







































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

10 

Original Paper 

Academic Collaborative Efforts to Promote STEM Equity in 

High Needs Schools 
Nancy K. DeJarnette1*, Ruba S. Deeb1 & Jani Pallis1 

1 University of Bridgeport, College of Engineering, Business, and Education, Bridgeport, CT, USA 
* Nancy K. DeJarnette, University of Bridgeport, College of Engineering, Business, and Education, 

Bridgeport, CT, USA 

 

Received: June 29, 2021           Accepted: July 9, 2021          Online Published: July 21, 2021 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v2n3p10                       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v2n3p10 

 

Abstract 

America is at risk of facing a shortage of workers in STEM fields in the near future because lack of 

interest by its youth. It is well known that providing early exposure for P-12 students to engaging 

science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) experiences can lead to lifelong learning and 

positively impact future career decisions. This manuscript describes one university’s collective efforts to 

bring equity to STEM education for an urban high needs school district in the northeastern part of the 

United States through various STEM initiatives over a five-year period. Through multiple projects and 

initiatives targeting both P-12 students and their teachers, descriptive results revealed a positive 

impact while pinpointing areas that still require attention. P-12 students indicated an increase in STEM 

knowledge and an increased interest in STEM careers following exposure to various STEM lessons and 

interactive experiences. P-12 teachers specified that Professional Development (PD) they received 

from university faculty as well as engaging in STEM experiences with their students enhanced their 

confidence in their ability to incorporate STEM lessons within their classrooms. An urban partner 

administrator viewed these various STEM initiatives as vital in their quest to bring equity for STEM 

education to their diverse student population. 

Keywords 

STEM initiatives, STEM education, high needs schools, urban education, STEM equity 

 

1. Introduction 

Over the past decade, much has changed in the United States regarding STEM (Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics) education. In 2010, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology report stated that the United States fell behind other developed nations in STEM education 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
11 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

in K-12 schools with American students underperforming. Concurrently, the National Center for 

Education Statistics (2009) and the National Science Board (2010) also reported on how European and 

Asian global competitors in developed countries were surpassing the American workforce in STEM 

careers. The STEM education fire was fueled in 2009 by President Obama launching the “Educate to 

Innovate” campaign (Obama, 2013) to stimulate American K-12 students’ performance in math and 

science. This article describes multiple strategies that a small urban university in the northeast 

strategically implemented in STEM and STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and 

Mathematics) initiatives that targeted high-needs P-12 students as well as provided Professional 

Development (PD) for their teachers in efforts to stimulate STEM education in their small corner of 

America. Results herein highlight both successes and struggles in P-12 STEM education efforts and 

present recommendations for alleviating some of the burdens. 

 

2. Literature Review 

2.1 Importance of P-12 STEM Education 

A great emphasis has been placed on increasing STEM education and the production of STEM workers 

in the United States (Obama 2016). It has been stated that the future of the American economy rests 

largely in the ability of our country to keep up with the demand for STEM professionals (Al Salami et 

al., 2017). Even with the increased attention on STEM over the past decade, a projected shortage 

remains for STEM workers to fill the job demands of the future (National Center for Science and 

Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2017; National Science Board, 2018). In the digital world that we 

have become, the near future forecasts the need for highly trained professional STEM workers, 

particularly in math and computer science (Fees et al., 2018). As our global society continues to 

advance technologically, consumer demands increase the growing need for STEM professionals in 

these highly trained areas. Fees et al. (2018) also state, that although many high school age students 

enjoy technology and computers, there tends to be a lack of interest in these same careers stating, 

“there are more computer science related jobs than there are graduates qualified to fill these positions” 

(p. 1). The need for these highly trained STEM professionals is well known and acknowledged. 

However, an important question remains: What initiatives are undertaken in American P-12 schools to 

address these deficits? While much progress has been made over the past decade to reach and motivate 

American school children in the areas of STEM, more work remains to fill the gaps. 

This attention to STEM has changed instruction in P-12 schools, although not equally across all schools. 

Schools have begun to create unofficial academic and curricular pipelines to encourage students to 

pursue STEM disciplines (Lyon et al., 2012; Ralston et al., 2013). This pipeline begins with more 

STEM course offerings to students in high schools, although the challenge remains to find teachers 

qualified to teach these STEM courses as many professionals choose fields in industry over education 

(Fees et al., 2018). In order to prepare students for advanced math, science, and technology courses in 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
12 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

high school, students also need to take advanced courses in middle school. The pipeline extends to the 

elementary and early childhood levels as well. The need exists to expose young children to STEM in 

order to spark their interest so that they will have the desire during their middle school and high school 

years to engage in and perform well in math and science. This early exposure to STEM for young 

children helps to develop and prepare their 21st Century skill set (DeJarnette, 2018a). Within the past 

decade, this new awareness for STEM education has led many states to adopt new K-12 standards such 

as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in reading and math, and the Next Generation Science 

Standards (NCSS). These standards are tied to 21st Century competencies (Pearson, 2017). 

