Enriching Undergraduate Experiences With Outreach in School STEM Clubs

Full text

74
Journal of College Science Teaching
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
The need for a more robust,
well-trained STEM workforce is
becoming increasingly acute in
the United States, and there is a
clear need to recruit and retain a
larger and more diverse population
of undergraduate STEM majors.
Although numerous efforts to
improve engagement and support in
the traditional P–16 classroom have
been implemented successfully, it is
also critical to explore other types
of activities that have potential
for high impact. The STEM Club
Leadership for Undergraduate
STEM Education, Recruiting
and Success project at our large
public research university in the
Mountain West presents an outreach
model to engage undergraduate
STEM majors in developing and
facilitating activities in local
middle and high school STEM
clubs. Through case studies, built
on data from reective journals
and semistructured interviews, the
project has identied a number
of benets to the rst cohort of
participants, which is comprised
of 11 undergraduate students
operating in interdisciplinary teams
across ve schools. In this article
we describe the essential elements
of our outreach model and suggest
benets related to undergraduates’
content knowledge, communication
skills, metacognition, and identity as
a future STEM professional.
Enriching Undergraduate Experiences
With Outreach in School STEM Clubs
By Michael Ferrara, Robert Talbot, Hillary Mason, Bryan Wee, Ronald Rorrer, Michael Jacobson, and Doug Gallagher
One of the most pressing
challenges facing the
United States in the com-
ing decades is the need
to recruit, train, engage, and retain
a diverse, well-prepared workforce
in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM; National
Research Council, 2010; President’s
Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology, 2012; Stine &
Matthews, 2009). The need is partic-
ularly pressing from traditionally un-
derrepresented populations in STEM
(Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Harper &
Newman, 2010; National Science
Foundation, 2017).
Participation in after-school, sum-
mer, and other informal STEM pro-
grams is viewed as an experience that
is critical to positive outcomes for
learners (cf. Chubin, Donaldson, Olds,
& Fleming, 2008; National Acad-
emy of Sciences, 2007). Documented
benets for participants in informal
STEM programs include an increase
in attitudes and interest in science and
technology (Hayden, Ouyang, Scinski,
Olszewski, & Bielefeldt, 2011) and a
stronger understanding of STEM con-
cepts and processes (McGee-Brown,
Martin, Monsaas, & Stombler, 2003).
In-school communities can play a
signicant role in encouraging students
to consider further study and careers
in STEM (Aschbacher, Li, & Roth,
2010). Likewise, STEM outreach
programs can support improved per-
spectives of STEM, STEM profession-
als (Laursen, Liston, Thiry, & Graf,
2007), and an increased likelihood
of pursuing a STEM major (Sahin,
2013). Organizing and implement-
ing outreach activities can promote
outreach providers’ ownership of their
own learning and nurture a sense of
belonging and engagement (Abernathy
& Vineyard, 2001). There is, however,
a paucity of research on undergraduate
STEM majors in K–12 settings and the
outcomes related to their experiences
in the context of outreach.
We present a model that broadens
the STEM education experience for
undergraduate outreach providers
(hereafter referred to as “Fellows”),
specically with respect to the devel-
opment of their content knowledge,
communication skills, metacognition,
and STEM identities, through im-
mersive experiences in school STEM
clubs. We leverage communities of
practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as
a theoretical lens and guiding frame-
work.
Community STEM clubs
Although our model can be applied
to a variety of outreach settings, our
program specically tasks under-
graduate STEM majors with organiz-
ing in-school and after-school STEM
clubs and teams in middle and high
schools. The STEM CLUSTERS
project, funded by a National Science
Foundation (NSF) Improving Under-
graduate Science Education (IUSE)
award, organized and supported ve
STEM clubs at a diverse collection
of partner schools in the Denver,
Colorado metropolitan area under the
umbrella of the Community STEM

75Vol. 47, No. 6, 2018
Clubs (CSC) program at the Univer-
sity of Colorado Denver (Table 1).
All school names that follow
have been anonymized. The CSC
program was piloted in 2014–2015,
partnering with Gold Meadow High
School (GMHS), Young International
Academy (YIA), Eastern Leader-
ship Academy (ELA), and Larimer
High School (LHS); a separate pilot
program partnered with the Western
Regional High School (WRHS) auto-
motive team. The CSC pilot program
helped GMHS and ELA restart their
school STEM clubs, both of which
had been inactive for 4 or more
years, and provided support to the
long-standing Technology Student
Association (TSA) chapter at LHS.
