The Effect of an Informal Science Intervention on Middle School Girls' Science Affinities

International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

The effect of an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science affinities

Brandy L. Todd & Keith Zvoch

To cite this article: Brandy L. Todd & Keith Zvoch (2018): The effect of an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science affinities, International Journal of Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1534022 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1534022

Published online: 13 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 68

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1534022

The eﬀect of an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science aﬃnities Brandy L. Todd a and Keith Zvoch b aOregon Center for Optical, Molecular, and Quantum Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA; bEducational Methodology, Policy and Leadership, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY This study investigates the impact of an informal science outreach Received 27 September 2017 programme built around theories of identity formation and self- Accepted 5 October 2018 efficacy on middle school girls’ science affinities. A lottery-based, KEYWORDS randomised control trial was used to identify programme effects ffi ffi Informal science education; on four science a nity outcomes: science interests, e cacy with gender disparities in STEM; science, science attitudes, and science identity. A multivariate science identities; science analysis of variance demonstrated that programme participants efficacy; intervention scored higher than their control group peers on weighted composite of post-programme affinity indicators. These results suggest that informal science education may offer a venue through which to support the formation of science identities and efficacy in girls. Implications for including psychosocial support elements into science classroom pedagogy and science education standards are discussed.

The underrepresentation of women and minorities in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has been characterised as an intractable problem (Bayer Corporation, 2010; Corbett & Hill, 2015; Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010). Despite 30 years of attention, women have yet to achieve educational and career parity with their male counterparts (Corbett & Hill, 2015; Kelly, 1981; Saraga & Griﬃths, 1981;Xu,2008). The lack of progress is particularly problematic given that women now outnumber men in college enrolment (United States Census Bureau, 2011a) and in degrees earned (United States Census Bureau, 2011b). The overall increase of women in higher education, however, has not led to the equal inclusion of women in the STEM disciplines and careers (Burning Glass, 2014; Minnesota State Colleges and Univer- sities, 2015; National Science Board, 2014a). Women earn between 21% and 33% of the advanced degrees awarded in the ﬁelds of engineering, computer science, mathematics, and the physical sciences and yet comprise only 10–30% of advanced career job holders (senior scientists, tenure-track faculty). The disproportional representation holds true even in the biological sciences, where women earn 53% of advanced degrees but still do not exceed 30% of advanced career positions (National Science Board, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; National Science Foundation, 2011a, 2011b).

CONTACT Brandy L. Todd [email protected] Oregon Center for Optical, Molecular, and Quantum Science, University of Oregon, Eugene 97403-1274, OR, USA © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH

The study presented in this paper was conducted in the United States, and the disparity information presented above represents US data. However, international studies and reports show that only 20% of nations have achieved gender parity in STEM careers (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2014), and globally, women comprise 28% of STEM workers. Gender parity of women in the United States is similar to that of Western Euro- pean and North American nations (19–50% with most nations around 30%). Latin America (44%) and Central Asia (47%) have higher female representation in STEM on average, but the numbers vary widely between nations in these regions (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2014). The underrepresentation of women in STEM education and careers has been attributed to the ‘leaky pipeline’ phenomenon, the disparately large, ongoing attrition of women from STEM education and careers. Although the steady loss of women from the STEM pipeline is well-documented (Hill et al., 2010) and a myriad of explanations have been offered to account for the disproportionately lower number of women in STEM (Blicken- staff, 2005; Brotman & Moore, 2008), less is known about what constitutes effective methods for increasing women’s early interest and persistence in STEM. The need for additional investigation of approaches designed to foster continued STEM participation provided the motivation for this study. In the following, the design, implementation, and impact of an informal science outreach programme on middle school girls’ science affinities is presented.

Historical perspectives on STEM gender disparities Over the past several decades, researchers have offered a number of explanations for the chronic underrepresentation of women in STEM education and careers. In the 1970s and 1980s, the bulk of the research focused on deficit theories of gender disparities. These studies examined girls’ access to and preparation for STEM careers. Researchers found science textbooks that rarely depicted girls (Walford, 1981), a lack of female science role models (Evans, Whigham, & Wang, 1995), and poor achievement among girls in math and science (Eccles, Adler, & Meece, 1984). Responses to these deficits focused on fixing girls by providing them greater access to science education and improving achievement. Please note, that the term ‘fixing’ is used here to indicate the tenor of early interventions, not to endorse the idea that girls, rather than systems, need correction. The next wave of research focused on biased curriculum and pedagogy that failed to take into account girls preferred ways of learning (Brotman & Moore, 2008; Kelly, 1981; Spear, 1987; Zohar & Bronshtein, 2005). This wave focused on fixing teaching by developing gender inclusive curriculum (Harding, 1991) that focused on depth over breadth learning (Tai & Sadler, 2001), and examined teachers attitudes and approaches to teaching that could foster, or hinder, gender inclusivity (Zohar & Bronshtein, 2005). A third wave of research about girls in STEM turned attention to fixing the culture of science by exposing the inherently masculine worldview of science disciplines. Research in this area employed feminist critiques of scientific culture such as standpoint theory (Harding, 1991), situated knowledge (Haraway, 1991), and feminist empiricism (Longino, 1990). These researchers argued that the natural sciences, like any other discipline are socially constructed and built on assumptions that are rooted in exclusionary white, male, middle class values (Gilbert, 2001). By extension, the way to increase INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3 gender diversity in STEM would need to involve changing the culture of science by chal- lenging assumptions, revealing hidden biases, and confronting the sources of disparities. More recent thinking about gender disparities in STEM is focused on understanding identities in learners. Whereas previous modes of thinking about disparities in STEM were monolithic, looking at each gender as a unified group, research focusing on identity examines the nuance and diversity within the genders, and how individuals go about developing identities as scientists (Archer et al., 2012; Brickhouse, 2001; Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz, 2000; Carlone, Johnson, & Scott, 2015; Holmegaard, Madsen, & Ulrik- sen, 2014; Tan, Calabrese Barton, Kang, & O’Neill, 2013). Studies in this area look at the many facets of identity (gender, race/ethnicity, social class, vocation) and how girls often struggle to build identities as scientists (Brickhouse et al., 2000; Carlone et al., 2015). Work on the identity theme has traditionally focused on developing theory about how girls do, or do not construct science identities, primarily using qualitative studies of girls in science classrooms (Brickhouse et al., 2000; Carlone et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2013). Few researchers have designed studies to specifically investigate whether gender appropriate science interventions can contribute to the identity building process (Haussler & Hoffman, 2002; Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler, & Shanahan, 2010; MacDonald, 2000). Fewer still have examined if informal science education can serve as a vehicle for helping girls and women develop strong science identities (Hughes, Nzekwe, & Molyneaux, 2013; Todd, 2015; Todd & Zvoch, 2017). This study seeks to help fill the gap by evaluating whether an active informal science intervention can positively impact aspects of middle school girls’ science identity formation.