2.2 Struggles with K-12 STEM Implementation 

While there is an increased awareness regarding the need for enhanced STEM education and workforce 

in America, there are numerous challenges for P-12 schools in meeting those needs. According to 

Proudfoot et al. (2018), “Among the challenges of fully teaching STEM are limitations in teacher 

education, efficacy, and skill in STEM topics” (p. 20). As teachers are the driving force in any 

educational setting, they also hold the working keys to enhance student learning. One of the challenges 

that came with the introduction of STEM and the NGSS framework was the integrated curriculum of 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, coupled with teachers’ lack of training in 

disciplines outside of their certification area (Ring-Whalen et al., 2018). As a result, professional 

development is necessary in order to assist teachers with the nature of integrated curricular models and 

connected subjects that they are less familiar with, such as engineering (Neebel, 2015). Pearson (2017) 

states that, “One limiting factor to teacher effectiveness is teachers’ content knowledge in the subjects 

being taught” (p. 225). In order to be truly effective in teaching the integrated STEM curriculum, 

teachers need support in building their STEM content knowledge, teaching practices, and resources. 

Guiterrez (2016) states, “We must have science teachers who are not only on the cutting edge of 

content and pedagogy, but also passionate and dedicated to engaging all children, regardless of their 

ZIP codes”. Teachers of STEM need to be passionate about the content they are teaching in order to 

inspire kids to pursue STEM career paths. According to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology 2010, “The problem is not just a lack of proficiency, there is also a lack of interest in 

STEM fields among many students” (Prepare & Inspire, 2010). Young students often fear math and 

science because of a personal struggle with the content or the apathetic approach to instruction from 

their teachers. Many teachers lack pedagogical skills to teaching STEM which results in either shying 

away from it or heavily relying on textbooks to teach the content. When teachers lack confidence in 

teaching the integrated curriculum, they can impart to their students their same feelings of negativity, 

fear, lack of confidence, and apathy for STEM subjects. In order for students’ perceptions and interests 

towards STEM to be sparked, teachers need professional development to help them build self-efficacy, 

positive attitudes, collaborative environments with peers, and the ability to develop engaging 

instructional strategies (Al Salami et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2015). DeJarnette (2018b) previously 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
13 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

stated: “If children do not receive exposure to engaging activities in STEM during their K-12 years, 

they are much less likely to pursue it during their undergraduate university years. The lack of science 

exposure for elementary students can be detrimental to building positive attitudes as well as their own 

perceived abilities (self-efficacy)” (p. 107). 

An additional road block that often inhibits the development of STEM education in American schools 

is the lack of funding. Budget cuts in American education over the past several years have greatly 

diminished the enhancement of STEM education in P-12 schools. Financial resources are needed in 

order to successfully implement the integrated STEM curriculum in schools through teacher training, 

classroom materials, teacher collaborative planning time and the availability of technology (Pearson, 

2017). 

2.3 The “E” in STEM 

Common Problem-Based-Learning (PBL) activities in STEM classrooms today reflect the cognitive 

thought processes of engineers and are referred to as Engineering Design Challenges (Grubbs et al., 

2018; Alemdar et al., 2018). Design challenge integrated learning experiences are now the preferred 

method of teaching STEM as these problem-solving practices are critical features of engineering 

education (Bartholomew et al., 2018). Thornburg (2009) believes that engineering is the glue that holds 

STEM together. Oftentimes in schools, an attempt to focus on STEM can sometimes lead to “siloing” 

science and math as separate entities. It is the engineering piece that often brings everything together 

making STEM truly interdisciplinary. Engineering design challenges require the integration of the 

STEM subjects, and now teachers oftentimes include art in the design concepts and refer to it as 

“STEAM”. 

The engineering piece however is what teachers struggle with the most when implementing STEM into 

their curriculum (Wang & Nam, 2015). Previously, engineering education was not part of preservice 

teacher training at any level, however, now that it is part of the NGSS framework, it has become more 

commonplace, but much work still needs to be done. The NGSS framework focuses on three core ideas 

within the engineering component for K-12 students which are: defining and delimiting engineering 

problems, designing solutions to engineering problems, and optimizing the design solution (NGSS 

Lead States, 2013). These components of the engineering design challenge at the kindergarten level is 

very similar to the components at the high school level. The engineering design process of Ask, 

Imagine, Plan, Create, and Improve sets the stage for an engineering design challenge that is aligned to 

the NGSS components (Jackson et al., 2011). What makes the engineering design challenge learning 

segment unique is that it teaches students to work within certain identified constraints and limitations 

just as engineers do. These constraints could be materials, budget, or even time. These processes give 

K-12 students the opportunity to innovate and to operate within the realm of STEM in order to 

understand real world problem solving. Alemdar et al. (2018) share their hypotheses that “applied 

engineering experiences that require active engagement with foundational mathematics and science 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
14 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

practices will lead to increased student engagement, self-efficacy, persistence, and academic 

achievement in STEM” (p. 364). 

