) 9.9% 16.9% 19.1% 34.9% 19.2%


will be important in my future

jobs. (n=869)

9.3% 20.1% 30.4% 24.2% 16.0%


work. (n=868) 6.7% 16.6% 16.1% 36.6% 24.0%

8. I would choose a job that involves

building things. (n=868) 14.1% 23.2% 29.8% 18.2% 14.8%

9. I want to be creative in my future

jobs. (n=870) 4.4% 8.2% 15.3% 38.3% 33.9%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree


science together will help me to

invent useful things. (n=870)

5.4% 7.4% 21.2% 39.0% 27.1%

11. I believe I can be successful in

engineering. (n=868) 9.8% 14.8% 26.5% 31.9% 17.1%


1. I can lead others to reach a goal.

(n=863) 3.9% 7.4% 19.6% 45.4% 23.6%

2. I like to help others do their best.

(n=862) 0.9% 2.8% 10.3% 51.7% 34.2%

3. I usually know how to do the right

thing. (n=862) 0.7% 4.3% 16.7% 48.8% 29.5%

4. In school and at home, I can do

things well. (n=860) 1.4% 3.5% 13.1% 50.4% 31.6%

5. I can and usually do act

responsibly. (n=861) 1.3% 4.0% 17.4% 49.3% 28.1%

6. I respect all children my age even

if they are different from me.

(n=861)

1.6% 4.4% 14.1% 42.4% 37.5%

7. I try to help other children my age.

(n=861) 0.9% 2.3% 14.1% 49.7% 33.0%

8. When I make decisions, I think

about what is good for other

people. (n=859)

1.2% 4.9% 22.2% 44.7% 27.0%

9. When things do not go how I want,

I can change my actions for the

better. (n=860)

3.5% 7.1% 19.9% 44.1% 25.5%

10. I can make my own goals for

learning. (n=859) 0.8% 3.8% 13.0% 46.7% 35.6%

11. I can use time wisely when

working on my own. (n=859) 1.8% 5.4% 14.7% 45.9% 32.4%

12. When I have a lot of homework, I

can choose what needs to be done

first. (n=859)

2.8% 3.7% 9.3% 44.2% 39.9%

13. I can work well with all students,

even if they are different from me.

(n=859)

2.2% 6.1% 18.6% 40.4% 32.75


August 2012


Table F2

Upper Elementary Student STEM Career Interests

Career option


Not at all

interested

Not so

interested Interested

Very

interested

Physics: People study motion, gravity and

what things are made of. They also study

energy, like how a swinging bat can make a

baseball switch directions. They study how

different liquids, solids and gas can be

turned into heat or electricity. (n=845)

24.5% 38.1% 25.1% 12.3%

Environmental Work: People study how

nature works. They study how waste and

pollution affect the environment. They also

invent solutions to these problems. (n=844)

17.4% 33.9% 35.4% 13.3%

Biology: People work with animals and

plants and how they live. They also study

farm animals and the food that they make,

like milk. They can use what they know to

invent products for people to use. (n=844)

17.4% 24.6% 36.0% 21.9%

Veterinary Work: People who prevent

disease in animals. They give medicines to

help animals get better and for animal and

human safety. (n=844)

14.5% 23.8% 30.6% 31.2%

Mathematics: People use math and

computers to solve problems. They use it to

make decisions in businesses and

government. They use numbers to

understand why different things happen, like

why some people are healthier than others.

(n=844)

22.0% 31.9% 30.5% 15.6%

Medicine: People learn how the human

body works. They decide why someone is

sick or hurt and give medicines to help the

person get better. They teach people about

health, and sometimes they perform surgery.

(n=844)

22.4% 30.9% 27.4% 19.3%

Earth Science: People work with the air,

water, rocks and soil. Some tell us if there is

pollution and how to make the earth safer

and cleaner. Other earth scientists forecast

the weather. (n=844)

19.4% 30.3% 32.4% 17.9%


August 2012


Career option


Not at all

interested

Not so


Very

interested

Computer Science: People write

instructions to run a program that a

computer can follow. They design computer

games and other programs. They also fix

and improve computers for other people.

(n=844)

22.2% 31.9% 28.0% 18.0%

Medical Science: People study human

diseases and work to find answers to human

health problems. (n=844)

25.1% 30.8% 26.5% 17.5%

Chemistry: People work with chemicals.

They invent new chemicals and use them to

make new products, like paints, medicine,

and plastic. (n=842)

22.5% 29.9% 29.7% 17.9%

Energy/Electricity: People invent, improve

and maintain ways to make electricity or

heat. They also design the electrical and

other power systems in buildings and

machines. (n=843)

22.0% 31.4% 29.3% 17.3%

Engineering: People use science, math and

computers to build different products

(everything from airplanes to toothbrushes).