Conceptual framework The design of the science outreach intervention for middle school girls (see below) was informed by the Erikson (1968) school of identity formation, the simplified identity formation theory (SIFT) developed by Côté and Levine (2002), and Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997b). In his seminal work, Erikson (1968)defined identity formation as a cyclical progression of building interest and integrating both positive and negative feedback from exterior sources to develop a sense of self and belonging. Though this process is an internal one, the role of external forces – family, peers, mentors, authority figures – in providing positive and negative feedback is crucial (Files, Blair, Mayer, & Ko, 2008 ; Kanter, 1977). According to Erikson, identity formation begins in earnest during the time that coincides with middle school (Erikson, 1968). Research into early STEM interests shows that until the age of about ten to eleven, coincident with the transition to middle school, children are generally positively disposed toward science and are confident in their science abilities (Anderhag et al., 2016; Christidou, 2011; Falk, Storks- dieck, & Dierking, 2007). Later, children begin to narrow their identity options and many become disillusioned with formal science as a result of the alienating culture of science, science pedagogy that discourages curiosity and exploration, and conflicts with gender roles and identities (Anderhag et al., 2016; Archer et al., 2010; Brotman & Moore, 2008; Tröbst, Kleickmann, Lange-Schubert, Rothkopf, & Möller, 2016). While Ericksonian identity theory focuses heavily on the interactions and messages between the social world and the individual, the SIFT model extends Erickson’s thinking by emphasising the interactions between identity levels (Côté & Levine, 2002). Successful 4 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH identity formation requires interactions and feedback between the social identity (roles, attributes, group affiliations), personal identities (attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, image management), and ego identity (deep sense of self and continuity) levels. Youth assess the suitability or desirability of a science identity from the cues provided by role models (teachers, family, friends), social messages (stereotypes about scientists), and from direct feedback on performance of roles associated with a target identity (e.g. grades, com- munication about science careers). Based on the messages and feedback received socially, individuals adopt distinctive behaviours and beliefs about identities (personal identity) and internalise those ideas as a part of self-concept (ego identity). Ideas, stories, and experiences internalised into the ego identity result in shifting self-presentations (adopting scientific language, seeking out science opportunities). Self-presentations give rise to engagement with science through collective activities (e.g. joining clubs, identifying as a good science student). This process is continual with individuals adopting and adapting identities throughout the lifespan and across contexts, though once adopted identities are ‘sticky’ and tend to persist even in the face of alteration (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1966). For example, in a longitudinal study of 38 upper secondary students in Denmark, Hol- megaard et al. (2014) found that perceptions of the culture of science had an impact on their choices to pursue higher education and STEM above and beyond interest and competence (Holmegaard et al., 2014). Students in their study were all on track for further STEM education, however, students who opted out of STEM education cited the rigid and unwelcoming culture of science as a deterrent to the formation of a strong science identity. Furthermore, the career choices of the study subjects were heavily gendered, with women who continued in STEM higher education opting overwhelmingly for careers in in the biological and medical professions (e.g. biotechnology, biochemistry, and molecular biomedicine). Like identity, self-efficacy is a dynamic, and context dependent set of beliefs, however, where a successfully integrated science identity will form a part of the larger (holistic) individual self-concept (Jones, Ruff, & Osborne, 2015), self-efficacy is task specific (Bandura, 1997b). Individual self-efficacy is created by interpretation of input from three primary sources: personal mastery experiences, vicarious learning experiences and social persuasion experiences. Personal mastery experiences are those that derive from successful completion of tasks of the same or similar nature to the task at hand. Successful completion of tasks perceived to be similar increases self-efficacy around a proposed task whereas failure to complete similar tasks results in reduced self-efficacy. Vicarious learning experiences are those that result from observing others perform a similar task. The process of observing others succeed (and fail), particularly individuals who are perceived to be similar to the observer, is another powerful predictor of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997b; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Social persuasion experiences are the feedback received from influential persons (teachers, in-group members, authority figures, peers) about the individuals’ capabilities (Bandura, 1997b). Self-efficacy theory holds that perceptions of ability will predict the amount and duration of effort an individual will invest in an activity (Bandura, 1997b). Effort in turn is a strong predictor of success. In simple terms, an individual’s belief in her ability to succeed is a strong predictor of motivation to persist in an area of study. Research into the self-efficacy of women and choices in careers has also shown that women’s career INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 5 choices are heavily influenced by self-efficacy and that self-efficacy is influenced by perceptions of the gender appropriateness of career types (Betz & Hackett, 1981). In sum, the aforementioned theory and research suggest that identity formation and the development of task-specific self-efficacy is a fluid and ongoing process rooted in micro and macro social contexts and personal feedback experiences. The ecological grounding implies that it should be possible to bolster one’saffinity toward science through a strategic intervention that offers social messages of belonging, encourages adoption of scientific ideas and behaviours, facilitates successful concrete engagement with science activities and roles, and opportunities to observe others perceived as similar to the individual to successfully engage in the same. An intervention that provides the aforementioned operationalised elements of identity and self-efficacy formation in a supportive educational environment is thus expected to result in an observable positive impact on the science affinities of programme participants.