The pilot program at WRHS was
integrated into the school’s STEM
coursework and provided support for
the WRHS automotive team. The YIA
TSA chapter, which we discuss next,
had met 2 to 3 times in the year before
the start of our partnership, but the
departure of the sponsoring teacher
left the club defunct until 2015–2016.
Our partner schools also repre-
sented the broad socioeconomic di-
versity inherent in our city and region.
For instance, between 19% and 82%
of students in each partner school
(41.5% overall) were from groups
underrepresented in STEM (Black,
American Indian, Alaska Native,
Asian-Pacic Islander, Hispanic or
Latino). Further, between 25.1% and
70.7% (38.5% overall) of students
in each partner school received free
or reduced lunch. This information
provides some evidence that the out-
comes reported here are achievable
in varied schools and communities.
Lead teachers at each school helped
publicize the clubs, assisted with
curricular alignment and classroom
management, and collected informal
feedback from participating students.
The insights of the lead teachers
supported Fellows’ development
and implementation of activities and
strengthened connections between
the program and our partner schools.
Hence, replication of this outreach
model should include committed lead
teachers at partner institutions.
Core tenets of outreach
model
The intent of this project is for the
four central components of our out-
reach model to collectively enrich
the Fellows’ experience, contribut-
ing to student learning and personal
growth, and strengthening commu-
nities of practice.
Full student responsibility
The model requires the Fellows
to take responsibility for research,
planning, and execution of activi-
ties. Although faculty mentors and
lead teachers provide feedback and
support, “ownership” of the outreach
process lies with the Fellows.
A breadth of examples of club
activities developed and deployed
by the Fellows appears in Table 1. In
the teams preparing for competitions,
activities were often driven by the
skills needed to succeed in various
categories. These included drilling
on “day-of” TSA challenges, such as
technology-themed debates and help-
ing students acquire prociency with
TABLE 1
Summary data for partner schools and clubs in 2015–2016.
School Club type Club activities
Gold
Meadow
High School
(GMHS)
High school
STEM club
As a general-interest STEM club, activities varied.
Examples include designing balloon-powered
Mars rovers, a Rube Goldberg machine design
competition, investigation of conductive
properties of liquids using ice-cube tray batteries,
and red cabbage juice pH testing.
Young
International
Academy
(YIA)
Middle and
high school
TSA* chapter
Fellows in this International Baccalaureate
school helped prepare students for the TSA state
tournament. Example projects include building
robots, car design, water systems engineering,
creative storytelling, and mock debate.
Larimer High
School
(LHS)
High school
TSA chapter
Fellows helped prepare students for the TSA state
tournament. Example projects include: design
software, 3D printing, technical writing and
speaking, Arduino programming and activities
centered on general design principles.
Eastern
Leadership
Academy
(ELA)
Middle school
STEM club
As a general-interest STEM club, activities varied.
Examples include “mathemagical” card tricks,
exploring gravitational waves and the LIGO
project, cow eye dissections, disease transmission
and tracking, and an introduction to information
theory.
Western
Regional
High School
(WRHS)
High school
Automotive
design team
Students designed, built and tested prototype
and urban concept hydrogen fuel cell cars at the
Shell Eco-Marathon of the Americas in Detroit,
MI (2015). Fellows provided mentorship, training
and informal support throughout the process.
*Technology Student Association (TSA) is a national student organization that aims
to foster personal growth, leadership and opportunities in STEM.

76
Journal of College Science Teaching
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
3D design software and techniques
like carbon ber compositing. When
planning for both general STEM
clubs and TSA chapters, Fellows
were encouraged to directly use or
adapt existing activities from reliable
online sources. A repository of these
resources and a library of outreach
activities implemented by the program
is maintained and updated on the CSC
website (Resources, 2017).
All Fellows complete a three-day
summer workshop with team plan-
ning sessions to prepare them for their
outreach experiences in STEM clubs.
The workshop includes an overview of
instructional resources, a conversation
with outreach-experienced peers, dis-
cussions on effective communication
and classroom issues, and advice from
lead teachers. The workshop culmi-
nates with each team presenting their
outreach plan for the rst 6 weeks of
the semester, with feedback from their
peers and faculty.