2.4 Urban Education and STEM 

It is no secret that not only does the United States struggle to keep up with the demand for skilled 

STEM workers, but there is an underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities as well as females in 

STEM fields (NCSES, 2017). Despite the development of many programs and initiatives to increase 

STEM education, underrepresented minorities, constituting 40% of the U.S. population, remain 

alarmingly underserved in STEM fields (NACME, 2017; Prepare and Inspire, 2010). It has been 

determined that STEM education can bring social equity by providing engaging experiences for all 

students to increase students’ competencies in math and science (Peters, 2018). However, even with the 

best intentions at hand, school districts that serve low-income families receive fewer STEM initiatives 

than wealthier districts (Khan & Rodrigues, 2017). Gutierrez (2016) writes “And yet, in spite of all this 

attention [to STEM], we continue to struggle when it comes to getting excellent, well-trained science 

teachers in front of all children—not just those who live in our wealthiest districts or attend private 

schools”. Quality STEM instruction embodies all students with an emphasis on problem solving and 

engagement with the integrated subjects. Providing quality STEM instruction for all students enhances 

STEM literacy through increased academic achievement, collaboration, and critical thinking resulting 

in more inclusive classrooms (Powell et al., 2018; Alemdar et al., 2018; Fees et al., 2018). 

 

3. STEM Outreach Initiatives 

In light of the American struggles to attract and produce quality STEM professionals from our youth, 

there has been a surge in STEM outreach initiatives across all levels. As mentioned previously, STEM 

education within the P-12 schools has increased over the past decade in order to create pipelines for 

students to pursue STEM careers. In addition, there has also been a push for universities, scientists, and 

corporate America to create STEM outreach initiatives to attract American youth as well. Boone and 

Marsteller (2011) state that while recruiting STEM professionals and university students to provide 

engaging STEM outreach activities for young students, they often do not have the training and the 

skills to reach this population. Other entities have also provided strong STEM and engineering 

initiatives for youth through after school programs, coding robotics competitions, and mobile 

laboratories. Robelen (2013) advocates for engineering design activities in schools stating, “A top pitch 

is the power of the engineering-design process to engage young people and bring math and science 

concepts to life with practical, real-world applications…” While engineering design challenges provide 

engaging STEM experiences for P-12 students, its presence is not consistently spread across all schools 

and levels. Many students go through their entire P-12 years without having experienced a single 

engineering lesson, even with today’s heightened attention to STEM education. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
15 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.1 Teacher Professional Development (PD) in STEM 

One goal for university faculty is to provide much needed professional development (PD) for P-12 

teachers in local urban centers as well as in high needs schools state-wide. With the state adoption of 

the NGSS in late November 2015, it was anticipated that PD would be needed for teachers on how to 

navigate the new standards, integrate the STEM disciplines, and provide instruction in engineering at 

the various grade levels (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Research has shown that PD can help fill the gaps 

for teachers regarding content knowledge, teaching strategies, and identifying valuable resources 

(Nadelson et al., 2013). Engineering education is a new piece of the puzzle within the NGSS 

framework that requires teachers to implement engineering concepts and practices into the curricula in 

all grades, from primary grades through high school (NRC, 2012). Engineering education can be 

intimidating to many teachers, particularly at the elementary level, who feel unprepared to teach the 

newest STEM concepts represented in the NGSS standards (Goffin & Clegg, 2014; Duncan et al., 

2011). Teachers unpreparedness to teach engineering education often negatively impacts their 

self-efficacy and dispositions towards STEM, which in turn can negatively influence their students 

(Wang & Nam, 2015). Nugent et al. (2010) report that PD in truly integrated STEM experiences 

resulted in a positive increase in teachers’ self-efficacy and dispositions towards STEM. Providing 

quality PD for K-12 teachers can therefore serve as a catalyst for improving student learning and 

achievement in the areas of engineering education and STEM (Thornburg, 2009; DeJarnette, 2012). 

3.2 Theoretical Framework 

The framework behind the STEM initiatives described herein by a small university in the northeastern 

part of the United States incorporates both Vygotsky’s constructivist learning theory and sociocultural 

theory, as well as Bandura’s social learning theory. 

3.2.1 Constructivism 

Lev Vygotsky (1978) presented that learning is student-centered and the instructional focus is on 

students working together to find solutions to problems. The constructivist theory proposes that people 

learn best by doing, and they actively construct knowledge by interacting with their surroundings, other 

learners, and facilitators (Schunk, 2016). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory poses that people learn best in 

a social environment through hands-on activities, where students interact with each other to grapple for 

solutions to learning challenges. This pedagogical approach to collaborative learning aligns both with 

the Piagetian constructivism model and the Vygotskian constructivism model (Schunk, 2016). 

3.2.2 Social Learning Theory 

Albert Bandura (1971) presented that learners develop understanding through interaction with and 

observation of their environment. Bandura posed that people learn from models where the processes of 

attention, retention, production, and motivation are involved to produce new behaviors (Schunk, 2016). 

By working collaboratively with peers and receiving guidance from a facilitator (teacher), this theory 

posits that students learn through active engagement with a problem. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
16 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

These theories fully represent the advocacy of engaging, hands-on, collaborative, authentic 

problem-based learning of truly integrated STEM lessons described in this paper. Not only do P-12 

students grow and develop through experiences with such integrated STEM curricula, but thrive and 

are successful. 