Purpose and significance of the study Informal science education is one arena to which experts turn in looking for ways to combat the lack of diversity in science. Informal outreach programmes are conceptualised by their lack of formal structure (classroom style learning) and are typified as providing lifelong/lifewide science learning opportunities in novel environments (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009). Informal science education is typically lead by highly qualified scientists and educators such as educational experts attached to museums and zoos or through well-established programmes such as the one described in this study. However, given the array and diversity of informal science education, many experiences are led by students and enthusiasts with less expertise in a science discipline or in appropriate pedagogy. This study was designed to determine if participation in an informal science outreach programme built around the theories of identity formation and self-efficacy impacted middle school girls’ reported affinity toward science. Recently, a growing body of literature on best practice in informal education (Bell et al., 2009; Billington et al., 2014; Fenichel & Schweingruber, 2010) and research backed guidelines for engaging underrepresented groups (Billington et al., 2014) has developed. This literature suggests that learning in informal environments should focus around individual interest, hands-on interactions with science, and on helping learners shift from thinking of science as a flat world of facts and knowledge to a way of approaching, developing, and testing questions about the natural world (Bell et al., 2009). Active participation is heavily emphasised in the literature (Bell et al., 2009; Billington et al., 2014; Fenichel & Schweingruber, 2010). Though well-researched resources are now available to informal educators, many informal outreach programmes tend to lack clear defining philosophies and meaningful assess- ments of programme impacts are rarely conducted (Allen et al., 2008). Searches of scholarly databases for research studies evaluating informal science education programmes reveal a broad array of resources and articles exhorting educators to conduct systematic evaluations, however published studies are sparse (Allen et al., 2008; Dubetz & Wilson, 2013; Fadigan & Hammrich, 2004; Lim et al., 2011; Tyler-Wood, Ellison, Lim, & Periathiruvadi, 2012). The limited evidence that is available indicates that some informal programmes, though well-intentioned, may not be implemented in a way that 6 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH achieves the desired goals (Dubetz & Wilson, 2013). As a result, we sought to determine if the science affinities of middle school girls were impacted by participation in a clearly defined and well-implemented informal science outreach programme. We hypothesised that scores on four measures representing constructs related to the formation of enduring science identities (interest in science, science efficacy, attitudes toward science, and science identification), referred to as science affinities would be relatively more positive among those who participated in the programme.

Methods

This section begins with a description of the intervention programme under examination and how the conceptual framework discussed above has been developed into a model for implementation in a practical setting.

The science program to inspire creativity and excellence The Science Program to Inspire Creativity and Excellence (SPICE) examined in this study is a cohort-based, university-run, science outreach programme targeting middle school girls. The overarching goal of the programme is to motivate young girls to pursue and persist in STEM education and careers. The programme focuses on middle school age girls as early adolescence is a key phase of identity (Erikson, 1968) and self-efficacy development (Bandura, 1997b). It is also the first time that students have some choice in their course of study in formal education. As a result, SPICE has the proximal intent of encouraging participants to choose more elective science options in their formal education as well as pursuing more science education outside of school. The theory of action underlying the SPICE intervention is that girls who develop strong science identities will be more likely to maintain and grow an interest in STEM. SPICE provides summer camps built on the principles of identity formation (Côté & Levine, 2002; Erikson, 1968; Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 2001) and self-efficacy development (Bandura, 1997b). Utilising relatable near-peer mentors, positive reinforcement, and hands-on, student-centered activities, the programme emphasises experience over achievement. SPICE programme activities are designed to be hands-on, with minimal lecture and instruction. Participants are encouraged to experiment and explore scientific principles through inquiry. Table 1 describes the core programme practices, indicates the related theory, and provides an example of what implementation should look like. The cohort-based science camps run for two weeks during the summer break from formal schooling. Participants range in age from 11 to 14 and during the academic year, attend a variety of schools in the community where the programme is offered. Girls are first recruited to SPICE at the age of 11 just when the downturn in science interest, attitudes, and efficacy typically begins (Dweck, 2006; Good, Aronson, & Harder, 2008; Halpern et al., 2007; Rabenberg, 2013; Stake, 2006). Girls are recruited from local elementary schools, home school networks, partnerships with area non-profits that serve youth, and word of mouth in the community. Programme materials are sent to local 5th through 7th grade teachers and principals, and through science outreach LISTSERVs, community calendars, newspaper advertisements, partner organisations that work with middle- school-aged students, and the offices of non-traditional student programmes at the local INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 7

Table 1. SPICE model: operationalised elements of identity and self-efficacy supports. GSP programme Relevant theory components elements GSP practices Hands-on Activities Mastery Experiences No less than 80% of the activity is hands on Identity Role Practice Relatable Near-Peer Role Social Identity Instructors are diverse, relatable, and engaging. Talk about their own Models Messages interest and practice in science Social Persuasion Scientific Garb, Tools, and Personal Identity Activities introduce the tools and language of science Language Practice Engagement over Ego Identity Feedback is processed-based rather than accomplishment-based Achievement Social Persuasion Peer Learning Vicarious Learning Activity provides opportunity for girls to learn from each other and Social Identity observe peers engaged in science Engagement Trusted to Carry Out Social Persuasion Participants taught how to safely engage with scientific tools and Complex Activities Mastery permitted to carry out activities with minimal instructor Experiences intervention university where the programme is housed. Volunteers also visit several 5th grade classrooms to promote the programme. Each cohort consists of ∼20 girls who matriculate through the programme together. Girls typically enter the programme in the summer following 5th grade, and first attend the Discovery Camp. They return the following summer to attend the Forensic Investi- gation camp, and the summer after they attend the Computer Science and Engineering camp. All three camps run concurrently, eight hours a day, Monday through Friday during a two-week period in July. Discovery camp focuses on data collection using hands on activities from a range of scientific disciplines including: chemistry, physics, biology, geology, botany, ecology, and human physiology. Participants are encouraged to document their process during activities and use the data they have collected throughout the camp in a capstone team challenge titled ‘The Amazing Science Race.’ Emphasis is placed on approaching problems using scientific methods, language, and tools. Each day of camp features 4–6 thematically organised activities. Examples of themes/activities include: chemical reactions day (e.g. elephant’s toothpaste, baking soda and vinegar, fundamentals of fire), ballistics day (e.g. trajectories with person launchers and catapult building), light day (EM spectrum tour, UV beads, waves & light), and microscopic and macroscopic biology (e.g. agar plate collection and viewing, plant biology, dissecting microscope investigation). Forensic Investigation camp emphasises data collection and analysis using skills from the disciplines of psychology, chemistry, physics, forensic science, geology, paleontology, and human physiology. Participants learn how to interpret and analyze collected data. Girls are trained in a variety of investigative techniques throughout the camp which are then applied by solving a mystery at the end of camp. Mysteries range from traditional crime scenes (robbery, vandalism, accident) to scientific investigations of dig sites, burials, or fossil verification. Examples of activities for the Forensic Investigation Camp include: Critical Thinking, crime scene investigation : fact or fiction, fingerprint analysis, toxicology, dental analysis, pollen analysis, decomposition, and chromatography. Engineering and computer science camp (a.k.a. ‘Pinball Camp’) teaches girls programming, simple electronics, design, and construction by having each participant build her 8 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH own fully functional pinball table. Girls learn to programme and build the electronic systems for their pinball tables using Arduino open source hardware and software (www.arduino.cc). The first week of Pinball Camp follows the pattern of working on intro- ducing coding and logic in the mornings and activities that demonstrate engineering and design concepts in the afternoons. Participants learn rudimentary programming using the ‘PB&J bot’ and cup staking activities. These fun, interactive lessons can be carried out without any computers or technology only requiring humans to play the role of literal minded machines. Early in the camp, girls visit a local arcade where the onsite technician opens up vintage pinball machines to show girls the inner workings of the devices. The second week of the camp focuses entirely on girls own pinball machines as they design, prototype, and test their devices. Girls work in teams of two who must negotiate on the theme of the machine, types of elements they will use, and where elements will be placed. The completed machines include mechanical components (e.g. launchers, flippers, ramps), electronic components (e.g. LEDs, speakers, 7-segment displays, and switches), and coded events (e.g. scoring, sounds, lost lives). The programme directors chose engineering and computer science as the themes for the final camp as these two areas experience the greatest amount of underrepresentation of women worldwide (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2014). The SPICE programme seeks to make connections between the fundamental practices of these more applied disciplines to the overarching STEM umbrella. Emphasis is placed on the importance of scientific practice in technology-based fields. Examples from the programme are the importance of careful research and planning (detailed diagrams, supply lists, and mechan- isms), the need for rigorous data collection and analysis (testing pinball elements for func- tionality), and the role of using preliminary results to further innovation. Programme activities are selected and evaluated based on the following criteria: amount of hands on time in the activity, ability to explore key science concepts, ability to relate concepts and knowledge to every day experience, and participant engagement with the activity. Furthermore, activities such as chemical reactions (e.g. elephant’s toothpaste) that are staples of science outreach programmes for their ‘wow factor’ are only included in camp if there is a safe hands on component (e.g. using diluted hydrogen peroxide and yeast) for campers and if instructors can clearly communicate the science behind the activity. Activities that look impressive, but leave participants without understanding of the underlying science are eschewed. In addition to the three concurrent SPICE camps held in July of 2015, a control group participated in a three day ‘mini camp’ in August. Activities for this camp included the neuroscience of drawing, colour theory, light and waves, and scribble bots. Details about the control group composition and data collection timeline are provided in the Sample and Research Design section.

