Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Iowa Project Lead The Way: Implications for Research, Policy, & Practice

Iowa Project Lead The Way: Implications for Research, Policy, & Practice

Presented at the Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education (CESME) Brown Bag Seminar at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa on October 5, 2011.

Tom Schenk Jr

June 02, 2012
Tweet

More Decks by Tom Schenk Jr

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. IOWA PROJECT LEAD THE WAY
    IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH, POLICY,
    & PRACTICE
    Tom Schenk, Jr., Iowa Department of Education
    David Rethwisch, University of Iowa
    Soko Starobin, Iowa State University
    Melissa Chapman Haynes, PDA, Inc. & Consultant
    Frankie Santos Laanan, Iowa State University
    Presented at CESMEE Brown Bag Seminar
    October 5, 2011

    View Slide

  2. BACKGROUND
     Expanding the pool of engineers and
    scientists has been a focus for the U.S.
    higher education in the past decades.
     Project Lead The Way (PLTW)
     Aims to provides middle school and high school
    students with a seamless path to college and
    career success in STEM-related fields.
     Aims to expand the proportion of students who
    persist in STEM fields.
    2

    View Slide

  3. PROJECT LEAD THE WAY
     Sequence of year-long pre-engineering
    courses for secondary students.
     Problem-based/Project-based Learning
    (PBL) approach to increase engagement &
    performance.
     Provides “dual-credit” for students in
    either CTE or A&S areas depending upon
    performance.
    3

    View Slide

  4. MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM:
    GATEWAY TO TECHNOLOGY
     Automation and Robotics (9 wks)
     Design and Modeling (9 wks)
     Energy and the Environment (9 wks)
     The Magic of Electrons (9 wks)
     The Science of Technology (9 wks)
     Flight and Space (9 wks)
    4

    View Slide

  5. HIGH SCHOOL COURSE PROGRAM:
    PATHWAY TO ENGINEERING
    5
    Foundation:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Specialization:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Capstone:
    Digital Electronics
    Biotechnical Engineering
    Computer Integrated Manufacturing
    Civil Engineering and Architecture
    Aerospace Engineering
    Introduction to Engineering Design
    Principles Of Engineering
    Engineering Design and Development
    Note: Course program requires college prep mathematics each year.

    View Slide

  6. 3 PHASE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
    6
    Ready for core
    training
    Ready for teaching
    • Gateway To Technology (Middle School)
    • Introduction To Engineering Design
    • Principles of Engineering
    • Biotechnical Engineering
    • Digital Electronics
    • Computer Integrated Manufacturing
    • Civil Engineering and Architecture
    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Engineering Design and Development
    Core Training-Summer Institute
    Self-
    Assessment
    and Pre-Core
    Training
    PLTW
    Continuous
    Training
    Master
    Teacher
    Virtual Academy
    University Based PD
    Level II Training

    View Slide

  7. SUMMER TRAINING
     Iowa State University
     Gateway to Technology
     Introduction to Engineering Design
     Digital Electronics
     University of Iowa
     Principles of Engineering
     Biotechnology Engineering
     Civil Engineering & Architecture
    7

    View Slide

  8. NUMBERS
     188 high school and community
    college teachers
     126 High schools or centers
     38 Middle school teachers
     24 Middle schools
     2067 High school students (2008/9)
    8

    View Slide

  9. DATA SOURCES & METHODS
     A part of a large-scale, statewide research project
     PLTW and non-PLTW students who graduated
    from high schools in Iowa in 2009
     Data sources
    1: Iowa Dept. of Ed. K-12 Data; 2: Community College MIS
    3: Regent University Partnership; 4: National Student Clearinghouse
    9

    View Slide

  10. HYPOTHETICAL MODEL
    Demographic
    Characteristics
    Ethnicity
    Gender
    Free/Reduced
    Lunch
    Gifted/Talented
    Academic
    Backgrounds
    ITED Math &
    Science Scores
    Grades of HS
    Courses
    Status of PLTW
    Participation
    Transition to
    Higher Ed
    No College
    2-year College
    4-year College
    10
    Selection Bias

    View Slide

  11. IMBALANCE – DEMOGRAPHICS
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    Caucasian
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    Male
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    Free/Reduced Lunch
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    IEP
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    Section 504
    20
    40
    60
    80
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    Gifted & Talented
    11

    View Slide

  12. 8TH GRADE MATHEMATICS SCORES
    12

    View Slide

  13. 8TH GRADE SCIENCE SCORES
    13

    View Slide

  14. SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTION BIAS
    14
    O denotes PLTW district; X denotes non-PLTW districts