 

4. Methodology 

4.1 Demographics and Populations Targeted 

The university resides in the northeastern part of the United States and is situated within an urban 

setting, with both undergraduate and graduate populations in 125 different majors. The university has 

an estimated 5,000 students enrolled each year. A group of faculty and staff members have collaborated 

on various STEM outreach projects over the past five years and are represented by the School of 

Education, School of Engineering, and the School of Arts and Sciences. This university collaborative 

effort provided STEM outreach to urban high-needs schools where P-12 students are largely minorities 

and represent underserved populations. The goal was to reach P-12 students through early exposure to 

STEM content and disciplines with hopes to attract these minority youths to future careers in STEM. 

Throughout this manuscript, STEM and STEAM are used interchangeably where some projects had a 

STEM focus without highlighting the arts, but the arts were still present and played an equally 

important role in design and creativity. 

4.1.1 Urban City Demographics 

The urban location for this high-needs school district is a city with approximately 150,000 people. The 

median household income in 2017 was around $45,000 per year, which is well below the state average 

(City-data, 2020). Ethnicities of the city population included 40% Hispanic, 35% African American, 

and 19% Caucasian. The crime index of this city is 341.6, which is well above the U.S. average of 

274.0. The difficult urban issues which surround this city are similar to other urban centers around the 

United States with 20.4% of residents living in poverty (City-data, 2020). 

4.2 Description of STEM Initiatives and Results 

All the studies and projects described below, which include data collection methods from human 

subjects, were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and were performed in 

accordance with the ethical standards of the IRB committee and “with the 1964 Helsinki declaration 

and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards”. The variety of STEM initiative projects and 

those impacted by each are described below and listed in Table 1. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
17 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. STEM Projects and Initiatives with the Number of P-12 Students, Teachers, and 

Administrator Participants 

Projects and Initiatives P-12 

Students 

P-12 

Teachers 

University 

Faculty 

P-12 

Administrators 

Preschool STEAM PD 45 50 1 1 

STEM PD for K-12 Urban Science Teachers - 49 4 - 

STEAM PD and Push-In Project ~285 15 1 2 

Family Engineering Events ~450 25 1 4 

Student Spaceflight Experiments Project, 2017 ~300 3 1 3 

Student Spaceflight Experiments Project, 2018 ~400 4 1 4 

STEM-on-Wheels Mobile Laboratory ~3,500 200 5 10 

University’s Engineers Week ~300 2 10 - 

Cyber Robotics Coding Competition 126 30 6 - 

 

4.3 Preschool STEAM Professional Development (PD) 

This qualitative survey-based research study provided PD for all preschool teachers in the local urban 

center on the integration of STEAM into their curriculum during the 2015-16 academic year. The 

preschool teachers received two full days of Professional Development (PD) that were three months 

apart. These PD workshops involved 50 in-service preschool teachers instructing children ages three to 

five. Ninety percent of the teachers were female with the majority of them being African-American. 

Data collection for the study consisted of a pre-survey and a post-survey with a 5-point Likert scale 

related to their comfort level in teaching STEAM lessons with their preschoolers. Some teacher 

participants were interviewed and the researcher recorded field observations to round out the 

methodology for the triangulated data collection as recommended by Fraenkel and Wallen (2003). This 

research was funded by a university seed grant initiative. 

The workshops included an overview of the NGSS, early engineering education, modeled hands-on 

STEAM lessons incorporating the children’s engineering design loop (Jackson et al., 2011), and STEM 

learning centers. The modeled whole-class STEAM lessons utilized children’s literature and everyday 

recyclable materials. During the final PD workshop, the researcher conducted several random teacher 

interviews which were recorded to ensure transcription accuracy with member checks as recommended 

by Fraenkel and Wallen (2003). 

The findings of this study revealed that six out of the twelve survey questions indicated a statistically 

significant positive change from the pre-survey to the post-survey as indicated by the teachers’ levels of 

efficacy in their ability to plan and implement STEAM lessons with their preschool students 

(DeJarnette, 2018a). Findings also demonstrated an increase in the preschool teachers’ levels of 

self-efficacy in teaching STEAM, as well as an increase in their dispositions towards STEM. It was 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
18 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

determined that additional research was needed for determining the rate of implementation of STEAM 

activities after such PD as many teachers indicated that although they enjoyed and valued the PD, they 

did not actually implement STEAM activities within their classrooms. Albeit, the two projects 

described directly below were designed to further probe how PD can be enhanced so that teachers feel 

more confident and empowered to implement STEM activities in their classrooms. 

4.4 STEM PD for K-12 Urban Science Teachers 

This qualitative case study was designed to fill the need for PD for urban science teachers in 

implementing the newly adopted NGSS and engineering education (DeJarnette, McCulloch, Ngoh, & 

Badara, 2020). The research project was funded by the NASA Connecticut Space Grant Consortium 

and consisted of a three-day PD workshop that ran consecutively for two summers, 2016 and 2017. The 

workshops were offered in two large urban centers and served 49 teachers overall, with 26 agreeing to 

participate in the study. The qualitative data collection methods consisted of focus groups, random 

teacher interviews, and researcher field observations during the PD workshops regarding the teachers’ 

self-efficacy and dispositions regarding STEM teaching. The researchers served as participant 

observers (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011) as they were directly involved in the PD workshops serving as 

facilitators. 