Programme philosophy and instructor training Camp instructors are recruited from science undergraduate majors at the university where the programme is held. Each camp has two paid lead instructors who are responsible for setting the schedule of activities, testing and developing activities, and directing volunteers. Additionally, each camp typically has 4–8 volunteer instructors, mostly undergraduate students. Camp alumni also return as assistant instructors. Assistants help with the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 9 coordination and organisation of supplies, escort participants around campus, and assist with instruction. Training of instructors focuses on implementation and delivery of programme model components and best practice in informal science education (Bell et al., 2009) and motivational theories (Bandura, 1997a; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Erikson, 1968; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Instructor training consists of a mix of online and in person training modules designed to introduce the foundational motivational theories and best practice in informal science education. Training modules include an overview of the camp purpose and structure, introduction to the programme philosophy and motivational theories, and safety training. Trainings focus on identifying instructional strategies that support the development of affinities for science. Instructors are trained to act as facilitators and advisors and to minimise the amount of time spent on traditional, front-of-the-classroom style lecturing in favour of hands on activities. The ‘80/20’ rule for SPICE camp dictates that activities be at least 80% hands on with no more than 20% of the time spent on lecture or passive learning. Exceptions are granted when the participants request more information about a subject. For example, one year, the Forensic Investigation campers requested more information about inheritance and eye colour. The instructors put together a brief presentation on the genetics of eye colour and spent 30 min answering participant questions about the subject of inheritance, genotypes, and phenotypes. Other key strategies for fostering affinity to science include: providing relatable near- peer models in the form of undergraduate college student instructors (Tenenbaum, Anderson, Jett, & Yourick, 2014; Zeniewski & Reinholz, 2016), contextualising failure as a failure to learn rather than getting the ‘wrong’ answer (Dweck, 2007; Yeager & Dweck, 2012), and trusting campers to carry out activities not often permitted in formal school settings (e.g. handling fire, handling chemicals) (Todd, 2015; Todd & Zvoch, 2017). Curriculum, past programme schedules, and training materials are available by request from the programme administrators. In 2019, the programme will implement an online curriculum and training repository that will be freely available. Details on the current instructor training programme can be found online (http://spicescience.uoregon.edu/ node/442).

Sample and research design The analytic sample for this study was drawn from the pool of new applicants to the 2015 SPICE camp. In 2015, there were 48 new applicants, but with the return of 24 girls from the previous two cohorts, only 36 placements were available. New applicants who applied to the programme by the registration deadline were randomly admitted to the programme (n = 36) or assigned to the control group (n = 12) using a lottery system. To foster good will and incentivise participation in the research, girls assigned to the control group were invited to participate in a free three-day mini-camp after the close of the primary camp. All applicants therefore were able to participate in either the full or a reduced version of the science camp. All new applicants, whether assigned to the treatment or control condition, were administered the pre and post-measures prior to the start and after the finish of the main two-week summer camp. It should be noted however that 5 10 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH girls assigned to the SPICE intervention and 2 girls assigned to the control group did not complete the post measures, leaving 41 cases for analysis. The 41 participants were 75% non-Latino White (n = 30) and 15% Latino (n = 6), 7% African American (n = 3), 5% Native American (n = 2), 2% Pacific Islander (n = 1), and 15% other (n = 6). Participants were permitted to indicate multiple race/ethnicity categories, as such, these numbers total greater than the sample size (six indicated multiple race/ethnicity designations). Thirty- seven percent of the sample received a free or reduced price lunch (n = 15) during the previous academic year. Of the girls randomly admitted to the programme who completed all the research instruments, 20 participated in the Discovery camp, 4 in the Forensic Investigation Camp, and 7 in the engineering camp. Pre-tests for all participants (intervention and control) were completed on or shortly before the first day of camp in early July. Post-tests for the intervention group were completed on the last day of the two week camp in mid-July. The ‘post-test’ assessment for the control group was completed at the end of August at the beginning of the first day of the mini-camp.