Engineers make new products and keep

them working. (n=843)

19.2% 25.9% 29.4% 25.5%

Table F3

Upper Elementary Student Performance Expectations

How well do you expect to

do this year in your …


Not very well OK/Pretty well Very well

English class (n=838) 8.8% 55.9% 35.3%

Math class (n=842) 7.1% 39.9% 53.0%

Science class (n=839) 5.1% 40.4% 54.5%

Table F4

Awareness of Adults in STEM Careers

Do you know any adults

who work as …


Yes No Not sure

Scientists (n=837) 21.9% 42.9% 35.2%


August 2012


Engineers (n=841) 57.4% 24.7% 17.8%

Mathematicians (n=837) 33.8% 38.5% 27.7%


April 2012

Appendix G. Pilot Middle and High School Student (6-12th) Attitudes toward STEM

Survey Item-level Results

Table G1

Middle and High School Student Attitudes toward Math, Science, Technology and Engineering,

and 21st Century Learning

Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

Math Attitudes

1. Math is important for my life.

(n=8792) 2.9% 3.7% 13.4% 49.05 31.0%


(n=8784) 28.9% 33.0% 17.4% 12.4% 8.2%

3. I would consider choosing a career

that uses math. (n=8783) 13.7% 20.7% 32.2% 25.1% 8.4%

4. Math is hard for me. (n=8780) 19.0% 33.6% 24.4% 15.5% 7.5%

5. I will need a good understanding

of math for my future work.

(n=8789)

4.7% 10.3% 26.5% 37.2% 21.3%

6. I am the type to do well in math.

(n=8786) 6.1% 11.8% 22.3% 40.1% 19.7%

7. I can handle most subjects well,

but I cannot do a good job with

math. (n=8791)

23.9% 38.8% 18.4% 13.2% 5.6%

8. I am sure I could do advanced

work in math. (n=8791) 9.0% 15.0% 24.1% 34.1% 17.8%


(n=8791) 3.2% 4.1% 12.0% 47.9% 32.9%

10. I am good at math. (n=8772) 5.3% 8.2% 19.3% 41.4% 25.8%

Science Attitudes

1. I am sure of myself when I do

science. (n=8735) 3.6% 10.9% 26.1% 44.1% 15.3%

2. I would consider a career in

science. (n=8734) 11.6% 23.4% 27.7% 24.3% 13.0%

3. I expect to use science when I get

out of school. (n=8732) 7.6% 18.0% 28.9% 32.5% 13.1%

4. Knowing science will help me earn

a living. (n=8735) 4.9% 12.1% 30.3% 37.6% 15.2%


August 2012


Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

5. I will need science for my future

work. (n=8734) 6.7% 18.7% 33.4% 27.3% 14.0%


(n=8731) 2.6% 4.8% 13.9% 53.1% 25.6%


my life’s work. (n=8731) 6.2% 16.9% 35.9% 27.7% 13.4%

8. I can handle most subjects well,

but I cannot do a good job with

science. (n=8735)

25.3% 39.1% 19.6% 12.1% 3.9%

9. I am sure I could do advanced

work in science. (n=8731) 9.7% 15.9% 26.4% 31.3% 16.7%

Engineering amd Technology Attitudes

1. I like to imagine creating new

products. (n=8664) 4.0% 12.5% 22.5% 43.0% 18.0%



every day. (n=8661)

3.1% 9.6% 22.5% 48.1% 16.7%

3. I am good at building and fixing

things. (n=8664) 6.1% 16.4% 24.8% 34.8% 18.0%

4. Understanding engineering

concepts will help me earn a

living. (n=8665)

4.4% 13.8% 31.0% 36.0% 14.7%


machines work. (n=8665) 10.1% 23.0% 23.1% 29.2% 14.7%


will be important for my future

work. (n=8662)

8.0% 22.8% 34.5% 22.9% 11.8%


work. (n=8655) 6.6% 16.5% 20.4% 37.5% 19.0%

8. I would choose a career that

involves building things. (n=8654) 12.0% 25.8% 30.9% 19.6% 11.6%

9. I would like to use creativity and

innovation in my future work.

(n=8659)

4.8% 13.1% 26.3% 36.2% 19.5%


science together will allow me to

invent useful things. (n=8647)

4.1% 8.6% 24.8% 41.6% 20.9%


August 2012


Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

11. I believe I can be successful in a

career in engineering. (n=8640) 9.1% 17.7% 31.3% 26.8% 15.2%


1. I am confident I can lead others to

accomplish a goal. (n=8609) 2.3% 4.5% 20.0% 48.8% 24.4%

2. I am confident I can encourage

others to do their best. (n=8611) 1.7% 3.4% 15.3% 51.8% 27.9%

3. I am confident I can make moral

decisions. (n=8606) 1.4% 2.9% 17.3% 51.7% 26.7%

4. I am confident I can produce high

quality work. (n=8606) 1.7% 4.0% 20.0% 46.3% 28.0%

5. I am confident I can act

responsibly. (n=8606) 1.5% 2.1% 9.9% 47.4% 39.1%

6. I am confident I can respect the

differences of my peers. (n=8607) 1.4% 2.3% 11.5% 48.6% 36.2%

7. I am confident I can help my peers.

(n=8607) 1.4% 2.5% 14.3% 50.0% 31.9%

8. I am confident I can include

others’ perspectives when making

decisions. (n=8607)

1.5% 2.9% 18.1% 51.5% 26.0%

9. I am confident I can make changes

when things do not go as planned.

(n=8609)

1.5% 3.6% 16.9% 51.5% 26.5%

10. I am confident I can set my own

learning goals. (n=8593) 1.3% 2.5% 14.4% 48.9% 32.9%

11. I am confident I can manage my

time wisely when working on my

own. (n=8596)

2.0% 5.0% 18.2% 47.7% 27.0%

12. When I have many assignments, I

can choose which ones need to be

done first. (n=8590)

1.7% 4.2% 15.5% 48.0% 30.6%

13. I am confident I can work well

with students from different

backgrounds. (n=8456)

2.3% 3.5% 18.7% 44.3% 31.3%


August 2012


Table G2

Middle and High School Student STEM Career Interests

Career option


Not at all

interested

Not so


Very

interested

Physics: is the study of basic laws

governing the motion, energy, structure, and

interactions of things and matter. This can

include studying the nature of the universe.