This case study revealed an increase in teachers’ self-efficacy and dispositions regarding integrated 

STEM teaching. The greatest increases as reported by the participants manifested in the area of teacher 

self-efficacy in their ability to plan and implement STEM lessons as a result of the PD. In addition, 

teachers also indicated continued challenges to STEM implementation such as lack of funding, limited 

PD, and limited instructional time. One limitation to this research is that the teachers self-selected 

themselves for the PD offering, thus indicating a possible pre-disposition toward STEM learning 

(DeJarnette et al., 2020). 

4.5 STEAM PD and Push-In Project 

Previous research studies revealed that although PD had a positive effect on teachers’ dispositions and 

self-efficacy towards STEAM teaching, the teachers were still reluctant to fully implement the 

instruction within their classrooms (DeJarnette, 2018a). In response to this dilemma, a new project was 

designed whereby in addition to providing PD for the teachers on STEAM, resources were made 

available through a grant, and instructional modeling was provided by the researcher (pushed-in) within 

the classrooms to facilitate the STEAM lessons with students. The project was funded by the NASA 

Connecticut Space Grant Consortium over a two-year academic period from 2016 to 2018. Data 

collection was similar to the aforementioned project involving pre/post teacher surveys, teacher 

interviews, and field observations where the researcher was a participant observer. Therefore, the 

researcher worked with grade level teams in an urban K-8 school to provide PD instruction, resources 

and the modeling with students of STEAM engineering design lessons that were literature-based. Each 

STEAM lesson was grade level appropriate, NGSS aligned, initiated through children’s literature, and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
19 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

followed the engineering design loop (Jackson et al., 2011). 

Results of this project also showed an increase in teachers’ self-efficacy and dispositions towards 

STEAM instruction, but more importantly, many of the teachers that received hands-on PD are now 

regularly implementing STEM lessons in their classrooms on their own. The school principal recently 

reported that 70% of teachers from this study are regularly implementing STEAM lessons at least 1-2 

times per month. 

4.6 Family Engineering Events 

According to Jackson et al. (2011), “Family engineering is an informal engineering educational 

program that actively engages elementary-aged children and their families in fun, hands-on, 

engineering activities” (p. 1). As such, these family events were organized and facilitated in two area 

schools. The first event was part of the “push-in” research project described above and was provided 

for students in grades 3-5 in this urban school in spring 2018. The event drew approximately 100 

participants including the students and their families. The second event was offered later that spring in 

a suburban elementary school for students in grades 4-5 and drew approximately 350 students with 

their families. During these events, both students and their parents experienced positive and engaging 

engineering challenges which incorporated their collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and 

problem-solving skills. 

4.7 Student Spaceflight Experiments Program (SSEP) 

Faculty members at the university had the opportunity to facilitate two SSEPs, in 2017 with area urban 

high school students and in 2018 with undergraduate students. These SSEP projects were funded by 

grants from the NASA Connecticut Space Grant Consortium, the university, and the supporting high 

school. The SSEP immerses students and faculty in real science where students work in teams of 3-5 to 

competitively design science experiments to be conducted in microgravity onboard the International 

Space Station (ISS) (National Center for Earth and Space Science Education (NCESSE), 2019). 

Another focus of the SSEP is to engage younger students in the projects as well. For both years of 

involvement, a university faculty team member worked with five K-12 schools in the same urban 

school district where students competitively designed (3.5 x 3.5 inch) mission patches, with two 

winning patches flown onboard the ISS along with the selected SSEP microgravity experiment. Each 

year, over 300 K-12 students designed mission patches for the competition, with the university faculty 

and community partners judging and awarding the two patches selected for actual space flight. These 

patches were later framed and returned to the schools with an official “Flown in Space” certificate. The 

SSEP experience had a phenomenal impact on a large number of K-16 students providing authentic real 

world STEM exposure. 

4.8 STEM-on-Wheels Mobile Laboratory Project 

The STEM-on-Wheels mobile laboratory project is an ongoing multi-grant-funded collaborative project 

between the university and a local science museum. The team received a donated city bus that was then 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
20 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

modified and retrofitted to resemble a science laboratory. The ultimate goals of this project are to 

provide exposure to rich technology and hands-on lessons that are NGSS aligned for K-12 grade 

students in this large high-needs urban district. The team designed inquiry-based STEM lessons to be 

conducted in and around the STEM-on-Wheels mobile laboratory. Facilitation of lesson instruction is 

provided by university engineering, science, math, and education students. STEM lesson emphasis is 

on providing engaging STEM technology that urban school children would not otherwise have access 

to while at the same time support integration of NGSS science content standards. 