STEM communication seminar
At the heart of outreach is the need to
clearly communicate STEM topics to
a diverse audience. This skill is also
crucial for future STEM profession-
als to further public understanding of
science (cf. Weigold, 2001; von Win-
terfeldt, 2013), and function more ef-
fectively within teams. The Fellows’
growth as STEM communicators is
supported by a key component of the
STEM CLUSTERS outreach model:
the (1-credit) “STEMmunication”
seminar.
Once each month, Fellows meet to
explore effective STEM communica-
tion through written, audio (podcast),
video, and oral presentations. Fellows
are asked to nd and analyze examples
of these media, and assess the benets/
challenges of each. Although there
is often a great deal of conversation
related to their core task of outreach
with middle and high school stu-
dents, the seminar focuses on STEM
communication for all audiences.
STEMmunication also serves as an
important source of mentoring in our
outreach model, as it allows Fellows
to discuss the challenges and successes
they encounter in various clubs. These
regular meetings create and nurture
a community of practice in which
participants develop understandings,
norms, relationships and identities
relevant to their roles as outreach Fel-
lows (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham, &
Clark, 2006).
Support from peers and faculty
mentors
Our model includes support mecha-
nisms that allow Fellows to draw on
the experiences of faculty mentors
and their peers. The “share-out” por-
tion of the STEMmunication seminar
encourages Fellows to candidly dis-
cuss their experiences, presenting an
opportunity for meaningful reection,
as discussed next. Faculty also share
experiences that inform planning for
upcoming club activities and contrib-
ute to discussions on different modes
of STEM communication.
Additionally, the Fellows share tips
for outreach and support each other as
they navigate the challenges of their
assignments in their respective clubs.
Our recognition of the importance
of peer support arises in part from
interviews with and reections by the
initial 2015–2016 cohort of Fellows,
who identied the value of this peer
interaction.
In addition to faculty and peer sup-
port throughout the STEMmunication
seminar, every team is observed each
semester by a faculty mentor, followed
with suggestions to enhance future ac-
tivities and growth. In-class support is
also given by the lead teachers at each
partner school.
Reection
At the outset of the STEM CLUS-
TERS project, written reections
and semistructured interviews were
viewed as research data. As the proj-
ect progressed, the value of reection
to the Fellows became more appar-
ent. We now recognize these activi-
ties as integral components of learn-
ing and a key driver of their growth.
Through written reections linked to
the STEMmunication seminar and
1-hour interviews each semester, Fel-
lows are asked to reect on their par-
ticipation, particularly their perceived
successes and challenges in engaging
middle/high school students. Fellows
are also asked to share their views on
STEM and STEM communication in
the context of their clubs and overall
experiences in the project.
Introspective teaching and learn-
ing has been shown to be valuable in
a number of settings. The process of
critically assessing one’s teaching is
a central part of reective pedagogy
(Zeichner & Liston, 2013), as it al-
lows educators to disentangle their
perspectives and contexts from those
of their students (Brookeld, 1995).
Tanner (2012) noted that reec-
tive journals are an effective method
to build metacognitive awareness in
students, as is awareness of diverse
learning strategies (Pintrich, 2002;
Zohar & David, 2009). Reflecting
on how to best promote learning in
their clubs, explicitly writing and
verbalizing their observations on
teaching/learning strategies as well as
problem-solving approaches, served
as drivers of metacognitive growth
in the Fellows.
Theoretical foundations
We contend that learning occurs
through social participation (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Sfard, 1998; Vygotsky,
1978) as well as through the acquisi-

77Vol. 47, No. 6, 2018
tion of knowledge. The rich type of
participation necessary for develop-
ing meaningful epistemologies (Elby
& A-Sep Hammer, 2001) and mental
models (Redish, 1994) occurs as indi-
viduals engage within communities of
practice. Further, expertise develops
as participants become more involved
in that community (Chi, 2006; Lave &
Wenger, 1991) and are doing so in a
meaningful way. Therefore, learning
occurs through participation, and be-
ing a participant refers to “a more en-
compassing process of being active in
social communities and constructing
identities in relation to those commu-
nities” (Wenger, 1998, p. 4). Figure 1
depicts our conceptual model.