(aviation engineer, alternative energy

technician, lab technician, physicist,

astronomer) (n=8567)

26.0% 45.0% 22.3% 6.7%

Environmental Work: involves learning

about physical and biological processes that

govern nature and working to improve the

environment. This includes finding and

designing solutions to problems like

pollution, reusing waste and recycling.

(pollution control analyst, environmental

engineer or scientist, erosion control

specialist, energy systems engineer and

maintenance technician) (n=8563)

23.0% 40.7% 28.8% 7.6%

Biology and Zoology: involve the study of

living organisms (such as plants and

animals) and the processes of life. This

includes working with farm animals and in

areas like nutrition and breeding. (biological

technician, biological scientist, plant

breeder, crop lab technician, animal

scientist, geneticist, zoologist) (n=8562)

20.5% 32.5% 31.1% 15.8%

Veterinary Work: involves the science of

preventing or treating disease in animals.

(veterinary assistant, veterinarian, animal

caretaker, livestock producer) (n=8561)

19.1% 30.5% 29.8% 20.6%

Mathematics: is the science of numbers

and their operations. It involves theory,

computation, and algorithms used to solve

problems and summarize data. (accountant,

applied mathematician, economist, financial

analyst, mathematician, statistician, market

researcher, stock market analyst) (n=8564)

29.2% 35.1% 25.6% 10.4%


August 2012


Career option


Not at all

interested

Not so


Very

interested

Medicine: involves maintaining health and

preventing and treating disease. (physician’s

assistant, nurse, doctor, nutritionist,

emergency medical technician, physical

therapist, dentist) (n=8564)

19.9% 29.6% 29.0% 21.5%

Earth Science: is the study of earth,

including the air, land, and ocean.

(geologist, weather forecaster,

archaeologist, geoscientist) (n=8559)

26.6% 39.8% 25.3% 8.3%

Computer Science: consists of the

development and testing of computer

systems, designing new programs and

helping others to use computers. (computer

support specialist, computer programmer,

computer and network technician, gaming

designer, computer software engineer,

information technology specialist) (n=8562)

28.5% 34.9% 23.6% 12.9%

Medical Science: involves researching

human disease and working to find new

solutions to human health problems.

(clinical laboratory technologist, medical

scientist, biomedical engineer,

epidemiologist, pharmacologist) (n=8558)

24.6% 33.4% 25.5% 16.4%

Chemistry: uses math and experiments to

search for new chemicals, and to study the

structure of matter and how it behaves.

(chemical technician, chemist, chemical

engineer) (n=8537)

27.9% 35.4% 25.6% 11.1%

Energy: involves the study and generation

of power, such as heat or electricity.

(electrician, electrical engineer, heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

technician, nuclear engineer, systems

engineer, alternative energy systems

installer or technician) (n=8556)

29.9% 38.4% 23.8% 8.0%


August 2012


Career option


Not at all

interested

Not so


Very

interested

Engineering: involves designing, testing,

and manufacturing new products (like

machines, bridges, buildings, and

electronics) through the use of math,

science, and computers. (civil, industrial,

agricultural, or mechanical engineers,

welder, auto-mechanic, engineering

technician, construction manager) (n=8497)

24.5% 26.3% 28.0% 21.3%

Table G3

Middle and High School Student Performance Expectations

How well do you expect to

do this year in your …



English class (n=8486) 6.1% 53.5% 40.5%

Math class (n=8511) 9.0% 44.7% 46.2%

Science class (n=8484) 8.2% 47.4% 44.3%

Table G4

Middle and High School Student College Plans

Do you have plans to go to college? Percentage of Respondents

Yes No Not sure

All middle and high school students (n=8472) 85.8% 2.5% 11.6%

Table G5

Middle and High School Student Awareness of Adults in STEM Careers

Do you know any adults

who work as …


Yes No Not sure

Engineers (n=8517) 60.1% 21.2% 18.7%

Scientists (n=8513) 24.7% 54.6% 20.6%

Mathematicians (n=8501) 43.1% 36.7% 20.1%


April 2012

Appendix H. Pilot Student Survey Results by Demographic Characteristics

Table H1

Mean Composite Scores of Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student STEM

Attitudes by Gender

STEM Attitudes Male

(n=4,864) Female

(n=4,819)

Math Attitudes 3.6 3.5

Science Attitudes 3.4 3.4

Engineering and Technology Attitudes 3.7 3.1

21st Century Learning Attitudes 3.9 4.1

Table H2


Attitudes by Race/ethnicity

STEM

Attitudes

American

Indian/

Alaska

Native

Asian

Black/

African

American

Native HI/

Pacific

Islander

White/

Caucasian Latino

Multi-

racial

n 497 194 847 26 6,512 787 807

Math

Attitudes 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5

Science

Attitudes 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.4

Engineering

and

Technology

Attitudes

3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5

21st Century

Learning

Attitudes

3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0

Table H3


Attitudes by School-level

STEM Attitudes

Upper

Elementary

(n=785)

Middle

School

(n=7,698)

High

School

(n=926)

Math Attitudes 3.7 3.6 3.4

Science Attitudes 3.6 3.4 3.4


August 2012


Engineering and Technology Attitudes 3.5 3.4 3.3

21st Century Learning Attitudes 4.0 4.0 4.0

Note: Upper elementary school results include students in grades 4-5. Middle school results include students in

grades 6-8, and high school results include students in grades 9-12.

