ABSTRACT

This study explored STEM program quality prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, including differences based on learning setting. Program quality data was drawn from a national database consisting of 1259 program quality observations conducted between 2013 and 2021. Using the Dimensions of Success (DoS), an observation tool focused on informal STEM learning program quality, we analyzed 12 dimensions of quality obtained from 1212 observations gathered prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a subsample of the national dataset (n = 616) including only states who submitted DoS observations before and during the pandemic, and 47 observations gathered throughout the pandemic. National trends in program strengths and challenges were replicated in the pandemic sample. Compared to observations conducted prior to the pandemic, the pandemic sample demonstrated significantly weaker evidence of quality in the dimension of Engagement with STEM, which considers the extent to which activities promote physical and cognitive learning. Findings revealed no significant differences across the 12 dimensions between in-person and virtual observations conducted during the pandemic. Common frameworks to support evidence-based planning relevant to dimensions that are challenging in the context of the pandemic are key to promoting high-quality teaching and learning practices that contribute to equitable, positive youth outcomes in STEM.

摘要

本研究探讨了 COVID-19 大流行之前和期间的 STEM 计划质量，包括基于学习环境的差异。项目质量数据取自一个国家数据库，该数据库包含 2013 年至 2021 年间进行的 1259 次项目质量观察。使用成功维度 (DoS) 这一专注于非正式 STEM 学习项目质量的观察工具，我们分析了从 1212 个项目中获得的 12 个质量维度在 COVID-19 大流行之前收集的观察结果是国家数据集 (n = 616) 的子样本，仅包括在大流行之前和期间提交 DoS 观察结果的州，以及在整个大流行期间收集的 47 次观察结果。在大流行病样本中复制了计划优势和挑战的国家趋势。与大流行之前进行的观察相比，大流行病样本在参与 STEM 维度中显示出明显较弱的质量证据，该维度考虑了活动促进身体和认知学习的程度。调查结果显示，在大流行期间进行的面对面观察和虚拟观察在 12 个维度上没有显着差异。支持与大流行背景下具有挑战性的维度相关的循证规划的通用框架是促进高质量教学和学习实践的关键，这些实践有助于在 STEM 领域取得公平、积极的青年成果。调查结果显示，在大流行期间进行的面对面观察和虚拟观察在 12 个维度上没有显着差异。支持与大流行背景下具有挑战性的维度相关的循证规划的通用框架是促进高质量教学和学习实践的关键，这些实践有助于在 STEM 领域取得公平、积极的青年成果。调查结果显示，在大流行期间进行的面对面观察和虚拟观察在 12 个维度上没有显着差异。支持与大流行背景下具有挑战性的维度相关的循证规划的通用框架是促进高质量教学和学习实践的关键，这些实践有助于在 STEM 领域取得公平、积极的青年成果。