It was hypothesized that through the provision of resources, hands-on STEM lessons, and unique lesson 

delivery using the mobile STEM laboratory, there would be an increase in the K-12 students’ 

knowledge, skills, and dispositions regarding STEM content and disciplines. It was also hypothesized 

that the K-12 classroom teachers would welcome the much-needed incorporation of NGSS-aligned 

hands-on STEM activities into their curriculum and that they would show an increase in their 

knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy regarding STEM content and lesson delivery. This would then 

result in an increase in the rate of implementation of STEM lessons within their classrooms. Data 

collection for this project included electronic student pre- and post-surveys, teacher pre- and 

post-surveys, teacher interviews and/or focus groups, and field observations. After utilization of the 

STEM-on-Wheels lessons with their students, survey results shown in Figure 1A reveal a 25% increase 

in teachers expressing confidence in their ability to incorporate STEM activities for their students and a 

proportional decrease in their apprehension towards STEM activities in the classroom. Albeit none of 

teachers felt that they have received adequate training and/or professional development on how to 

implement integrated STEM instruction with their students. Survey results also indicated an increase in 

student knowledge and positive dispositions towards STEM. A key finding shown in Figure 1B was 

that student interest in considering STEM careers when they grew older increased post-exposure to 

STEM-on-Wheels lesson activities. 

 

 
Figure 1. (A) Confidence of P-12 Teachers in their Ability to Incorporate STEM Activities for 

Students, (B) P-12 Student Interest in Pursuing STEM Careers 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
21 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.9 University’s Engineers Week 

The university’s School of Engineering held its first Engineer’s Week formal event targeting K-12 

students and the urban community in spring 2018, and then again in 2019. This was a collaborative 

event which involved both undergraduate and graduate engineering students from various student 

engineering organizations as well as faculty from the School of Engineering and the School of 

Education. This event targeted K-12 students in the same local urban school district mentioned in 

earlier initiatives and provided attendees with hands-on engineering activities in an informal 

exposition-type setting. During this event, students had the opportunity to visit and explore different 

stations such as a 3-D printer in action, a robot that walks and talks, an interactive digital mirror, 

make-it and take-it activities, and some brief STEM challenges just to name a few. K-12 students and 

families enjoyed engaging in conversation with university students and faculty at both events. 

4.10 Cyber Robotics Coding Competition (CRCC) 

The university’s College of Engineering, Business, and Education started hosting the CRCC 

Connecticut state finals competition in December 2018 and again in 2019. This annual CRCC event 

involves middle school students in grades 5-8 where they have an opportunity to code a virtual robot on 

a computer using a Cloud-based platform. This innovative virtual competition brings equity and 

exposure to STEM and computer programming in a fun environment while introducing students to the 

college campus. Students work in teams of 1-2 to “complete missions that introduce them to mechanics, 

physics and programming accompanied by math, science, and engineering principals” (Cyber Robotics 

Coding Competition, 2019). The university partners with CRCC and awards each first, second and third 

place finishers with a $1000 college scholarship to the university. 

 

5. Discussion 

With an underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in STEM fields in America, urban youth 

exposure is of utmost importance (NCSES, 2017). Despite great efforts in recent past, school districts 

that serve low-income families continue to receive fewer STEM initiatives than wealthier districts 

(Khan & Rodrigues, 2017). These same urban schools struggle to recruit and maintain talented diverse 

science teachers for all students, thus presenting a gap of quality STEM experiences for urban youth 

(Gutierrez, 2016). This paper describes numerous STEM outreach efforts that one university has 

initiated within its local urban school district. Through the initiatives described herein, this university 

has provided STEM exposure for an estimated 5,400 P-12 students and nearly 200 urban teachers over 

the past five years. Through the analysis of multiple outcomes from the described initiatives, this 

manuscript brings to the foreground a critical problem that limits P-12 STEM exposure. 

5.1 Impact of Early Exposure of STEM/STEAM Initiatives 

The overall data from these early STEM exposures and initiatives indicate positive effects on both 

students and their teachers’ dispositions regarding STEM. Table 1 showed the populations impacted by 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
22 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

these STEM initiatives. The largest population receiving exposure were K-12 students at > 80 %. The 

limited but consistent findings of the various STEM initiatives described here demonstrate a positive 

impact on all involved in the early exposure experiences. P-12 students indicated positive experiences 

with the STEM outreach activities and P-12 teachers indicated feeling slightly more confident in their 

abilities to plan STEM instruction for their students as a result of experiencing the various STEM 

initiatives. Nevertheless, P-12 teachers continue to display apprehension in the implementation of 

STEM activities. It is noteworthy that in all events described here that required student and teacher 

involvement, when P-12 teachers displayed apprehension and disengagement, students displayed 

similar tendencies. Conversely, when P-12 teachers displayed excitement and were engaged in the 

activities with their students, outcomes were very positive. Therefore, P-12 teacher’s positive 

disposition towards STEM is concomitant with successful implementation of STEM in the classroom. 

5.2 Limitations 

Limitations of these STEM initiatives include that the activities were largely conducted within one 

urban school district in the northeastern part of the United States by one local university’s efforts. 

These limitations evolved due to the nature of working in high-needs schools as cooperation from 

parents and teachers was inconsistent. These inconsistencies impacted the ability to collect large 

numbers of consistent data from these schools. It is also noted that data collection was not necessary for 

every initiative described in this paper. That being said, the purpose of this paper is to describe the 

STEM outreach initiatives between one university and a local urban school district with an attempt at 

measuring the impact of early exposure to STEM experiences of P-12 students and their teachers. 