Content knowledge and communi-
cation skills are related to participa-
tion in these communities, whereby
Fellows’ interactions augment their
abilities to understand and convey
information in ways that support
meaning-making processes at mul-
tiple levels. Metacognition, though a
decidedly more cognitive construct, is
shaped and developed as Fellows work
with others, observe problem-solving
strategies, and make explicit their own
contributions to a group (Pintrich,
Marx, & A-Sum, 1993; Pintrich,
Wolters, & Baxter, 2000; Schraw &
Moshman, 1995). Identity is shaped by
participation that involves understand-
ing the self in relation to individual and
collective norms within communities
of practice (Handley et al., 2006). We
situate Fellows’ identity in relation to
their views of STEM and perceived
competencies as a future STEM pro-
fessional. Collectively, these shared
outcomes deepen our understanding of
diverse, interdependent communities
and the learners within them (Table 2).
Shared outcomes
Each STEM club is conceptualized
as a case, and all clubs and Fellows
together comprise a set of interre-
lated cases. Our case study approach
is meant to situate the Fellows within
distinct communities of practice,
within contexts, and along varied di-
mensions of learning.
A diverse collection of undergradu-
ate students participated in the CSC
program during Year 1 (Table 2). This
includes STEM majors with prior de-
grees in the arts, a U.S. Navy veteran,
a retired reghter, and a majority
(8 out of 13) of women representing
a range of ethnicities. It has been
documented that underrepresented
graduate students are overrepresented
in outreach programs (Thiry, Laursen,
& Liston 2007); our cohort of Fellows
provides some evidence that this may
also be the case for undergraduate
students.
In the discussion of study outcomes
that follows, we focus on the 11 un-
dergraduate Fellows who participated
for the entire year. All names given
below are aliases. Multiple sources of
data were gathered from each Fellow
including a personal biosketch, which
provided valuable insights into each
Fellow’s background and prior experi-
ences; two semistructured interviews;
and monthly reections. Interviews
and reective prompts included ques-
tions related to content knowledge,
communication skills, metacognition,
and identity.
Each member of the research team
completed an independent reading
and analysis of all data related to
each Fellow within the context of
their STEM club. Emergent patterns
in the data were identified using
open coding in an iterative process
of inductive analysis that aligned
with the outreach model and shared
outcomes of content knowledge, com-
munication skills, metacognition, and
identity (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Communities of practice with shared outcomes from our outreach
model.

78
Journal of College Science Teaching
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
Evidence of shared outcomes:
YIA
In this section, we present evidence
for some of the shared outcomes
mentioned in Figure 1 through the
case of YIA. We highlight YIA as the
Fellows provide a good snapshot of
the breadth of students and academic
majors involved in the CSC program.
The shared outcomes described next,
while arising at YIA, are also indica-
tive of the experiences and growth re-
ported by Fellows across all ve clubs
(Table 3).
The club at YIA is part of the TSA,
which is a national student organization
that aims to foster “personal growth,
leadership and opportunities in STEM”
(http://www.tsaweb.org/Our-Mission)
through sponsorship of middle and high
school competitions.
YIA is the International Baccalau-
reate (IB) school for its home school
district, and all students are expected
to adhere to the strict academic stan-
dards of the IB program. The school’s
diversity and high percentage of stu-
dents on free and reduced lunch are
reective of demographics in the dis-
trict. Recognized as standouts at their
feeder schools, some YIA students
excel and move on to top colleges after
graduation. At the same time, a large
proportion of the students struggle with
poverty and other challenges, which
contribute to issues with engagement
and completion of academic require-
ments.
Fellows visited 8th- and 10th-grade
technology classes at YIA for one
90-minute block each week to help
students prepare for the TSA state
tournament. Activities included circuit
design using conductive ink pens, a
technology-themed student debate,
and a “60-minute maker challenge,”
in which students were given basic
materials and a list of constraints and
were asked to use their design skills to
complete a simple task in limited time.
The unique contexts at YIA pre-
sented a challenge for the Fellows
there: How best to engage a diverse
group of students in the context of a
yearlong TSA preparation process?
Although the TSA chapter at YIA did
not send any competitors to the 2016
state tournament, the groundwork
laid by the 2015 Fellows resulted in a
healthy group of 15–20 competitors in
the 2017 TSA state tournament.
YIA STEM Fellows
The following biographical descrip-
tions are informed by Fellows’ bio-
sketches, reections, and interviews.