Fidelity of implementation Programme implementation was monitored through observations conducted by the lead researcher and three research assistants. Observers completed an implementation fidelity rubric designed to measure the operationalised elements of the programme model. The fidelity rubric included 36 items divided into 6 sections representing the delivery of science identity and efficacy-building instructional activities and best practice for informal science education. Each item was measured on a 4-point scale. A score of 1 indicated that the measured element of fidelity was in effect 15% of the activity duration or less, a score of 2 indicated fidelity 40% or less, a score of 3 indicated fidelity 60% or less and score of 4 indicated that the measured fidelity was in effect 80% of the activity duration or more. Table 1 (above) provides some key descriptions of what implementation fidelity should look like. Research assistants observed 31 activities during the two-week summer camp.

Outcome measures Participants and control group members were administered a survey of science affinities both before and after the primary SPICE camp. The affinities survey included four measures designed to capture middle school girls’ science interest, science efficacy, science attitudes, and science identities. Each measure, the source of the measure, and information about development of the measure are detailed below. Science interest. The scale used to measure participants’ interest in science was taken from the Colorado Learning about Science Survey (Adams et al., 2006). The full Colorado survey consists of 36 items divided into six scales. Only the scale measuring personal interest was utilised in this study. The scale was initially developed using responses from more than 5000 introductory physics students. It has subsequently been adapted for chemistry and biology students in grades 6 through 16 (college seniors). Test-retest reliability for each of the adapted scales has ranged from .86 to .99 (Barbera, Adams, Wieman, & Perkins, 2008; Semsar, Knight, Birol, Smith, & O’Dowd, 2011). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 11

The personal interest scale measures how much personal interest students have in the subject of science beyond the desire to complete coursework. For this study the word physics has been replaced with the word science (e.g. ‘I think about the science I experience in everyday life’; ‘I enjoy solving science problems’). The same approach was used in development of the chemistry and biology variants (Barbera et al., 2008). Each item is represented on a 5-point scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). Science efficacy. Participants’ science efficacy was measured using two scales from the work of Eccles et al. (1984). The first scale measured self-concept of ability (e.g. ‘How good at science are you?’; ‘Compared to most of your other school subjects, how good are you at science?’). The second was a scale of student task value (e.g. ‘How important is it that you learn science?’; ‘How important do you think science will be to you in the future?’). Both scales have been used many times since their initial creation and validation. The science efficacy scales have been used primarily with middle and high school aged students to measure gender and race differences in science and math attitudes and perceptions (Eccles et al., 1984; Else-Quest, Mineo, & Higgins, 2013; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002). Each sub-scale consists of three items represented on a 5-point scale. Reliability coefficients for scores on the self-concept of ability scale have ranged from .80 to .95 (Else-Quest et al., 2013). For scores on the task value scale, Cronbach’s alpha was reported as .81 (Else- Quest et al., 2013). Science attitudes. Participants’ science attitudes were measured using the Attitudes Toward Science in School Assessment (Germann, 1988). This instrument measures students’ attitudes toward science with particular emphasis on studying science in schools. Original respondents were 7th and 8th grade students. The developer reported an alpha value of .94 in the validation sample. The ATSSA scale consists of 14 items (e.g. science is fun; I would like to learn more about science) arranged on a 5-point scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘ strongly agree’). Science identity. Four items measuring science identity, were adopted from an earlier pilot study. Four items that represent major foundations of identity: experience, confidence, and feedback (i.e. ‘I think of myself as a scientist,’‘I have had enough experience to know that I can be good at science,’‘I am confident in my science skills,’ and ‘I receive feedback from people important to me that says I can be good at science’ were included. Each item was represented on a 5-point scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). Prior factor analytic work demonstrated that one common factor represented scores on the four science identity items (Todd, 2015).

Analytic procedures Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were applied to the data. A reliability analysis on scores obtained from the pre and post-programme measures was first conducted. Mean comparisons between the treatment and control group on the scale scores associated with each outcome measure were then performed to evaluate the pre-intervention equiv- alency of the groups. The main outcome analysis was a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with science interest, science efficacy, science attitude, and science identity scale scores as dependent variables and programme assignment status as the independent variable. Assignment status had two levels, treatment and control. The multivariate analysis was designed to align with the instructional targets (i.e. the development of science 12 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH affinities) of the summer science intervention and to contrast the science affinities of girls who participated in the science outreach programme with that of their peers who were assigned to the control condition.

Other data and analysis All participants in 2015 were invited to participate in the study. Some were not included in the analytic sample however, as they were returning participants from the 2014 camp and thus, not randomly assigned to condition. Others applied to the programme after the random assignment and were invited to the mini camp. In total, 58 applicants who participated in the camp and 18 who participated in the mini camp completed the pre and post affinities surveys. For internal validity purposes, only the results associated with the randomly assigned campers are presented here. However, the results of the full analysis are addressed briefly in the discussion. The results reported in this paper are part of a larger, mixed-methods project which included observations of activities, focus group interviews, and individual interviews with both participants and control group members. Those data are part of other manu- scripts in development that include a longitudinal analysis of camper science affinities and an exploration of how girls participating in the programme conceive of ‘the scientist’ and how these conceptions influence their own identities as scientists. Results of those projects as they relate to this study are addressed briefly in the discussion.

Results

A reliability analysis of scores on each of the pre-programme measures revealed Cronbach alpha values that ranged from .76 on the scale of science efficacy to .95 on the scale of science attitudes. Alpha values were .78 on the scale of science interest and .82 on the scale of science identity. On the post programme measures, alpha values ranged from .75 on the scale of science efficacy to .93 on the scale of science attitudes. Alpha values were .84 on the scale of interest and .82 on the scale of science identity. Table 2 presents the pre- and post-programme means and standard deviations on each affinity measure by assignment status. Mean comparisons between the study groups (i.e. participants, con- trols) on the preprogram science affinity scale scores revealed no statistically significant group differences prior to the start of the intervention.