 

6. Conclusion and Recommendations 

The development of our own STEM professionals in America translates to motivating our youth to 

pursue these careers. That motivation comes through positive engaging experiences with science, 

technology, engineering and math, (STEM). One way to ensure that P-12 students have these positive 

experiences with STEM is to provide quality pre-service and in-service training for teachers in both 

pedagogy as well as content knowledge. This is in agreement with the literature as Gutierrez (2016) 

states, “A high-quality science and engineering education for every child would have a positive impact 

on our nation, ensuring that all students are prepared to face the science and engineering challenges of 

the 21st century”. 

There are many lessons learned during these experiences that will help overcome challenges to STEM 

implementation in P-12 high needs schools and the broader community. We have identified several 

criteria that have positively impacted the STEM initiatives described, such as the importance of 

collaborative hands-on learning for students. When engaging hands-on STEM activities are relevant 

and connected to their current instruction, it becomes even more impactful. These collaborative 

authentic STEM learning experiences not only engage today’s youth, but also inspires them to achieve 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
23 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

a level of STEM knowledge that they never even imagined or conceived for themselves. One goal is to 

jump-start students’ interest in STEM through offering a variety of STEM experiences and exposures 

through real-world projects. A secondary goal is to positively impact students’ dispositions towards 

STEM through interactions with scientists and other STEM professionals on a personal level. Umali 

(2020) had a similar goal and stated, “In this way, students can hopefully begin to see STEM as a career 

path not just limited to those who have already been labeled as “smart””. It is important to foster this 

type of learning environment, particularly for students in high needs urban settings such as the one 

described in this paper where more than 90% are students of color and significantly underrepresented 

in today’s STEM career professionals. 

With an increased attention to STEM education over the past decade, a projected shortage remains for 

STEM workers to fill the job demands of the future (National Center for Science and Engineering 

Statistics [NCSES] 2017; National Science Board 2018). According to Umali (2020), “The United 

States needs to raise its investment in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to remain 

globally competitive”. One university’s response to this alarming statistic was to work together with 

local school partners to provide various engaging STEM initiatives for students and teachers alike with 

the goal of bringing equity to STEM education in high needs schools. 

6.1 Strategic Plan for Overcoming Limitations in STEM Education 

The STEM initiatives presented here have helped to identify several recommendations for stimulating 

students’ interest in STEM disciplines and careers. P-12 school administrative leadership and vision in 

support of STEM education is crucial to overcoming STEM education barriers in P-12 schools, 

particularly in urban settings. In this context, supporting the teachers with sustained mentorship is 

necessary and includes: 1) extensive collaboration with university faculty to help embed STEM 

curricula where available, 2) application of problem-based learning through authentic experiences 

where children collaborate in problem-based learning in a social setting, 3) implement and engage in 

available community STEM activities and experiences to support and extend schools’ STEM curricula., 

and 4) introduce positive experiences that engage older students in real-world STEM applications such 

as internships at university research labs and/or engineering firms and companies. Through a targeted 

effort to train and support P-12 teachers, as well as partnering with schools to engage students in high 

quality STEM experiences, resides the hope to positively influence the outcome of young American 

STEM professionals in the near future. 

 

References 

Alemdar, M., Moore, R. A., Lingle, J. A., Rosen, J., Gale, J., & Usselman, M. C. (2018). The impact of 

a middle school engineering course on students’ academic achievement and noncognitive skills. 

International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(4), 

363-380. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.440339 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
24 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Al Salami, M., Makela, C., & Miranda, M. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward 

interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 27(1), 

63-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0 

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. 

Bartholomew, S. R., & Strimel, G. J. (2018). Factors influencing student success on open-ended design 

problems. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 28(3), 753-770. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2 

Boone, R. O., & Marsteller, P. (2011). Avoiding a Setback to STEM. Science, 333(6040), 267. City-data. 

(2020). Advameg, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Bridgeport-Connecticut.html 

Cyber Robotics Coding Competition. (2019). Competition Info. Retrieved January 4, 2020, from 

https://crcc.io/about-us/ 

DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, 

engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77-83. 

DeJarnette, N. K. (2018a). Implementing STEAM in the early childhood classroom. European Journal 

of STEM Education, 3(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3878 

DeJarnette, N. K. (2018b). Early childhood STEAM: Reflections from a year of STEAM initiatives 

implemented in a high-needs primary school. Education, 139(2), 96-112. 

DeJarnette, N. K., McCulloch, R., Ngoh, N. N., & Badara, I. A. (2020). Professional development for 

science teachers on integrating STEM: A Case Study. The Journal of Education and Culture 

Studies, 4(1), 56-76. https://doi.org/10.22158/jecs.v4n1p56 

DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Maryland: 

AltaMira Press. 

Duncan, D., Diefes-Dux, H., & Gentry, M. (2011). Professional development through engineering 

academies: An examination of elementary teachers’ recognition and understanding of engineering. 

Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 520- 539. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00025.x 

Fees, R. E., da Rosa, J. A., Durkin, S. S., Murray, M. M., & Moran, A. L. (2018). Unplugged 

cybersecurity: An approach for bringing computer science into the classroom. International 

Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i1.21 

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). 

New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education Publishers. 

Goffin, K., & Clegg, B. (2014). For and against technology: Today’s kids are smarter than their parents. 

Engineering & Technology (17509637), 9(5), 28-29. https://doi.org/10.1049/et.2014.0515 

Grubbs, M. E., Strimel, G. J., & Kim, E. (2018). Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 

engineering/technology education. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 

28(4), 899-920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
25 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Gutierrez, J. (2016). A bigger, better STEM field begins with teachers: Teacher-support programs can 

improve STEM disciplines. Education week, 36(10), 21. 

Jackson, M., Heil, D., Chadde, J., & Hutzler, N. (2011). Family engineering: An activity & event 

planning guide. Portland, OR: Foundation for Family Science and Engineering. 

Khan, Z. R., & Rodrigues, G. (2017). Stem for Girls from Low Income Families: Making Dreams 

Come True. Journal of Developing Areas, 51(2), 435-448. 

https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1353/jda.2017.0056 

Knight, D. W., Hannigan, M., Polmear, M., Gardiner, L., Hafich, K. A., & Collier, A. M. (2015). 

Integrating a K-12 Education and Outreach Initiative into a Sustainability Research Network 

(Work in Progress). Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 1-7. 

https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24321 

Lyon, G. H., Jafri, J., & St. Louis, K. (2012). Beyond the pipeline: STEM pathways for youth 

development. Afterschool Matters, 16, 48-57. 

NACME. (2017). Increasing the Achievement and Presence of Under-Represented Minorities in STEM 

Fields. Retrieved from http://www.nacme.org 

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM 

perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary 

teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014 

National Center for Earth and Space Science Education (NCESSE). (2019). Student Spaceflight 

Experiments Program (SSEP). Retrieved January 4, 2020, from http://ssep.ncesse.org/ 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Highlights from the trends in international 

mathematics and science studies (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES]. (2017). Women, minorities, and 

persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Retrieved from 

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/ 

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, 

crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 

Science Education Standards (Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education). Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 

National Science Board. (2018). Science & engineering indicators 2018. Retrieved from 

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/ 

National Science Board. (2010). Science & Engineering Indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science 

Foundation. 

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Appendix I. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
26 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-12. 

Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14-19. 

Obama, B. (2016, October 17). President Obama Delivers Remarks on Education. Retrieved from 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

Obama, B. (2013, April 12). Educate to innovate. Retrieved August 3, 2015, from whitehouse.gov 

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2019). Partnership for 21st Century Learning: A Network of 

BattlelleforKids. Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. Tucson, AZ. Retrieved from 

http://battelleforkids.org/networks/p21 

Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. Journal of Educational Research, 

110(3), 224-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289781 

Powell, A., Nielsen, N., Butler, M., Buxton, C., Johnson, O., Ketterlin-Geller, L., & McCulloch, C. 

(2018). Creating Inclusive PreK-12 STEM Learning Environments. Waltham, MA: Education 

Development Center. Retrieved from 

http://cadrek12.org/resources/broadening-participation-policy-practice-brief 

Prepare and Inspire K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education for 

America’s Future. (2010). Education Digest, 76(4), 42-46. 

President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 

education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) for America’s future. 

Washington, DC: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

Proudfoot, D. E., Green, M., Otter, J. W., & Cook, D. L. (2018). STEM certification in Georgia’s 

schools: A causal comparative study using the Georgia student growth model. Georgia 

Educational Researcher, 15(1), Article 2, 14-38. https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2018.15102 

Ralston, P. S., Hieb, J. L., & Rivoli, G. (2013). Partnerships and experience in building STEM pipelines. 

Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 139(2), 156-162. 

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000138 

Robelen, E. W. (2013). K-12 Bolsters Ties To Engineering. Education Week, 32(26), 1-19. 

Schunk, D. H. (2016). Learning Theories: An educational perspective (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson 

Education Inc. 

Shultz, R., Ueda, D. E., Ward, J. S., & Fontecchio, A. K. (2015). A hands-on, arduino-based approach 

to develop student engineering skills and introduce cybersecurity concepts to K-12 students. 

Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23395 

Thornburg, D. (2009). Hands and minds: Why engineering is the glue holding STEM together. 

Thornburg Center for Space Exploration. Retrieved from http://www.tcse- 

k12.org/pages/hands.pdf 

Umali, A. (2020). The case for mentoring as a pathway to promote student interest in STEM. NYAS 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019, April 12). Employment projections: Employment by major 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 2, No. 3, 2021 

 
27 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

occupational group. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-major- 

occupational-group.htm 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Wang, H., & Nam, Y. (2015). Exploring the impact of a STEM integration teacher professional 

development program on secondary science and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of engineering 

and their attitude toward engineering integrated teaching. Journal of the Korean Earth Science 

Society, 36(5), 484-499. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2015.36.5.484 