Karl is a second-year mechanical
engineering major who studied engi-
neering because of his successes in
mathematics through high school. In
his application for the CSC program,
he expressed great enthusiasm about
the opportunity to work with students
and share his love of STEM.
Sandra is in her second year of col-
lege after serving 4 years as a passive
sonar technician in the U.S. Navy. A
prebioengineering major, she was still
exploring other options in STEM at the
start of the program. In particular, she
expressed possible interest in teaching
mathematics after graduation, although
she ultimately decided to study engi-
neering by the end of her year in the
CSC program.
Marcus is an electrical engineering
major one year away from graduation.
He is broadly interested in STEM and
was a TSA participant in high school.
He worked for 10 years as a reghter
until an injury forced his retirement,
and he now works part-time as an
emergency medical technician. Marcus
speaks passionately about his desire to
promote equity across STEM and was
motivated to apply to the program by
his young daughter. It is his hope that
he can be part of a STEM community
where she will have the same opportuni-
ties he has had.
Colleen is in her final year as a
double major in economics and psy-
chology. She has extensive coursework
TABLE 2
Summary data for undergraduate Outreach Fellows in 2015–2016.
School Name STEM Major Gender Ethnicity
Gold Meadow
High School
(GMHS)
Delilah
Nora
Biology
Math/Bio
Female
Female
Hispanic
White
Young
International
Academy (YIA)
Sandra
Karl
Marcus
Colleen
Bioengineering
Mech. Eng.
Elec. Eng.
Psych/Econ
Female
Male
Male
Female
White
Asian Am.
White
White
Larimer High
School
(LHS)
Kelly
Aaron*
Joel*
Math
Bioengineering
Mech. Eng.
Female
Male
Male
Hispanic
White
Hispanic
Eastern
Leadership
Academy (ELA)
Burt
Allison
Math/Bio/Psych/English
Biology
Male
Female
White
White
Western Regional
High School
(WRHS)
Sharon
Lorna
Mech. Eng.
Mech. Eng.
Female
Female
Black
White
*Participated for one semester.

79Vol. 47, No. 6, 2018
in biology and served as the president
of the university’s Biology Club where
she had her rst outreach experience
through dissection demonstrations at
local schools.
Shared outcomes: Content
knowledge
To best attract a breadth of students,
the YIA team designed their club to
highlight ideas from across STEM.
Sandra reported that “I am learning a
lot more about different subjects and
am enjoying it.” Karl expressed how
he benetted from the club’s breadth:
Every week we do something
different. Whether it’s demos,
or different projects, I always
take something away from them.
Whether it’s learning a small detail
or just reinforcing topics I’ve
learned, working with the students
helps me better understand STEM.
Marcus related how preparing
for students’ detailed and insightful
questions forced him to conceptualize
content at a deeper level and sensitized
him to the equal importance of general-
ized as well as detailed knowledge in
STEM:
How am I going to explain this to
someone who hasn’t had calculus?
And it’s that explaining, whether
you want to call it translating or
making it accessible or whatever,
that’s caused me to go back and
learn more.
Sandra noted that she “spent quite a
few hours” on preparatory research and
pointed out that her preparation time
was benecial, stating, “By doing this
research I end up learning a lot about the
topic that I didn’t know before.” Col-
leen, the team’s only nonengineer, had
the opportunity to broaden her horizons
through the TSA’s focus on technology.
As an example, she stated that “I don’t
know a single thing about circuitry . . .
[although] I do now, because I had to
learn it to teach it.”
Shared outcomes:
Communication skills
Activity planning and interactions
with students shaped Fellows’ com-
munication skills. Karl directly attrib-
uted this growth to his experiences
with his club and opined “This growth
in communication skills is difcult to
occur naturally because if you are not
in a position where you have to teach
others, it won’t happen.”
Fellows devised ways to explain
complex topics to middle or high
school students, which impacted their
overall communication skills. Karl
stated this most directly when he
wrote, “Working with younger stu-
dents every week and trying to convey
science topics in order to spread the
ideas that revolve around STEM was a
bit challenging at times, but I was able
to gain a lot from it”
Sandra often used an interesting
two-stage process. After building her
own content base, she would look to
other resources as she prepared to com-
municate: “[After reviewing resources
TABLE 3
Additional evidence of shared outcomes.