    View Slide

  15. PROPENSITY SCORES
     τ = PLTW participation
     Race/Ethnicity
     Free/Reduced Lunch
     IEP / Section 504
     Gifted & Talented
     8th Grade ITBS subtest in Math, Science, &
    Reading
    15
    ρ(τ)=τ = φ(α + βX + ε)

    View Slide

  16. PREDICTING ENTRY:
    Coefficient z-statistic
    ITBS, 8th Grade Standard Score
    Reading -0.003 -1.86
    Math 0.015 8.69
    Science 0.008 4.90
    Demographics
    Black -0.6 -1.45
    Asian 0.0 -0.11
    Hispanic -0.3 -0.71
    Male 1.8 21.72
    Economic Status Proxy
    Free Lunch -0.2 -2.47
    Reduced Lunch 0.0 -0.14
    Homeless -0.4 -0.69
    Special Populations
    IEP -1.0 -5.77
    Section 504 -0.5 -1.42
    Gifted & Talented 0.3 4.28
    16

    View Slide

  17. NEAREST NEIGHBOR MATCHING
    17
    0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    0.5
    0.6
    Estimated propensity E[p(X)]: PLTW: solid, non-PLTW: dashed
    Treated Units from lowest to highest estimated propensity score

    View Slide

  18. MATCHING METHODS
    18
    Participants
    Non-participants
    dNN,i
    = ║xτ,i
    – x τ’,i

    D = Σ di
    Local minima
    dG,i
    = wi
    ║xτ,i
    – x τ’,i

    D = Σ di
    Global minima
    NEAREST NEIGHBOR GENETIC ALGORITHMS
    w = {w1
    ,…,wn
    }

    View Slide

  19. MATCHING TRADE-OFF
    19

    View Slide

  20. VARIATIONS IN MATCHING ALGORITHMS
    Matching Methodology
    Prior to
    Matching
    Nearest Neighbor with Exact
    Matching on Districts
    Genetic Algorithm
    One-to-One
    Genetic Algorithm
    One-to-Two
    Propensity Score Distance 0.953 0.036 -0.001 0.002
    Cohort -0.067 -0.075 0 0.001
    ITBS, 8th Grade
    Reading 0.597 0.106 -0.002 -0.005
    Mathematics 0.891 0.103 0.001 0.004
    Science 0.719 0.148 0.002 0.007
    Demographics
    White 0.353 -0.044 0 0
    African American -0.386 0.034 0 0
    Asian/Pacific Islander 0.027 -0.024 0 0
    Hispanic -0.224 0.05 0 0
    American Indian -0.097 0.052 0 0
    Male 0.972 -0.051 0 0.002
    Economic Status Proxy
    Free Lunch -0.405 -0.035 0 0
    Reduced Lunch -0.064 0.011 0 0.003
    Homeless -0.068 0.026 0 0
    Special Populations
    IEP -0.563 -0.014 0 0.004
    Section 504 Plan -0.086 0.052 0 0
    Gifted & Talented 0.271 0.038 0.003 0
    School District -0.049 0 NA NA
    Sample Size (ni
    ) 15,660 1,500 1,477 2,111
    20

    View Slide

  21. MATCHED TREATMENT AND CONTROL
    GROUP [GENETIC 1-2 MATCHING]
    Variable Weighted Mean Weighted Standard Deviation
    PLTW Participant 0.38 0.49
    Demographics
    White 0.90 0.30
    Black 0.03 0.17
    Asian 0.04 0.18
    Hispanic 0.03 0.17
    American Indian 0.00 0.06
    Male 0.85 0.36
    Economic Status Proxy
    Free Lunch 0.11 0.31
    Reduced Lunch 0.04 0.21
    Homeless Status 0.00 0.06
    Special Populations
    IEP 0.02 0.14
    Section 504 0.01 0.09
    Gifted Talented 0.23 0.42
    11th Grade scores
    Reading 306.28 37.31
    Mathematics 315.06 31.14
    Science 320.28 36.43
    8th Grade Scores
    Reading 277.48 30.72
    Mathematics 283.72 26.66
    Science 288.92 29.88
    21

    View Slide

  22. LITERATURE
     Few published studies of the PLTW curriculum
     PLTW students did significantly better on a
    mathematics and science assessment than
    career/technical students (Bottoms & Anthony,
    2005)
     Students matched only on race and gender
     Tran & Nathan reported PLTW had no
    measurable impact on science scores and
    participants actually scored lower in
    mathematics compared to similar students
     Study only included ca. 30 PLTW students
    22

