participating teachers, and program results were consistently in the upper ranges of the five-point Likert scale used. (See Figure 1.)
Te lowest-scoring response across all grades was to Question 3, which measured a visible increase in student interest in STEM following the program. Yet even as the lowest-scoring question, the overall score was 4.24 out of 5, with the greatest increase recorded among second-graders and the lowest occurring among fifth-graders. Te remaining four areas all scored about 4.6. Of particular interest was teacher response to the educational valid- ity of the program (Q5), which was 4.66 out of 5, demonstrating that the teachers found the program beneficial.
A review of the total data for each question supports the sum- mary, showing consistency in response in the range of 4 to 5.
Selecting zero corresponded to “no comment,” so the more important signifier of problems within the program would be scores of one. Teachers gave only eight scores of 1 from 2,210 total responses (442 completed surveys with five questions each). If you add in the scores of 2, you get a total “dissatisfied” score of 18, or less than 1 percent of all responses.
In addition to the quantitative responses, teachers suggested what they would change about the program. Te overwhelming recommendation is that we extend the program to a two-hour session or that the program visit each school annually.
CONCLUSION From its conception, the goal of STEM Superstar was to introduce engineering in a low-threat, high-entertainment envi- ronment that promoted the idea that STEM is for everyone. In the same spirit, we designed STEM Superstar to be easily dupli- cated and executed anywhere with minimal financial resources or material support. Teachers or facilitators need only pick a popular, age-appropriate movie or theme that reflects the STEM concepts they want to teach, gather a dozen random items such as paper plate holders, sponge hair curlers, pingpong balls and potato chip bag clips, give the students a “mission” and stand back. From concept to supplies, schools, youth centers or even home schools can easily replicate STEM Superstar, and the data gathered over the initial four years justifies continuing the program locally and encouraging its implementation in other communities.
As the U.S. moves further into the 21st century, the need to con- tinue the historic pace of American innovation necessitates an ever-increasing focus on creating a pipeline of qualified STEM professionals. Without such a pipeline, the country risks its economic security and its place within the global community. Trough STEM Superstar, we are building that pipeline one child at a time—no trains required.
For more information on CERDEC STEM Outreach or to contact the author, go to
www.cerdec.army.mil.
MS. ERICA FINEMAN-BERTOLI is Educational Outreach
BRINGING STEM HOME
Selling kids on STEM can be difficult, as they often perceive it as too hard or too “uncool” to pursue. STEM Superstar seeks to engender an “I can” attitude by framing lessons on science, math and engineering within ideas and activities students know and enjoy.
Program at CERDEC, Providing Ground, Maryland. She holds an M.A.
the team lead for the at Aberdeen in
communication and leadership from Gonzaga University and a B.A. in communication and public relations from Rutgers University. She is a graduate of the Defense Information School at Fort Meade, Maryland.
+
ASC.ARMY.MIL 69
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162