Table H4

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Percent “Interested/Very Interested” in

STEM Careers by Gender

Career Area Male

(n=4,723) Female

(n=4,685)

Veterinary work 36.4% 66.6%

Medicine 38.8% 61.6%

Engineering 71.2% 28.1%

Biology & zoology 41.3% 54.6%

Medical science 34.1% 50.3%

Chemistry 41.2% 34.2%

Environmental work 36.5% 38.5%

Computer science 49.2% 25.5%

Mathematics 39.8% 33.9%

Earth science 37.2% 33.0%

Energy 47.0% 19.1%

Physics 38.2% 21.3%

Table H5


STEM Careers by Race/Ethnicity

Career

American

Indian/

AK

Native

Asian

Black/

African

American

Native HI/

Pacific

Islander

White/

Cau-

casian

Hispanic/

Latino

Multi-

racial

n 481 187 812 25 6,360 750 780

Physics 29.7% 32.6% 28.5% 40.0% 28.9% 32.8% 34.6%

Environmental work 40.5% 39.6% 34.2% 44.0% 36.8% 40.0% 40.9%

Biology & zoology 49.5% 57.8% 36.3% 56.0% 48.7% 49.2% 48.9%

Veterinary work 52.9% 45.7% 40.6% 52.0% 53.2% 48.7% 51.3%

Mathematics 37.8% 45.7% 45.6% 44.0% 34.7% 41.5% 37.7%

Medicine 43.0% 60.1% 52.4% 56.0% 49.8% 54.2% 49.0%

Earth science 37.8% 44.4% 33.3% 40.0% 33.8% 39.0% 39.7%

Computer science 35.7% 47.3% 41.7% 48.0% 34.9% 42.8% 46.3%

Medical science 38.5% 43.6% 43.0% 52.0% 41.4% 44.9% 46.5%

Chemistry 37.3% 51.9% 40.0% 56.0% 35.8% 41.3% 43.4%


August 2012


Energy 39.3% 40.4% 38.3% 40.0% 30.8% 36.9% 37.2%

Engineering 53.8% 55.4% 46.8% 32.0% 48.5% 52.4% 57.7%

Table H6


STEM Careers by School-level

Career Area

Upper

Elementary

(n=754)

Middle

School

(n=4723)

High

School (n=4685)

Veterinary work 38.2% 28.9% 30.3%

Medicine 49.5% 36.6% 35.4%

Engineering 58.6% 47.6% 41.7%

Biology & zoology 62.2% 51.8% 39.6%

Medical science 45.4% 37.0% 36.4%

Chemistry 45.8% 50.5% 51.0%

Environmental work 51.1% 34.1% 30.6%

Computer science 45.7% 37.3% 30.8%

Mathematics 44.5% 41.7% 43.6%

Earth science 47.6% 37.2% 33.1%

Energy 46.9% 32.3% 27.9%

Physics 54.7% 49.8% 45.2%



Table H7

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student English Class Performance

Expectations by Gender

How well do you expect to do this

year in your English class?



Male (n=4,670) 7.7% 56.7% 35.6%

Female (n=4,651) 4.9% 50.6% 44.5%


August 2012


Table H8


Expectations by Race/Ethnicity





American Indian/AK Native

(n=471) 11.3% 57.1% 31.6%

Asian

(n=185) 4.3% 63.8% 31.9%

Black/African American

(n=797) 8.7% 55.1% 36.3%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

(n=24) 12.5% 66.7% 20.8%

White/Caucasian

(n=6315) 5.7% 52.0% 42.3%

Hispanic/Latino

(n=747) 7.2% 61.3% 31.5%

Multiracial

(n=769) 5.6% 53.6% 40.8%

Table H9


Expectations by School-level





Upper Elementary (n=744) 9.5% 56.6% 33.9%

Middle School (n=7,674) 6.3% 53.8% 39.9%

High School (n=900) 3.6% 50.1% 46.3%




August 2012


Table H10

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Math Class Performance Expectations

by Gender


year in your math class?



Male (n=4,690) 8.6% 45.4% 46.1%

Female (n=4,660) 9.2% 43.2% 47.6%

Table H11


by Race/Ethnicity


year in your math class?




(n=477) 10.7% 49.3% 40.0%

Asian

(n=188) 5.9% 47.9% 46.3%


(n=801) 9.2% 40.5% 50.3%


(n=25) 12.0% 32.0% 56.0%

White/Caucasian

(n=6,329) 8.7% 44.0% 47.3%

Hispanic/Latino

(n=748) 8.4% 44.5% 47.1%

Multiracial

(n=769) 10.3% 46.6% 43.2%

Table H12


by School-level


year in your Math class?




Middle School (n=7,700) 8.6% 44.8% 46.5%


August 2012


High School (n=899) 11.9% 41.8% 46.3%



Table H13

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Science Class Performance

Expectations by Gender


year in your science class?



