Evaluation to Improve a High School Summer Science Outreach Program †
-
Authors:
Katherine B. Chiappinelli1,2,‡,*,
Britney L. Moss1,3,‡,
Devjanee Swain Lenz1,4,5,‡,
Natasha A. Tonge1,6,
Adam Joyce1,4,
Glen E. Holt7,
Leslie Edmonds Holt7,
Thomas A. Woolsey1,8
-
Published 04 May 2016
- ©2016 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
-
[open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.
-
Supplemental materials available at
http://asmscience.org/jmbe - *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 733 North Broadway, Suite G49, Baltimore, MD 21205-2196. Phone: 410-955-8506. Fax: 410-614-9884. E-mail: [email protected].
-
‡ These authors contributed equally to the work.
Abstract:
The goal of the Young Scientist Program (YSP) at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSM) is to broaden science literacy and recruit talent for the scientific future. In particular, YSP seeks to expose underrepresented minority high school students from St. Louis public schools (SLPS) to a wide variety of careers in the sciences. The centerpiece of YSP, the Summer Focus Program (SFP), is a nine-week, intensive research experience for competitively chosen rising high school seniors (Scholars). Scholars are paired with volunteer graduate student, medical student, or postdoctoral fellow mentors who are active members of the practicing scientific community and serve as guides and exemplars of scientific careers. The SFP seeks to increase the number of underrepresented minority students pursuing STEM undergraduate degrees by making the Scholars more comfortable with science and science literacy. The data presented here provide results of the objective, quick, and simple methods developed by YSP to assess the efficacy of the SFP from 2006 to 2013. We demonstrate that the SFP successfully used formative evaluation to continuously improve the various activities within the SFP over the course of several years and in turn enhance student experiences within the SFP. Additionally we show that the SFP effectively broadened confidence in science literacy among participating high school students and successfully graduated a high percentage of students who went on to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at the undergraduate level.
References & Citations
Supplemental Material
-
Appendix 1: End-of-summer survey
Appendix 2: Research boot camp assessment
-
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
-
PDF
217.53 Kb
-
PDF
-

Article metrics loading...
Abstract:
The goal of the Young Scientist Program (YSP) at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis (WUSM) is to broaden science literacy and recruit talent for the scientific future. In particular, YSP seeks to expose underrepresented minority high school students from St. Louis public schools (SLPS) to a wide variety of careers in the sciences. The centerpiece of YSP, the Summer Focus Program (SFP), is a nine-week, intensive research experience for competitively chosen rising high school seniors (Scholars). Scholars are paired with volunteer graduate student, medical student, or postdoctoral fellow mentors who are active members of the practicing scientific community and serve as guides and exemplars of scientific careers. The SFP seeks to increase the number of underrepresented minority students pursuing STEM undergraduate degrees by making the Scholars more comfortable with science and science literacy. The data presented here provide results of the objective, quick, and simple methods developed by YSP to assess the efficacy of the SFP from 2006 to 2013. We demonstrate that the SFP successfully used formative evaluation to continuously improve the various activities within the SFP over the course of several years and in turn enhance student experiences within the SFP. Additionally we show that the SFP effectively broadened confidence in science literacy among participating high school students and successfully graduated a high percentage of students who went on to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at the undergraduate level.

Full text loading...
Author and Article Information
-
Published 04 May 2016
- ©2016 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
-
[open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.
-
Supplemental materials available at
http://asmscience.org/jmbe - *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 733 North Broadway, Suite G49, Baltimore, MD 21205-2196. Phone: 410-955-8506. Fax: 410-614-9884. E-mail: [email protected].
-
‡ These authors contributed equally to the work.
Figures
A. Evaluation Model. Strategy to improve mission-driven outcomes of YSP through quick and simple evaluation mechanisms. Bullet points demonstrate how the model was utilized to improve the Science Communication Course (SCC). B. Types and frequency of evaluations conducted and participants for each.

Click to view
FIGURE 1
A. Evaluation Model. Strategy to improve mission-driven outcomes of YSP through quick and simple evaluation mechanisms. Bullet points demonstrate how the model was utilized to improve the Science Communication Course (SCC). B. Types and frequency of evaluations conducted and participants for each.
SFP Demographics. A. Ethnicities of SFP Scholars. Self-reported ethnicities of Scholars from 1999 to 2013. Definitions of ethnicities are from The Common Application. B. Genders of SFP Scholars. Self-reported genders of Scholars from 1999 to 2013. SFP = summer focus program.