    View Slide

  23. 23
    PLTW IMPACT ON MATHEMATICS SCORES,
    8TH TO 11TH GRADE

    View Slide

  24. PLTW IMPACT ON SCIENCE SCORES, 8TH
    TO 11TH GRADE
    24

    View Slide

  25. PLTW IMPACT ON 11TH GRADE
    ITED MATH AND SCIENCE SCORES
    25
    Test Score Change
    McFadden
    R2 t-score
    ITED Math Scores 5.2 6.1% 2.40
    ITED Science Scores 5.2 4.7% 2.01

    View Slide

  26. EX-POST – COURSE TAKING IN HS
    0
    10
    20
    30
    40
    50
    60
    70
    80
    90
    100
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    26

    View Slide

  27. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF PLTW ON
    MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE SCORES WITH
    COURSE COVARIATES
    27

    View Slide

  28. REMAINING QUESTIONS
     Additional assessment instruments
    needed
     Can we separate PLTW curriculum and other
    courses taken?
     Assess problem-solving skills
     Mechanical aptitude test
     Student self-efficacy
    28

    View Slide

  29. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AGENDA
     Actual high school graduation rate is about 77%
    in United States (Heckman & LaFontaine, 2007).
     High school dropouts/stop outs/non-graduates
    causes a loss of personal economic benefit around
    $60,000 (Rouse, 2005).
     Dropouts generate less in tax revenues and
    create negative social externalities through
    greater likelihood of crime (Moretti, 2005).
     Iowa’s graduation rate for the Class of 2009 was
    87% (Iowa Department of Education, 2010).
    29

    View Slide

  30. DEFINING GRADUATION
     Students who graduated within an Iowa school
    district within four years.
     Includes students who transferred to another
    school district within Iowa.
     Excludes students who may left Iowa (counted as
    non-graduate).
    30

    View Slide

  31. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION:
    CLASS OF 2009 [MATCHED]
    Control PLTW Participants
    (N = 623) (N = 416)
    Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation
    Demographics
    Male 0.82 0.39 0.85 0.36
    American Indian 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00
    Asian 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.14
    Black 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.15
    Hispanic 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.17
    White 0.92 0.27 0.93 0.26
    Economic Status Proxy
    Free Lunch 0.09 0.28 0.08 0.27
    Reduced Lunch 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.24
    Homeless 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05
    Special Populations
    Section 504 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05
    Gifted & Talented 0.18 0.39 0.20 0.40
    IEP 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.19
    Testing - 8th Grade ITBS
    Reading - Standard Score 274.32 32.76 275.25 31.86
    Reading - Percentile Rank 71.30 22.72 72.18 22.07
    Math - Standard Score 278.36 26.91 280.90 26.07
    Math - Percentile Rank 75.95 20.27 78.00 19.25
    Science - National Standard Score 285.86 30.24 288.89 30.39
    Science - Percentile Rank 76.93 19.28 78.77 19.00
    High School Graduation
    Graduated within 4 years 0.92 0.30 0.95 0.21
    31

    View Slide

  32. HIERARCHICAL LINEAR LOGIT
    REGRESSION
    32
    γ = φ(αj
    +υj
    +βj
    X+Δj
    τ+εij
    )
     τ PLTW participation
     Δj
    estimated impact of PLTW on graduation.
     αj
    intercept for jth school district
     υj
    error term for the intercept at the jth school district
     Covariates include: Race/Ethnicity; Free/Reduced
    Lunch IEP / Section 504; Gifted & Talented; 8th
    Grade ITBS subtest in Math, Science, & Reading

    View Slide

  33. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RESULTS
    Genetic One-to-Two Genetic One-to-One Nearest Neighbor
    Estimate z-statistic Estimate t-statistic Estimate t-statistic
    Intercept (α) 0.00 0.00 -0.65 -0.41 -2.67 -1.90
    PLTW Participant 0.64 1.91 0.79 2.39 0.59 2.20
    Demographics:
    African-American -0.53 -1.07 -0.84 -1.49 -0.38 -0.54
    Asian/Pacific Islander -0.69 -1.21 -0.73 -0.90 0.09 0.09
    Hispanic -0.35 -0.60 -0.65 -1.00 -0.32 -0.51
    American Indian 14.49 0.01 12.47 0.01 12.51 0.01
    Male -1.37 -3.75 -2.20 -3.36 -1.18 -2.41
    Economic Status Proxy
    Free Lunch Eligible -1.30 -4.97 -1.58 -4.80 -0.84 -2.40
    Reduced Lunch Eligible -1.09 -3.30 -0.89 -1.92 -1.03 -2.57
    Homeless -0.47 -1.17 -1.69 -1.09 13.34 0.01
    Special Populations
    IEP -0.11 -0.09 -0.35 -0.64 0.05 0.12
    Section 504 Plan 0.46 1.13 -2.50 -2.15 -0.63 -0.53
    Gifted and Talented 13.98 0.01 0.73 1.25 1.05 1.40
    8th Grade Testing
    Math 0.02 2.84 0.02 2.59 0.02 2.61
    Science 0.01 2.00 0.01 1.16 0.01 1.05
    Reading -0.01 -2.37 -0.01 -0.94 0.00 0.14
    Additional Testing Controls:
    Midyear -0.31 -0.88 -0.58 -1.50 -0.36 -1.25
    Spring -0.42 -0.80 -0.46 -0.77 -0.64 -1.41
    33