Male (n=4,672) 7.8% 46.2% 46.0%

Female (n=4,648) 8.1% 47.4% 44.5%

Table H14


Expectations by Race/Ethnicity


year in your science class?




(n=471) 10.2% 49.3% 40.6%

Asian

(n=186) 9.1% 57.0% 33.9%


(n=796) 9.9% 46.4% 43.7%


(n=24) 20.8% 54.2% 25.0%

White/Caucasian

(n=6,318) 7.1% 45.8% 47.0%

Hispanic/Latino

(n=745) 10.9% 53.0% 36.1%

Multiracial

(n=767) 7.8% 45.0% 47.2%


August 2012


Table H15


Expectations by School-level


year in your Science class?




Middle School (n=7,674) 8.4% 47.3% 44.4%

High School (n=898) 6.4% 47.8% 45.9%



Table H16

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Engineers by Gender

Do you know at least one adult

who works as an engineer?


Yes No Not Sure

Male (n=4,693) 65.7% 19.7% 14.6%

Female (n=4,662) 54.0% 23.3% 22.6%

Table H17

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Engineers by

Race/ethnicity




Yes No Not Sure


(n=478) 62.8% 20.7% 16.5%

Asian

(n=187) 49.2% 21.4% 29.4%


(n=803) 52.1% 28.1% 19.8%


(n=25) 64.0% 16.0% 20.0%

White/Caucasian

(n=6,329) 61.7% 20.3% 18.0%


August 2012


Hispanic/Latino

(n=749) 52.9% 25.4% 21.8%

Multiracial

(n=771) 61.4% 21.4% 17.3%

Table H18

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Engineers by School-level




Yes No Not Sure


Middle School (n=7,702) 60.5% 20.3% 19.2%

High School (n=902) 57.3% 28.3% 14.4%



Table H19

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Mathematicians by

Gender


who works as a mathematician?


Yes No Not Sure

Male (n=4,679) 41.5% 39.2% 19.3%

Female (n=4,656) 43.1% 34.6% 22.4%

Table H20


Race/ethnicity




Yes No Not Sure


(n=475) 40.0% 38.1% 21.9%

Asian

(n=188) 37.2% 33.0% 29.8%


August 2012



(n=803) 49.4% 32.8% 17.8%


(n=24) 50.0% 25.0% 25.0%

White/Caucasian

(n=6,315) 41.4% 37.6% 21.0%

Hispanic/Latino

(n=747) 39.6% 39.8% 20.6%

Multiracial

(n=770) 47.0% 33.4% 19.6%

Table H21


School-level




Yes No Not Sure


Middle School (n=7,692) 42.5% 36.5% 21.0%

High School (n=896) 49.4% 37.3% 13.3%



Table H22

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Scientists by Gender


who works as a scientist?


Yes No Not Sure

Male (n=4,687) 24.1% 55.7% 20.2%

Female (n=4,660) 24.9% 51.4% 23.7%


August 2012


Table H23

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Scientists by

Race/ethnicity




Yes No Not Sure


(n=474) 23.4% 54.0% 22.6%

Asian

(n=187) 23.5% 48.7% 27.8%


(n=804) 28.0% 52.7% 19.3%


(n=24) 16.7% 45.8% 37.5%

White/Caucasian

(n=6,329) 23.8% 53.9% 22.3%

Hispanic/Latino

(n=745) 21.2% 57.1% 21.7%

Multiracial

(n=771) 30.5% 49.4% 20.1%

Table H24

Upper Elementary and Middle and High School Student Awareness of Scientists by School-level




Yes No Not Sure


Middle School (n=7,700) 23.9% 54.6% 21.5%

High School (n=900) 33.3% 52.1% 14.6%



Table H25

Middle and High School Student Plans to Attend College by Gender

Do you plan to go to college? Percentage of respondents

Yes No Not Sure

Male (n=4,255) 80.6% 3.8% 15.7%


August 2012


Female (n=4,210) 91.2% 1.3% 7.5%

Table H26

Middle and High School Student Plans to Attend College by Race/Ethnicity


Yes No Not Sure


(n=404) 82.2% 4.2% 13.6%

Asian

(n=184) 83.2% 1.6% 15.2%


(n=732) 88.7% 3.0% 8.3%


(n=19) 79.0% 0.0% 21.1%

White/Caucasian

(n=5,735) 87.5% 2.3% 10.3%

Hispanic/Latino

(n=664) 71.8% 3.0% 25.2%

Multiracial

(n=713) 85.8% 3.1% 11.1%

Table H27

Middle and High School Student Plans to Attend College by School-level


Yes No Not Sure

Middle School (n=7,560) 86.6% 2.3% 11.2%

High School (n=898) 80.0% 4.6% 15.5%

Note: The Pilot Upper Elementary Student Attitudes toward STEM Survey did not contain this item. Middle school

results include students in grades 6-8, and high school results include students in grades 9-12.


April 2012

Appendix I. Word Clouds from Summer STEM Evaluation Institute 2012

Raleigh Institute: July 17, 2012

Asheville Institute: July 31, 2012


April 2012

Appendix J: Pilot Elementary Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results

Table J1

Elementary Teacher Attitudes toward Science

Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree




effort. (n=168)

1.8% 8.9% 29.8% 37.5% 20.8%


ways to teach science. (n=167) 1.2% 3.6% 9.0% 43.7% 38.9%





(n=168)

0.0% 1.2% 19.1% 57.1% 22.0%



(n=168)

1.2% 4.2% 14.9% 61.9% 14.3%


monitor science activities well.