Click to view
FIGURE 2
SFP Demographics. A. Ethnicities of SFP Scholars. Self-reported ethnicities of Scholars from 1999 to 2013. Definitions of ethnicities are from The Common Application. B. Genders of SFP Scholars. Self-reported genders of Scholars from 1999 to 2013. SFP = summer focus program.
Assessment of BC. SFP Scholars completed survey questions about their Research Boot Camp (BC) experience. The percentage of Scholars selecting each answer is shown on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Scholar responses to the question, “How useful was BC?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). B. Scholar responses to the question, “Was the BC too long, too short, or just the right length?”, evaluated in the new end-of-BC survey (2009–2011). C. Scholar responses to the question, “Did you use the techniques you learned in BC in your research lab?”, implemented 2012–2013. BC = boot camp; SFP = summer focus program.

Click to view
FIGURE 3
Assessment of BC. SFP Scholars completed survey questions about their Research Boot Camp (BC) experience. The percentage of Scholars selecting each answer is shown on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Scholar responses to the question, “How useful was BC?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). B. Scholar responses to the question, “Was the BC too long, too short, or just the right length?”, evaluated in the new end-of-BC survey (2009–2011). C. Scholar responses to the question, “Did you use the techniques you learned in BC in your research lab?”, implemented 2012–2013. BC = boot camp; SFP = summer focus program.
Assessment of scientific literacy in the SCC. SFP Scholars answered survey questions about their SCC experience. The percentage of Scholars selecting each answer is plotted in bars on the y-axis; response rate for each year is plotted as dots on the right-hand y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, with 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Scholar responses to the question, “How well do you feel you are able to understand scientific articles?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). B. Scholar responses to the statement, “The science communication course improved my critical reading and evaluation skills,” evaluated in the retrospective survey (2006–2010). SCC = science communication course; SFP = summer focus program.

Click to view
FIGURE 4
Assessment of scientific literacy in the SCC. SFP Scholars answered survey questions about their SCC experience. The percentage of Scholars selecting each answer is plotted in bars on the y-axis; response rate for each year is plotted as dots on the right-hand y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, with 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Scholar responses to the question, “How well do you feel you are able to understand scientific articles?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). B. Scholar responses to the statement, “The science communication course improved my critical reading and evaluation skills,” evaluated in the retrospective survey (2006–2010). SCC = science communication course; SFP = summer focus program.
Assessment of scientific communication in the SCC. SFP Scholars’ answers to survey questions about their SCC experience. Percentage of Scholars selecting each answer (bars) on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Student responses to the question, “How comfortable do you feel explaining your laboratory results to others?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2009–2013). B. Percentage of students who plan to enter science fairs or competitions per year, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). SCC = science communication course; SFP = summer focus program.

Click to view
FIGURE 5
Assessment of scientific communication in the SCC. SFP Scholars’ answers to survey questions about their SCC experience. Percentage of Scholars selecting each answer (bars) on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Student responses to the question, “How comfortable do you feel explaining your laboratory results to others?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2009–2013). B. Percentage of students who plan to enter science fairs or competitions per year, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). SCC = science communication course; SFP = summer focus program.
Assessment of long-term impact of the SCC. SFP Scholars’ answers to survey questions about their SCC experience. Percentage of Scholars selecting each answer (bars) on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. Scholar responses to the question, “How useful was the SCC?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). SCC = science communication course; SFP = summer focus program.

Click to view
FIGURE 6
Assessment of long-term impact of the SCC. SFP Scholars’ answers to survey questions about their SCC experience. Percentage of Scholars selecting each answer (bars) on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. Scholar responses to the question, “How useful was the SCC?”, evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2013). SCC = science communication course; SFP = summer focus program.
Assessment of the SFP by Volunteers (Mentors and Tutors). SFP Volunteers’ (Mentors’ and Tutors’) answers to survey questions about their SCC experience. Percentage of Mentors/Tutors selecting each answer (bars) on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Responses to the statement, “Rate the usefulness of the SFP to you as a scientist/teacher,” evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2011). B. Responses to the statement, “Rate the usefulness of the SFP to your ability to communicate science,” evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2009–2011). SFP = summer focus program; SCC = science communication course.

Click to view
FIGURE 7
Assessment of the SFP by Volunteers (Mentors and Tutors). SFP Volunteers’ (Mentors’ and Tutors’) answers to survey questions about their SCC experience. Percentage of Mentors/Tutors selecting each answer (bars) on the y-axis. Questions were ranked on a five-point scale, 1 being the most negative and 5 the most positive. A. Responses to the statement, “Rate the usefulness of the SFP to you as a scientist/teacher,” evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2007–2011). B. Responses to the statement, “Rate the usefulness of the SFP to your ability to communicate science,” evaluated in the end-of-summer survey (2009–2011). SFP = summer focus program; SCC = science communication course.