    View Slide

  34. INTERPRETING EFFECTS OF PLTW
    34
    Genetic 1-to-2 Genetic 1-to-1 Nearest Neighbor
    Coefficient 0.64 0.79 0.59
    Odds Ratio 1.90 2.20 1.81
    Marginal Effects 0.03 0.02 0.01
    t-statistic 1.91 2.39 2.20
    Interpreting logit regressions are complicated by
    the non-linear logit function (φ). Odds ratios show
    that the odds to graduate are between 90 and 120
    higher for PLTW participants. The marginal effect
    shows this is an increase between 1 to 3 percent
    higher.

    View Slide

  35. NONLINEAR INTERPRETATION
    35
    0
    0.1
    0.2
    0.3
    0.4
    0.5
    0.6
    0.7
    0.8
    0.9
    1

    View Slide

  36. MARGINAL EFFECTS ON HIGH SCHOOL
    GRADUATION BY ACHIEVEMENT TESTS
    36
    Science Mathematics
    Maximum 0.01 0.01
    3rd Quartile 0.02 0.02
    Median 0.03 0.03
    1st Quartile 0.04 0.04
    Minimum 0.10 0.10
    By adjusting for 8th grade test scores by quartile,
    but holding everything else constant, the marginal
    effect grows larger for students who were in the
    lower quartiles relative to other PLTW
    participants.

    View Slide

  37. MARGINAL EFFECTS ON HIGH SCHOOL
    GRADUATION BY DEMOGRAPHICS
    37
    Males Females African Americans Asian/Pacific Islanders Hispanic
    Marginal Effect 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.04
    By adjusting for demographics, while holding other
    variables constant, the impact on PLTW is stronger
    for males than females, while the impact by racial
    subgroup is consistent.

    View Slide

  38. BACKGROUND
     The United States is facing a crisis with regard to
    maintain the global leadership and
    competitiveness in science and technology.
     In order to maintain the leadership and
    competitiveness, we must grow a strong, talented
    and innovative science and technology workforce.
     Expanding the pool of engineers and scientists
    has been a focus for the U.S. higher education in
    the past decades. Specifically, the critical role of
    community college education in STEM fields has
    been recognized in the past several years.
    38

    View Slide

  39. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
     Student Learning and Cognitive Development
    (Pascarella, 1985)
     student background and precollege characteristics
     structural and organization characteristics of the
    institution
     institutional environment
     interactions with socializing agents
     quality of student effort
    39

    View Slide

  40. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
     Conceptualization of Student Retention (Hagedorn
    & Cepeda, 2004; Hagedorn, Moon, Cypers, Maxwell & Lester,
    2006; Hagedorn, Cypers & Lester, 2008)
     The multiple varieties in retention (institutional
    retention; system retention; retention within a major
    or discipline; retention within the course)
     A transfer student who leaves one institution to
    attend another should be included in retention
    calculation (system retention).
     students’ academic success lead to a likelihood of
    transfer to a postsecondary education institution and
    have positive influence on student retention in
    college.
    40

    View Slide

  41. HYPOTHETICAL MODEL
    Demographic
    Characteristics
    Ethnicity
    Gender
    Free/Reduced
    Lunch
    Gifted/Talented
    Academic
    Backgrounds
    ITED Math &
    Science Scores
    Grades of HS
    Courses
    Status of PLTW
    Participation
    Transition to
    Higher Ed
    No College
    2-year College
    4-year College
    41
    Selection Bias

    View Slide

  42. RESULTS – TRANSITION TO HE
    Postsecondary
    Enrollment
    PLTW Participation
    Total
    Non-PLTW PLTW
    n % n %
    4-year 4,132 28.74 295 33.33 4,427
    2-year 3,299 22.95 336 37.97 3,635
    No College 6,944 48.31 254 28.70 7,198
    Total 14,375 100.00 885 100.00 15,260
    Table 1. Transition of PLTW and Non-PLTW Students to Higher Education
    42