(n=168)

10.1% 47.0% 20.2% 14.9% 4.8%




(n=168)

3.0% 25.6% 37.5% 26.2% 5.4%


science effectively. (n=167) 14.4% 56.3% 14.4% 10.2% 3.6%




(n=167)

0.0% 6.0% 18.0% 57.5% 17.4%



blamed on their teachers. (n=167)

1.2% 28.1% 39.5% 24.6% 3.0%




teacher. (n=167)

0.6% 9.0% 31.7% 47.3% 10.2%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree



science. (n=167)

1.2% 4.8% 8.4% 65.3% 16.8%



science achievement. (n=167)

12.6% 68.3% 12.0% 4.2% 0.6%

13. The teacher is generally

responsible for the achievement of

students in science. (n=167)

0.0% 9.0% 34.1% 47.9% 8.4%

14. Students’ achievement in science

is directly related to their teacher’s


(n=167)

0.0% 10.2% 27.0% 52.7% 9.0%





(n=167)

0.0% 9.0% 31.7% 48.5% 9.6%



experiments work. (n=166)

9.0% 59.6% 15.7% 11.5% 1.8%



(n=167)

1.2% 9.6% 15.0% 59.3% 12.6%


skills to teach science. (n=167) 9.0% 51.5% 24.6% 12.6% 1.2%




(n=167)

15.0% 61.1% 16.2% 6.0% 1.2%



science teaching. (n=166)

17.5% 44.6% 19.9% 10.8% 4.8%



am not confident that I know how

to help the student understand it

better. (n=167)

7.2% 67.7% 14.4% 8.4% 1.2%



questions. (n=167)

0.6% 3.0% 9.0% 62.3% 21.6%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree


students on to science. (n=167) 10.2% 62.3% 18.0% 6.6% 1.8%



students learn science. (n=167)

21.6% 62.3% 12.6% 1.2% 0.6%

Table J2

Elementary Teacher Attitudes toward Mathematics

Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree




extra effort. (n=162)

2.5% 9.9% 25.3% 43.2% 17.3%



(n=160)

0.0% 0.0% 11.3% 48.8% 37.5%





(n=160)

0.0% 3.1% 23.1% 55.0% 18.1%



(n=160)

0.0% 2.5% 9.4% 61.3% 25.0%



well. (n=160)

13.8% 56.9% 11.3% 10.6% 6.3%




teaching. (n=160)

0.6% 31.9% 40.0% 20.6% 5.6%


mathematics effectively. (n=160) 21.9% 57.5% 8.1% 7.5% 3.8%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree




(n=160)

0.0% 4.4% 28.8% 51.3% 15.0%




2.5% 30.0% 41.3% 20.6% 3.1%




by the teacher. (n=160)

0.0% 4.4% 23.1% 58.1% 13.8%



teaching mathematics. (n=160)

0.6% 2.5% 9.4% 56.9% 28.8%



students’ mathematics

achievement. (n=160)

16.3% 56.3% 19.4% 4.4% 1.9%



students in mathematics. (n=160)

0.0% 10.0% 31.9% 49.4% 7.5%

38. Students’ achievement in


their teacher’s effectiveness in

mathematics teaching. (n=160)

0.0% 7.5% 35.0% 45.6% 10.6%





the child’s teacher. (n=160)

0.0% 5.0% 41.3% 42.5% 9.4%


explain to students why

mathematics experiments work.

(n=160)

0.6% 3.1% 11.3% 53.8% 29.4%


students’ mathematics questions.

(n=160)

0.6% 2.5% 10.0% 56.3% 28.8%



(n=160)

17.5% 58.8% 11.3% 8.8% 1.3%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree




(n=160)

15.6% 53.8% 18.8% 9.4% 1.3%




22.5% 44.4% 17.5% 6.9% 6.3%





understand it better. (n=160)

18.1% 58.1% 11.9% 5.6% 3.1%



questions. (n=160)

0.0% 2.5% 8.1% 53.1% 33.1%



(n=160)

14.4% 54.4% 23.1% 5.6% 0.6%




mathematics. (n=160)

20.6% 59.4% 16.3% 2.5% 1.3%


April 2012

Appendix K. Pilot Science Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results

Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree




effort. (n=156)

1.3% 6.4% 40.4% 39.1% 12.2%


ways to teach science. (n=156) 1.3% 0.6% 1.9% 41.7% 53.9%





(n=156)

0.6% 5.8% 25.6% 49.3% 18.0%



(n=156)

0.0% 4.5% 6.4% 52.6% 36.5%


monitor science activities well.