Outcome Examples
Content
knowledge
“The xes required during the build [of the hydrogen car] have exposed me to engineering techniques I
have not yet encountered.” —Lorna
“Without CSC, I might not have brushed up on principals of chemistry and physics, nor would I have learnt
some basic properties and tools at the disposal of engineering students and professionals.” —Nora
Communication “You have to start with foundational things. You cannot assume the audience or the students know too
much. Not everybody knows what everybody knows.” —Kelly
“By eectively communicating their work to the public, scientists (or mathematicians, engineers, etc.) can
awaken within their audience the same appreciation of and curiosity toward the natural world, providing
not only intellectual enrichment but a greater appreciation for the culture of discovery.” —Burt
“I think many people in the public have interest in learning about STEM but it may seem inaccessible to
them due to the terminology that can be used. I think . . . it’s important to nd ways to approach STEM
communication in the least technical way.” —Sharon
Metacognition “[We] did a lot more experiments when students would sometimes have to reason a lot more through what
they were doing and that sometimes you have to fail. This was important for the students to know as well
as a good reminder for me.” —Delilah
Identity “That’s really what a lot of it is when you break it down. Engineering’s trying to solve a problem, math’s
trying to solve a problem, biology’s trying to gure out how nature solved a problem, technology’s trying
to make less problems . . . it all ties in there.” —Allison

80
Journal of College Science Teaching
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
and] taking notes of key points . . . I
went on to websites aimed at children
to see how they attempted to teach
the subject to younger students and
found good examples that they could
understand.”
Colleen took the lead on a pre-
sentation and activity about DNA,
which led to a number of deep and
interesting questions from the club
members. Reecting on this process,
she shared an opinion widely held by
many Fellows—that communicating
STEM should include an emphasis on
revealing how content is applicable in
the “real world.” She stated that “ef-
fective communication [is] creating
a working understanding of STEM
concepts and how to apply them.”
Signicantly, we noticed an emerg-
ing motivation from Fellows to pro-
mote better STEM communication
in our society, specically breaking
down the walls between the STEM
community and the broader public.
Marcus stated, “My colleagues tend
to talk about ‘translating’ when speak-
ing with the public. . . . We must not
only translate, we must become more
approachable.”
Sandra, in recognizing the impor-
tance of sharing STEM with the pub-
lic, states: “If scientists and other pro-
fessionals don’t communicate what
they are doing, the public doesn’t get
a say in anything that impacts them.”
Shared outcomes:
Metacognition
Evidence of metacognitive growth
arose from both Fellows’ need to
learn new knowledge to bring to
their clubs and their reections and
observations of how their students’
learning mirrored or otherwise inu-
enced their own. For instance, Sandra
explained how her efforts to nd dif-
ferent sources of information for her
club changed how she prepared for
her own classes: “I nd that I learn
a lot better by using all kinds of re-
sources and not just by the lectures
in class and the textbook.” She also
spoke about difculties in her physics
coursework and her struggles to grasp
physics concepts. However, she re-
ported in the fall that “[Relating phys-
ics concepts to club students] ends up
helping me in [physics] class to un-
derstand the equations and conceptual
ideas,” and that “relating the physics
concepts . . . to everyday things actu-
ally helps me.”
Marcus observed that he was pro-
cessing material in his own classes
differently and stated:
Prior to joining the project, I read
the text, took my class notes, and
digested the material by sum-
marizing the material. In short, I
would ask myself: “How would
I teach this to college students?”
Now, I ask myself “how would I
teach this to my 10th graders?”
This led him to an important con-
clusion about how he might support
his own learning:
Trying to digest material prepared
for questions that hit more at the
basics of the topic is far better (for
me at least) than trying to synthe-
size a topic at the “50,000 foot”
level that we, as college students,
tend to do.
Problem solving is often viewed
as a metacognitive skill enabling
learners to apply different types of
knowledge in unfamiliar contexts
(Kuhn & Dean, 2004; Shraw, Crippen,
& Hartley, 2006). Karl articulated his
own understanding of breaking down
a problem sequentially as he assists
students in the club: “First off, you’ve
got to think analytically. Think step by
step, see how things work, and that’s
the big thing about problem solving. I
think you need to have a strong base
of content knowledge before you can
approach problem solving.”