Table 2. Pretest and posttest science affinity means and standard deviations by assignment status. Treatment Control (n = 31) (n = 10) M SD M SD Science Efficacy: Pre 24.74 2.91 23.38 1.69 Science Efficacy: Post 25.90 3.00 22.50 3.00 Science Interest: Pre 23.03 3.51 24.13 3.04 Science Interest: Post 24.90 3.08 22.30 3.30 Science Identity: Pre 14.53 3.08 14.50 2.20 Science Identity: Post 16.32 2.89 14.30 3.09 Science Attitude: Pre 61.00 7.81 56.75 9.91 Science Attitude: Post 63.87 6.07 55.30 11.12 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 13

Multivariate results Results of the MANOVA demonstrated that assignment status was related to the weighted multivariate combination of science affinity measures, Λ = .77, F (4, 36) = 2.68, p = .05, η2 = .23. The centroid associated with the treatment group was larger (M = .30, SD = .91) than the centroid associated with the control group (M = −.94, SD = 1.24). The magnitude of the between group centroid difference was over 1 standard deviation (Hedges’ g = 1.22). Examination of the standardised discriminant function coefficients (SDFC) used to weight the multivariate composite revealed that science efficacy (SDFC = .68), science attitude (SDFC = .63), and science identity (SDFC = −.52) provided the largest independent contributions to the formation of the function that discriminated the groups. Science interest (SDFC = .14) contributed less to the function. Inspection of the structure coefficients indicated that the observed measures had moderate to strong correlations with the multivariate composite, attitude (r = .92), efficacy (r = .91), interest (r = .67), and identity (r = .56). Computation of the parallel discriminant ratio coefficients (DRC) revealed that science efficacy (DRC = .68 * .91 = .62) and science attitude (DRC = .63 * .92 = .58) were relatively more important in dis- tinguishing the groups than science identity (DRC = −.52 * .56 = −.29) and science interest (DRC = .14 * .67 = .09).

Univariate results Univariate ANOVAs on each of the four measures comprising the multivariate composite revealed statistically significant mean differences between treatment groups on science efficacy, F (1, 39) = 9.56, MSE = 9.16, p < .05 and science attitude, F (1, 39) = 9.84, MSE = 56.45, p < .05. On both outcomes, the treatment group mean was larger than the control group mean. The group difference was approximately 1 standard deviation on efficacy (Hedges’ g = 1.08) and over three-quarters of a standard deviation on attitude (Hedges’ g = .83). Alpha was adjusted for the multiple tests (i.e. .05/4 = .013) to maintain the probability of type I error at .05. With the corrected alpha level, the group differences on interest (p = .03) and identity (p = .07) were not statistically significant. However, the between group difference (treatment group advantage) was over 2 scale units on each of the measures, a group difference of .81 standard deviation units on interest and .67 units on identity.

Fidelity of implementation Observations were conducted by research assistants on 31 programme activities using an observational rubric that represented the operationalised elements of the programme model. Scores obtained from the observational rubrics revealed that the programme components were largely delivered as intended. On a 4-point scale, average fidelity scores ranged from 3.47 to 3.76. For example, elements of mastery experiences activities received an average score of 3.69 (SD 0.40). This scale included six items designed to concretely measure opportunities for students to gain direct experience with science (e.g. ‘Instructors make sure all students have opportunities to try out tasks’). That is to say, students were observed directly engaged in scientific activities more than 60% of the time across the 14 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH observed activities. Average scores were consistent across scales, providing evidence that the desired programme practices were consistently in effect.

Discussion

For decades, policy makers, educators, and researchers have been searching for solutions to increase the representation of women in STEM education and careers. Despite continued attention and investment, a gender disparity in STEM remains. Encouraging gains in women’s representation in STEM disciplines through the 1970s and 80s have largely stalled, even though girls and women are now performing on par with men in STEM achievement as measured by grades and standardised test scores (Hill et al., 2010; Nord et al., 2011). Recent empirical findings on identity formation and the development of self-efficacy may offer a new way of approaching the longstanding STEM gender gap. Informal programmes that emphasise the psychosocial components of science may be able to provide the types of identity and efficacy building experiences that are currently lacking in formal science education. The intervention described here was uniquely focused on delivering the ‘soft’ contextual elements of science instruction and learning (e.g. role messages, peer learning, hands on science experiences) that are critical for identity and self-efficacy development, rather than on mastery of specific content. Results of the randomised trial used to evaluate the intervention’sefficacy demonstrated that SPICE participants reported higher post-intervention affinities toward science than their control group peers. Of further note, the results of the statistical analysis of the full 2015 SPICE cohort (including non-randomised participants) were similar to the results of the randomised control trial. Statistical significance, effect sizes, and coefficients were consistent between the two overlapping samples. Furthermore, univariate analysis of the large sample revealed statistically significant differences on all four affinity measures. The heightened affinity toward science reported by SPICE participants tentatively suggests that informal science programmes that offer similar operationalised elements of psychosocial theory (e.g. emphasis on hands on work, relatable role models and peers, induction into scientific modes) may be useful for building science identities in girls. Continued follow-up study will be necessary, however, to determine whether the short-term impact on science affinities observed here will persist and translate into higher rates of STEM participation and retention. The age group examined in this study, 11–14 year old girls, represents a crucial developmental stage with regard to both identity formation and science pipeline issues. It is widely acknowledged that a large decline in interest in science takes place at the transition from elementary to middle school and that the decline is disproportionately large in girls (Anderhag et al., 2016; Falk et al., 2007). Individuals tend to form their lifelong attitudes toward science by the age of 14 (Lindahl, 2007). Concurrently, early adolescence is also a time when gender and other social identities become highly salient and often conflict with science interests (Archer et al., 2012, 2013). Research on elementary and middle school aged children has shown that access to science identities can be heavily mediated by classroom experiences. Carlone and colleagues found that classroom environments that broadened the ‘figured world’ of the scientist also broadened the ways students were able to access science identities, while those classrooms that hewed closely to traditional construction of ‘the scientist’ largely excluded girls and other underrepresented minorities from INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 15 science identities (Carlone et al., 2015; Carlone, Scott, & Lowder, 2014). In their qualitative study of middle school science classrooms, Tan et al. (2013) also found that formal science environments tended to narrow girls options for science identities. Interestingly however, they also found girls who managed to successfully adopt science identities through engaging informal science opportunities offered outside of school. The qualitative analysis from the Tan et al study is supported by the results of the study presented in this paper. Informal science programmes may provide the space for girls to navigate science identities that are not readily accessible in formal classroom environments. Broadly defined, informal science education is instruction about the natural world that takes place in a variety of settings outside of the formal classroom (Fenichel & Schwein- gruber, 2010). Informal science education is delivered by universities, professional organisations, non-profit groups, and educational organisations like museums, aquariums, and zoos (Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education, 2015). The goals of informal outreach programmes tend to vary. Some seek to raise interest and awareness of particular disciplines or interests, as is the case with mission driven organisations (e.g. zoos, programmes sponsored by professional associations). Others seek to increase participation in science by underrepresented groups such as women, minorities, and low-income first generation college aspirants. Offerings vary from small projects run by one or a few dedi- cated individuals to large well-resourced programmes (Center for Advancement of Infor- mal Science Education, 2015). In light of their diverse structures, varying goals, and frequent lack of systematic evaluation (Allen et al., 2008), informal programming is often equated with haphazard implementation or a lack of rigour. The current study suggests that this does not have to be the case. By operationalising psychosocial theory and rigorously implementing an evidence-based informal science education programme within a strong design context, it was possible to identify the short-term impact of such a programme. As reported above, SPICE participants outperformed their peers by approximately 1 standard deviation on a linear composite of science affinity indicators. Of the affinity outcomes that formed the function that discriminated the groups, science efficacy and science attitude were most consequential. On the individual measures, the group differences in science affinity outcomes were all over two-thirds of a standard deviation. These results suggest that bringing a more rigorous approach to the implementation and evaluation of informal science outreach programmes is possible and likely necessary to ensure that resources (both time and money) invested in the realm of informal science education are well spent. Despite findings that revealed a positive increment in science affinity outcomes for SPICE camp participants, this study had certain limitations that serve to contextualise the results. First, as the study was specifically designed to investigate the short term impact of participation in an informal science intervention on middle school girls’ science affinities, it does not address whether the observed change in science affinities will be sustained and/or translate into actual STEM-related outcomes. Only by following participants over time and documenting their choices in STEM education and careers will it be possible to evaluate the long term impact of the programme, if any, on this sample of middle school girls. Second, the limited number of placements available for new applicants limited the size of the sample and the allocation of summer camp invitations. The low statistical power conditions prevented the detection of smaller, but potentially relevant effects on two of the individual affinity outcomes. In addition, as the current study was based on a 16 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH select sample of girls who voluntarily participated in a unique informal science camp, caution is urged in generalising current findings to dissimilar populations and other informal science outreach programsme. With respect to the possibility of resentful demoralisation impacting the affinity for science reported by control group members (i.e. the control group feeling cheated of the full camp experience), interviews with a subset of the control group n = 3) and examination of programme administrative data, suggest that control group members were not unduly disappointed with their assignment status. Many control group members (n = 13) who applied to the programme in 2016 identified as ‘Returning SPICE campers’ on their application forms. This was noted by administrators, as they had to manually correct these errors in the administrative database. Furthermore, many of the control group girls attended science outreach events during the academic year and went out of their way to identify as ‘SPICE Girls.’ Although identification with the programme does not directly refute the idea that disappointment might have factored into control group affinity reports, administrators also noted that participants at the mini-camp were equally excited in the lead up to and beginning of the event as were participants in the full camp.