(n=155)

29.0% 43.9% 3.9% 13.6% 9.7%




(n=156)

7.1% 48.1% 29.5% 13.5% 1.3%


science effectively. (n=156) 45.5% 40.4% 6.4% 5.1% 2.6%




(n=156)

1.9% 13.5% 20.5% 50.0% 13.5%




2.6% 21.2% 37.2% 27.6% 10.9%




teacher. (n=156)

0.6% 5.8% 36.5% 45.5% 10.9%



science. (n=156)

1.3% 6.4% 46.2% 42.3% 3.9%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree



science achievement. (n=156)

10.3% 59.6% 19.2% 9.0% 1.9%



students in science. (n=156)

2.6% 17.3% 34.0% 39.1% 7.1%

14. Students’ achievement in science

is directly related to their teacher’s


(n=156)

0.6% 14.1% 37.8% 40.4% 7.1%





(n=156)

0.0% 4.5% 32.1% 48.7% 14.7%




34.0% 46.2% 8.3% 10.9% 0.6%



(n=156)

1.3% 1.9% 7.7% 46.2% 39.7%


skills to teach science. (n=156) 37.2% 45.5% 10.3% 5.1% 1.9%




(n=156)

10.9% 57.7% 15.4% 12.2% 2.6%



science teaching. (n=156)

28.2% 39.7% 12.8% 9.6% 8.3%



am not confident that I know how

to help the student understand it

better. (n=156)

32.7% 48.1% 8.3% 8.3% 1.9%



questions. (n=156)

1.3% 4.5% 40.4% 48.1% 5.8%


students on to science. (n=156) 18.6% 60.3% 15.4% 4.5% 1.3%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree



students learn science. (n=156)

18.6% 57.7% 16.7% 6.4% 0.6%


April 2012

Appendix L: Pilot Technology Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results

Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree


usual in technology, it is often



0.0% 25.9% 25.9% 29.6% 18.5%


ways to teach technology. (n=27) 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 44.4% 48.1%

3. When the technology grades of




(n=27)

0.0% 7.4% 29.6% 40.7% 22.2%


technology concepts effectively.

(n=27)

0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 55.6% 40.7%


monitor technology activities well.

(n=27)

29.6% 44.4% 14.8% 3.7% 7.4%


technology, it is most likely due to

ineffective technology teaching.

(n=27)

3.7% 48.1% 25.9% 14.8% 7.4%


technology effectively. (n=27) 40.7% 40.7% 11.1% 3.7% 3.7%


technology background can be


(n=27)

0.0% 7.4% 7.4% 59.3% 25.9%

9. The low technology achievement



3.7% 7.4% 40.7% 33.3% 14.8%


progresses in technology, it is



0.0% 7.4% 22.2% 51.9% 18.5%

11. I understand technology concepts


teaching technology. (n=27)

0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 48.1% 48.1%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

12. Increased effort in technology


students’ technology achievement.

(n=27)

14.8% 74.1% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0%



students in technology. (n=27)

0.0% 29.6% 29.6% 33.3% 7.4%


technology is directly related to


technology teaching. (n=27)

0.0% 11.1% 29.6% 48.1% 11.1%



technology at school, it is probably


child’s teacher. (n=27)

0.0% 14.8% 29.6% 40.7% 14.8%


explain to students why technology


25.9% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 7.4%


students’ technology questions.

(n=27)

0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 55.6% 33.3%


skills to teach technology. (n=27) 18.5% 55.6% 7.4% 11.1% 7.5%

19. Effective technology teaching has



(n=27)

11.1% 59.3% 11.1% 14.8% 3.7%



technology teaching. (n=27)

22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1%


understanding a technology




29.6% 44.4% 18.5% 7.4% 0.0%

22. When teaching technology, I am


questions. (n=27)

0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 44.4% 48.2%


students on to technology. (n=27) 22.2% 55.6% 18.5% 3.7% 0.0%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree


technology teaching abilities


technology. (n=27)

37.0% 48.2% 11.1% 3.7% 0.0%


April 2012

Appendix M: Pilot Engineering Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results

Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree


usual in engineering, it is often



0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 27.3%

2. I am continually finding better ways

to teach engineering. (n=11) 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 27.3% 45.5%

3. When the engineering grades of




(n=11)

0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 27.3%


engineering concepts effectively.

(n=11)

9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 36.4% 18.2%

5. I am not confident that I can monitor

engineering activities well. (n=11) 18.2% 18.2% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2%


engineering, it is most likely due to

ineffective engineering teaching.

(n=11)

0.0% 36.4% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1%


engineering effectively. (n=11) 27.3% 45.5% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1%


engineering background can be

overcome by good teaching. (n=11)

0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 72.7% 9.1%

9. The low engineering achievement of

students cannot generally be blamed

on their teachers. (n=11)

0.0% 36.4% 36.4% 18.2% 0.0%


progresses in engineering, it is



0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 45.5% 9.1%

11. I understand engineering concepts


teaching engineering. (n=11)

9.1% 27.3% 0.0% 36.4% 18.2%

12. Increased effort in engineering


students’ engineering achievement.

(n=11)

9.1% 63.6% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree



engineering. (n=11)

0.0% 18.2% 18.2% 45.5% 9.1%


engineering is directly related to


engineering teaching. (n=11)

0.0% 9.1% 27.3% 36.4% 18.2%

15. If parents comment that their child is

showing more interest in engineering



(n=11)

0.0% 0.0% 54.6% 27.3% 9.1%

16. I am not confident that I can explain

to students why engineering


9.1% 45.5% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1%


students’ engineering questions.