Identity as a future STEM
professional
Feeling competent in the role of a
STEM professional is not only about
cognitive attributes, such as content
knowledge, it is also about having a
set of skills to learn and maneuver
successfully in STEM. As a com-
munity of practice, the CSC program
experience presented an opportunity
for Fellows to assess their views
of STEM and their role as future
STEM professionals. Given the link
between identity and the success-
ful retention of STEM majors from
underrepresented groups (cf. Lane,
2016), this outcome may be particu-
larly critical for future cohorts that
reect the diversity demonstrated in
Table 2.
A recurring theme was a view of
STEM that is interdisciplinary, yet
bounded by perceptions of self in
relation to discipline-specific com-
petencies. For Sandra, implementing
physics-heavy activities proved espe-
cially challenging despite her broad
view of STEM and the fact that she
was concurrently taking her second
undergraduate physics course. She de-
scribed this scenario during a demon-
stration on angular momentum using
trebuchets: “I didn’t feel comfortable
teaching it. It turned out Marcus actu-
ally knew a whole lot, so he kind of
took over.”
In this case, Sandra relied on but
also deferred to, the expertise of her
peers. This was a common occurrence
across the YIA club and reects the
constraints and affordances of hav-
ing a discipline-specic identity in
STEM. Colleen described her own

81Vol. 47, No. 6, 2018
competencies similarly in relation
to the DNA activity: “Since I’m the
biologist, I chose to do a DNA ex-
traction.” Across multiple instances,
Fellows’ self-identied their expertise
and sense of belonging to one or more
STEM disciplines. Marcus described
in an interview how one particular
experience has a profound impact on
his identity as an engineer: “[A quiet,
reserved student] came up afterwards
and asked what exactly a short circuit
was . . . [To] be able to translate that
into something that he understood was
probably the rst time I’ve ever felt
like an engineer.”
Evidence of shared outcomes
across other clubs
Evidence of growth and shared out-
comes were present across Fellows
in other clubs in CSC program. Ad-
ditional examples are provided in
Table 3.
Conclusions and future work
We have presented evidence that
outreach experiences can provide
authentic learning opportunities not
only for K–12 students, but also
for those organizing the outreach
activities. Beyond the outcomes
described here, Fellows described
(a) the importance of collaboration
and communication in STEM, (b)
the need for knowledge outside their
major areas of expertise, and (c) the
need to persevere through challenges
as a STEM student and future
professional. In short, participation in
the CSC program provided insights
into the realities of STEM for these
Fellows, bringing their professional
futures into clear focus.
Given our diverse cohort of Fel-
lows and their learning outcomes in
the CSC program, we are interested
in further exploring how outreach
experiences might encourage broader
participation by undergraduates in
STEM. We also believe that the
Fellows provide some interesting
insights into the experiences, positive
and negative, that are part of being
an undergraduate STEM major and
that may inform our community’s
approach to campus- and classroom-
based educational experiences.
In our future work, we plan to trans-
fer the CSC program model to other
outreach contexts to determine if the
observed impacts can be replicated.
Outreach models are often imple-
mented without dissemination, and
we look forward to discussions about
how our model aligns with those of our
colleagues across STEM education. ■
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by NSF
grant #1504535 (STEM CLUSTERS)
through the Improving Undergraduate
Science Education (IUSE) program.
References
Abernathy, T. V., & Vineyard, R. N.
(2001). Academic competitions in
science: What are the rewards for
students? The Clearing House, 74,
269–276.
Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J.
(2010). Is science me? High school
students’ identities, participation and
aspirations in science, engineering,
and medicine. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47, 564–582.
Brookeld, S. (1995). The getting of
wisdom: What critically reective
teaching is and why it’s important.
In Becoming a critically reective
teacher (pp. 1–28). San Francisco,
CA: Joseey-Bass.
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to
the study of experts’ characteristics.
In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J.
Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of expertise
and expert performance (pp. 21–30).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Chubin, D., Donaldson, K., Olds, B.,
& Fleming, L. (2008). Educating
generation net—Can US engineering
woo and win the competition for
talent? Journal of Engineering
Education, 97, 245–257.
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008).
Examining the academic success of
Latino students in science, technology
engineering and mathematics (STEM)
majors. Journal of College Student
Development, 49, 285–300.
Elby, A., & A-Sep Hammer, D. D.