    View Slide

  43. RESULTS – MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION
    Nearest Neighbor Genetic 1-to-1 Genetic 1-to-2
    2-year Entry Odds Ratio 1.64 1.62 1.57
    t-statistic 2.29 2.12 2.30
    4-year Entry Odds Ratio 1.08 1.04 0.94
    t-statistic 0.33 0.17 -0.30
     Propensity Score Matching
     Nearest Neighbor
     Genetic One treatment-to-One Control
     Genetic One treatment-to-Two Control
    Table 2. Odds Ratio and t-Statistics of PLTW Participation by
    Methods of Propensity Score Matching (No College is Reference)
    43

    View Slide

  44. MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION
    Pr(2-year College) / Pr(No College) Pr(4-year College) / Pr(No College)
    Odds Ratio t-value Odds Ratio t-value
    PLTW 1.57 2.30 0.94 -0.30
    Black 1.27 0.43 0.84 -0.24
    Asian 1.14 0.23 0.72 -0.49
    Hispanic 1.10 0.16 3.79 2.11
    American Indian 7.79E-07 -8.75E+07 3.59E-07 -1.05E+08
    Male 0.58 -2.15 0.64 -1.74
    FreeLunch 0.48 -2.56 0.35 -2.90
    Reduced Lunch 0.88 -0.35 0.50 -1.54
    IEP 1.08 0.15 0.74 -2.45
    Section504 2.77 1.53 0.18 -10.41
    Gifted/Talented 0.82 -0.62 0.76 -0.99
    Homeless Status 0.82 -3.21 0.67 -8.42
    8th Grade ITS_Nat_Standard_Read 1.00 0.68 1.02 3.08
    8th Grade ITS_Nat_Standard_Math 1.00 0.44 1.01 2.19
    8th Grade ITS_Nat_Standard_Science 1.00 -0.83 1.00 -0.64
    Course_Science_EarthSciences_Cumulative 1.38 2.39 1.07 0.45
    Course_Science_Biology_Cumulative 1.04 0.28 1.01 0.07
    Course_Science_Chemistry_Cumulative 1.47 2.06 2.16 3.63
    Course_Science_Physics_Cumulative 1.02 0.11 1.64 2.74
    Course_Science_SciEngTech_Cumulative 1.38 1.01 2.25 2.34
    Course_Math_Geometry_Cumulative 0.94 -0.33 0.82 -0.86
    Course_Math_Algebra1_Cumulative 1.06 0.35 0.86 -0.78
    Course_Math_Algebra2_Cumulative 0.61 -2.65 1.09 0.42
    Course_Math_Alg3Trig_Cumulative 1.69 2.25 2.15 3.30
    Course_Math_Precalculus_Cumulative 1.23 0.72 1.49 1.45
    Course_Math_Calculus_Cumulative 2.53 3.07 4.87 5.44
    Course_Math_ProbStat_Cumulative 1.05 0.21 0.72 -1.23
    Course_Math_IBMath_Cumulative 0.78 -0.66 2.01 2.20
    Course_Math_BusinessTechnical_Cumulative 0.90 -0.40 0.50 -1.30
    Course_Math_Other_Cumulative 0.46 -2.09 1.07 0.22
    EASIER_GraduationStatusN 0.18 -4.23 0.02 -9.69
    EASIER_GraduationStatusY 1.98 2.01 0.15 -5.14
    44

    View Slide

  45. CONCLUSION
     PLTW were more likely to be high ability, white, and
    male – a subset of the population already likely to
    enter STEM fields. (Sax, Jacobs, & Riggers, 2010)
     A higher percentage of PLTW students transitioned
    to higher education immediate after graduation.
     PLTW seems to “cause” an increase in students
    attending community college, but not 4-year
    universities.
     PLTW students were 57 percent more likely to
    transition to 2-year colleges compared to not
    attending any types of higher education institutions
    than non-PLTW students. 45

    View Slide

  46. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
     Examine students’ transition (transfer) from 2-year to
    4-year institutions.
     Examine the effectiveness of PBL, which includes the
    element of professional development for teachers.
     Examine students’ choice of major at 2-year
    institutions (STEM or non-STEM, or selected STEM
    disciplines: multinominal outcomes).
     Examine the influence of educational credentials (e.g.,
    AA, AAS, etc.) obtained at 2-year institutions on
    transfer and majoring in STEM.
    46

    View Slide

  47. [SPACE FOR IMPLICATIONS]
     Implications for PLTW.
     Implications for evaluation in education.
    47

    View Slide