(n=11)

9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 36.4% 18.2%


skills to teach engineering. (n=11) 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 9.1% 18.2%

19. Effective engineering teaching has

little influence on the achievement of

students with low motivation. (n=11)

18.2% 54.6% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0%



engineering teaching. (n=11)

18.2% 36.4% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1%


understanding a engineering




18.2% 36.4% 18.2% 9.1% 9.1%

22. When teaching engineering, I am


questions. (n=11)

9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 18.2%


students on to engineering. (n=11) 27.3% 36.4% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0%

24. Even teachers with good engineering


students learn engineering. (n=11)

27.3% 45.5% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0%


April 2012

Appendix N. Pilot Mathematics Teacher Attitudes toward STEM Survey Item-level Results

Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree





2.1% 8.5% 40.4% 39.4% 9.6%

2. I am continually finding better ways

to teach mathematics. (n=94) 1.1% 0.0% 2.1% 55.3% 41.5%





(n=94)

0.0% 4.2% 30.9% 51.1% 12.8%



(n=94)

0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 48.9% 46.9%


monitor mathematics activities well.

(n=94)

30.9% 40.4% 7.5% 9.6% 10.6%


mathematics, it is most likely due to

ineffective mathematics teaching.

(n=94)

8.5% 45.7% 30.9% 13.8% 1.1%


mathematics effectively. (n=94) 54.3% 29.8% 1.1% 6.4% 6.4%



overcome by good teaching. (n=94)

2.1% 9.6% 28.7% 48.9% 10.6%




2.1% 18.1% 44.7% 25.5% 9.6%





0.0% 3.2% 36.2% 54.3% 6.4%



teaching mathematics. (n=94)

0.0% 1.1% 3.2% 27.7% 63.8%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree



students’ mathematics achievement.

(n=94)

10.6% 55.3% 22.3% 10.6% 1.1%



mathematics. (n=94)

4.3% 8.5% 33.0% 48.9% 5.3%





2.2% 7.5% 29.0% 57.0% 4.3%





the child’s teacher. (n=93)

0.0% 6.5% 29.0% 53.8% 10.8%

16. I am not confident that I can explain

to students why mathematics


37.6% 43.0% 9.7% 3.2% 5.4%


students’ mathematics questions.

(n=93)

0.0% 1.1% 2.1% 36.6% 51.6%


skills to teach mathematics. (n=92) 54.4% 39.1% 4.4% 1.1% 1.1%




(n=93)

12.9% 51.6% 14.0% 12.9% 8.6%




38.7% 38.7% 11.8% 8.6% 2.1%






37.6% 52.7% 2.1% 5.4% 2.1%



questions. (n=93)

0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 28.0% 60.2%


students on to mathematics. (n=93) 16.1% 47.3% 30.1% 6.5% 0.0%


August 2012


Survey Question


Strongly

disagree Disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Agree Strongly

agree




mathematics. (n=93)

29.0% 52.7% 10.8% 5.4% 2.2%


April 2012

Appendix O. Pilot Teacher Survey Results by Demographic Characteristics

Table O1

Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by Gender

Table O2

Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by

Race/Ethnicity

Scale

Mean Composite Score

American

Indian/

AK Native

Asian

Black/

African

American

Native HI/

Pacific

Islander

White/

Caucasian

Hispanic/

Latino

Multi-

racial

n 6 0 17 0 421 0 2

Personal (STEM)

Teaching Efficacy

and Beliefs Scale

(PSTEBS)

3.9 - 3.8 - 3.9 - 3.8

(STEM) Teaching

Outcome Expectancy

Scale (STOES)

3.0 - 3.5 - 3.4 - 2.9

Table O3

Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by Years of

Experience

Scale


Male

(n=88) Female

(n=364)

Personal (STEM) Teaching Efficacy and

Beliefs Scale (PSTEBS) 4.0 3.3

(STEM) Teaching Outcome Expectancy

Scale (STOES) 3.9 3.5

Scale


0-3

(n=43) 4-10

(n=144) 11 or More

(n=264)


Beliefs Scale (PSTEBS) 4.1 3.9 3.9


Scale (STOES) 3.5 3.4 3.4


August 2012


Table O4

Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by National

Board Certification

Table O5

Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by School-level

Note: Elementary teacher results include all those who reported teaching between the grades of K-5. Middle school

results include teachers who reported teaching grades 6-8, and high school results included those who reported

teaching grades 9-12.

Table O6

Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by Subject

Taught

Scale


National Board

Certified

(n=90)

Not National Board

Certified

(n=362)





Scale


Elementary

School

(n=171)

Middle

School

(n=215)

High

School

(n=50)





Science

(n=155) Technology

(n=27) Engineering

(n=6) Mathematics

(n=94)

Personal (STEM) Teaching Efficacy

and Beliefs Scale (PSTEBS) 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.1

(STEM) Teaching Outcome

Expectancy Scale (STOES) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4


August 2012


Table O7

Elementary Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by

Subject Taught

Table O8

Science Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by

School-level




Table O9

Technology Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by

School-level

Scale


Mathematics

(n=165) Science

(n=168)





Scale


Elementary

School

(n=162)

Middle

School

(n=127)

High

School

(n=22)





Scale


Elementary

School

(n=0)

Middle

School

(n=13)

High

School

(n=8)


Beliefs Scale (PSTEBS) - 3.9 3.8


Scale (STOES) - 3.5 3.3


August 2012





Table O10

Mathematics Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs (PSTEBS) and Outcome Expectancy (STOES) by

School-level




Scale


Elementary

School

(n=157)

Middle

School

(n=71)

High

School

(n=18)






April 2012

Appendix P. Spring 2012 Webinar Agenda


August 2012


Appendix Q. Summer STEM Evaluation Institute 2012 Agenda

Documents

Golden LEAF STEM Initiative August 2012 · Golden LEAF STEM Initiative August 2012 Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina 4 development to strengthen