Conclusions

Identities are complex, layered, and subject to ongoing adjustment even once stabilised (Côté & Levine, 2002; Erikson, 1968; Schwartz, Zamboanga, Luyckx, Meca, & Ritchie, 2013). Adolescent youth in particular are in a state of heavy identity work. Interest, efficacy, and attitudes are the foundations on which identities are built. Without interest, confidence in skills, and positive attitudes, identities cannot form. Even in the presence of these elements, an identity can fail if social pressure runs counter to the identity or if an identity is not considered ‘thinkable’ for the individual (Archer et al., 2012, 2013). This research shows that it is possible to bolster the foundational elements of identity in girls through an intensive short-term intervention. The SPICE programme attends to several key identity processes by providing strong social messages (relatable science role models, explicit messaging), by helping with the adoption of signifiers of identity (scientific garb, tools, language), and providing venues for shared engagement with science in a supportive environment. To the extent that psychosocial development practices (e.g. experiential learning, positive messaging and role modelling, process-based feedback, contextualising failure) can also be incorporated into formal science instruction, it may be possible to make science more meaningful and accessible for girls and other underrepresented youth alike. While SPICE is a U.S. based programme, the approach and theoretical underpinnings lend themselves to translation to other settings. As an out-of-school intervention focused on motivational elements (identity and self-efficacy) the programme provides a model for STEM interventions independent of subject matter, curriculum, or achievement. Instruc- tor training and programme guidelines can be applied to a wide range of activities within different contexts. Outreach educators can use the SPICE model to examine how the delivery of extant curriculum can be modified to foster motivation for science learning. In the United States the newly implemented Next Generation Science Standards provide detailed benchmarks for the skills and concepts students of science need (NGSS Lead States, 2013), but notably the standards do not address induction into the culture INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 17 and roles of scientists. Including psychosocial development into educational standards would provide teachers with clear guides on how to help students develop enduring personal interest that is the foundation of science-efficacy and identities. Inclusion of these ‘soft’ skills in formal standards would encourage the creation of professional development opportunities for teachers to learn how to better support students’ identity and self- efficacy formation. Emphasis on psychosocial development in the science classroom may also enable more study of how diverse students form unique identities in formal science education environments. Programmes like those studied here provide possible models for engaging students with science in a manner that fosters identity and efficacy and leads to persistence in STEM. Further research is needed to assess the long-term impacts of these interventions and to explore ways to adapt the operationalised elements employed by the programme to formal learning environments, where most girls experience their first, and often only encounters with STEM.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Brandy L. Todd http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2023-1864 Keith Zvoch http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9348-5155

References

Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2(1), 2–14. Allen, S., Campbell, P. B., Dierking, L. D., Flagg, B. N., Friedman, A. J., Garibay, C … Ucko, D. A. (2008). Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Anderhag, P., Wickman, P. O., Bergqvist, K., Jakobson, B., Hamza, K. M., & Säljö, R. (2016). Why do secondary school students lose their interest in science? Or does it never emerge? A possible and overlooked explanation. Science Education, 100(5), 791–813. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(1), 967–989. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), 171–194. Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-eﬃcacy in changing societies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-eﬃcacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company. 18 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH

Barbera, J., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). Modifying and validating the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for use in chemistry. Chemical Education Research, 85(10), 1435–1439. Bayer Corporation. (2010). Bayer facts of science education XIV: Female and minority chemists and chemical engineers speak about diversity and underrepresentation in STEM. Retrieved from http://bayerfactsofscience.online-pressroom.com/ Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399– 410. Billington, B., Britsch, B., Karl, R., Carter, S., Freese, J., & Regalla, L. (2014). SciGirls seven: How to engage girls in STEM. Blickenstaff,J.C.(2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386. Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295. Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. Burning Glass. (2014). Real-time insight into the market for entry-level STEM jobs. Carlone, H. B., Johnson, A., & Scott, C. M. (2015). Agency amid formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 474–488. Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. (2015). InformalScience.org. Christidou, V. (2011). Interests, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school science, teacher, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(2), 141–159. Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the equations: The variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. Washington, DC: AAUW. Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity, formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Dubetz, T., & Wilson, J. A. (2013). Girls in engineering, mathematics and science, GEMS: A science outreach program for middle-school female students. Journal of STEM Education, 14(3), 41–47. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t moe women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,26–43. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. Oxford: W.W. Norton & Company. Evans, M. A., Whigham, M., & Wang, M. C. (1995). The effect of a role model project upon the attitudes of ninth-grade science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 195– 204. Fadigan, K. A., & Hammrich, P. L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835–860. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 19

Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455–469. Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, H. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Files, J. A., Blair, J. E., Mayer, A. P., & Ko, M. G. (2008). Facilitated peer mentorship: A pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty. Journal of Womens Health, 17 (6), 1009–1015. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519–533. Germann, P. J. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 689–703. Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its ‘other’: Looking underneath ‘woman’ and ‘science’ for new direc- tions in research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13(3), 291–305. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Sterotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 17–28. Halpern, D. F., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J. R., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Research. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Haussler, P., & Hoffman, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P., & Shanahan, M. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. doi:10.1002/tea.20363 Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. S., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holmegaard, H., Madsen, L., & Ulriksen, L. (2014). To choose or not to choose science: Consturctions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education program. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 186–215. Hughes, R. M., Nzekwe, B., & Molyneaux, K. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979–2007. Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., & Osborne, J. W. (2015). Fostering students identification with mathematics and science. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, & S. Hidi (Eds.), The Cupola (pp. 331–352). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life - Skewed sex-ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990. Kelly, A. (1981). The missing half: Girls and science education. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Lim, O., Tyler-Wood, T., Ellison, A., Periathiruvadi, S., Christensen, R., & Knezeck, G. (2011). The long-term impact of the BUGS program for increasing girls’ interest in science society for information technology & teacher education international conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1341–1344). 20 B. L. TODD AND K. ZVOCH

Lindahl, B. (2007). A longitudinal study of student’s attitudes towards science and choice of career. 80th NARST International Conference, New Orleans, LA. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in science inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. MacDonald, T. L. (2000). Junior high female role model intervention improves science persistence and attitudes in girls over time. In Proceedings of the 8th CCWESTT Conference (p. 8). St. John’s, NF: Coalition of Women in Engineering, Science, Trades and Technology. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2015). Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers: Which STEM careers are in demand? Retrieved from http://www.iseek.org/ careers/stemcareers National Science Board. (2014a). Science and engineering indicators. National Science BoardNational Science Foundation. (2014b). TABLE 7-2. Doctoral degrees awarded to women, by field: 2002–12. In Science & engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. National Science BoardNational Science Foundation. (2014c). TABLE 8-1. S&E postdoctoral fellows in academic institutions, by field, citizenship, and sex: 2012. In Science & engineering indicators (pp. 1). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2011a). Table 9-24. S&E doctorate holders employed in universities and 4-year colleges, by occupation, sex, years since doctorate, and tenure status: 2008. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from Women, Minorities, and Person’s With Disabilities in Science Education: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ National Science Foundation. (2011b). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Bronw, J., & Schuknecht, J. (2011). The nation’s report card: America’s high school graduates (NCES 2011-462). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Rabenberg, T. A. (2013). Middle school girls’ STEM education: Using teacher influences, parent encouragement, peer influences, and self efficacy to predict confidence and interest in math and science (PhD dissertation). Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. Saraga, E., & Griffiths, D. (1981). Biological inevitabilities or political choices? The future for girls in science. In A. Kelly (Ed.), The missing half: Girls and science education (pp. 85–97). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Luyckx, K., Meca, A., & Ritchie, R. A. (2013). Identity in emerging adulthood: Reviewing the field and looking forward. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 96–113. Semsar, K., Knight, J. K., Birol, G., Smith, M. K., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2011). The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey (CLASS) for use in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10, 268– 278. Spear, M. (1987). The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. In A. Kelly (Ed.), Science for girls (pp. 46–51). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 1017– 1045. Tai, R., & Sadler, P. (2001). Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1017–1037. Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179. Tenenbaum, L. S., Anderson, M. K., Jett, M., & Yourick, D. L. (2014). An innovative near-peer mentoring model for undergraduate and secondary students: STEM focus. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5), 375–385. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 21

Todd, B. (2015). Little scientists: Identity, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward science in a girls’ science camp (PhD dissertation). University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Todd, B., & Zvoch, K. (2017). Exploring girls’ science affinities through an informal science education. Research in Science Education. in press, 54. doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9670-yRISE-D-16- 00206.2 Tröbst, S., Kleickmann, T., Lange-Schubert, K., Rothkopf, A., & Möller, K. (2016). Instruction and students’ declining interest in science: An analysis if German fourth and sixth-grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 53(1), 162–193. Tyler-Wood, T., Ellison, A., Lim, O., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2012). Bringing up girls in science (BUGS): The effectiveness of an afterschool environmental science program for increasing female students’ interest in science careers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 46–55. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2014). Women in science. Retrieved from uis.unesco.org United States Census Bureau. (2011a). Tabe 231. Educationanal attainment by selected characteristics. The 2012 Statistical Abstract. United States Census Bureau. (2011b). Table 299. Degrees earned by level and sex: 1960 to 2009. The 2012 Statiscical Abstract. Walford, G. (1981). Tracking down sexism in physics textbooks. Physics Education, 16(5), 261–265. Xu, Y. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover inten- tions. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 607–624. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9097-4 Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215–246. Zeniewski, A. M., & Reinholz, D. (2016). Increasing STEM success: A near-peer mentoring program in physical sciences. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(14), 1–12. Zohar, A., & Bronshtein, B. (2005). Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 61–77.