(2001). On the substance of a
sophisticated epistemology. Science
Education, 85, 554–567.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R.,
& Clark, T. (2006). Within and
beyond communities of practice:
Making sense of learning through
participation, identity and practice.
Journal of Management Studies, 43,
641–653.
Harper, S. R., & Newman, C. B. (Eds.).
(2010). Students of color in STEM.
New Directions for Institutional
Research (No. 148). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hayden, K., Ouyang, Y., Scinski, L.,
Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T.
(2011). Increasing student interest
and attitudes in STEM: Professional
development and activities to engage
and inspire learners. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 11, 47–69.
Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge
between cognitive psychology and
educational practice. Theory into
Practice, 43, 268–273.
Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic
and social integration: Understanding
the impact of a STEM enrichment
program on the retention and degree
attainment of underrepresented
students. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 15(3), ar39.

82
Journal of College Science Teaching
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
Laursen, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf,
J. (2007). What good is a scientist in
the classroom? Participant outcomes
and program design features for
a short-duration science outreach
intervention in K–12 classrooms.
CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6,
49–64.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated
learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
McGee-Brown, M., Martin, C., Monsaas,
J., & Stombler, M. (2003, March).
What scientists do: Science Olympiad
enhancing science inquiry through
student collaboration, problem
solving, and creativity. Paper
presented at the annual conference
of the National Science Teachers
Association, Philadelphia, PA.
National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, and
Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising
above the gathering storm: Energizing
and employing America for a brighter
economic future. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2010).
Rising above the gathering storm,
Revisited: Rapidly approaching
Category 5. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation, National
Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities,
and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering: 2017
(Special Report NSF 17-310).
Arlington, VA: Author. Available at
www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of
metacognitive knowledge in learning,
teaching, and assessing. Theory into
practice, 41, 219–225.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & A-Sum,
R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual
change: The role of motivational
beliefs and classroom contextual
factors in the process of conceptual
change. Review of Educational
Research, 63, 167–199.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter,
G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition
and self-regulated learning. In G.
Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in
the measurement of metacognition.
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements.
President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology. (2012).
Engage to excel: Producing one
million additional college graduates
with degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
Washington, DC: White House.
Redish, E. F. (1994). Implications of
cognitive studies for teaching physics.
American Journal of Physics, 62,
796–803.
Resources. (2017). Community STEM
clubs. Denver, CO: University
of Colorado Denver. Retrieved
from http://www.math.ucdenver.
edu/~stemclubs/2016/home.php
Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and
science fair competitions: Effects on
post-secondary matriculation. Journal
of STEM Education: Innovations and
Research, 14(1), 5.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995).
Metacognitive theories. Educational
Psychology Review, 7, 351–371.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for
learning and the dangers of choosing
just one. Educational Researcher,
27(2), 4–13.
Stine, D. D., & Matthews, C. M.
(2009). The U.S. science and
technology workforce (Federal
publication 644). Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/
key_workplace/644
Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student
metacognition. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 11, 113–120.
Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Liston,
C. (2007). Valuing teaching in the
academy: Why are underrepresented
graduate students overrepresented in
teaching and outreach? Journal of
Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 13, 391–419.
von Winterfeldt, D. (2013). Bridging
the gap between science and
decision making. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, USA,
110 (Suppl. 3), 14055–14061.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating
science: A review of the literature.
Science Communication, 23, 164–193.
Wenger, E. C. (1998). Communities
of practice: Learning, meaning,
and identity. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2013).
Reective teaching: An introduction
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2009). Paving
a clear path in a thick forest: A
conceptual analysis of a metacognitive
component. Metacognition and
Learning, 4, 177–195.
Michael Ferrara is an associate professor
in the Mathematical and Statistical Sci-
ences Department, Robert Talbot is an
assistant professor in the School of Edu-
cation and Human Development, Hill-
ary Mason (hillary.mason@ucdenver.
edu) is a PhD candidate in the School of
Education and Human Development,
Bryan Wee is an associate professor in
the Department of Geography and En-
vironmental Sciences, Ronald Rorrer is
an associate professor in the Mechanical
Engineering Department, Michael Ja-
cobson is a professor in the Mathematical
and Statistical Sciences Department, and
Doug Gallagher is an instructor in the
Mechanical Engineering Department, all
at the University of Colorado Denver.