Multiple Instrumental Case Studies of Inclusive STEM-focused High Schools: Opportunity Structures for Preparation and Inspiration (OSPrl).

该项目的目的是审查包容性STEM重点高中为学生提供的机会结构，重点是研究为代表性不足群体的学生提供服务的学校。与高度选择性的专注于STEM的学校以已经被认为在STEM方面有天赋和才华的学生为目标不同，包容性STEM重点高中旨在开发新的STEM人才来源，特别是在代表性不足的少数族裔学生中，以促进劳动力发展和培养STEM专业人员。NRC的一份新报告《成功的K-12 STEM教育(2011)》确定了最需要研究以STEM为重点的学校的领域。NRC的报告指出了为科学界代表性不足的群体提供机会的重要性，特别是黑人、西班牙裔和低收入学生，他们在K-12教育中不成比例地脱离了成绩优异的群体。该项目具体响应了NRC报告中关于研究的呼吁，并提供了系统的数据来界定和澄清这类学校的性质。该项目正在研究全美以STEM为重点的包容性高中，以确定是什么定义了它们。研究小组最初确定了定义以STEM为重点的高中的十个候选关键组成部分，并正在通过研究研究提炼和进一步澄清关键组成部分。第一阶段的研究集中于12所声誉良好、规划周密、具有良好声誉和强有力的社区和商业支持的学校，以期根据预期和实施情况确定关键组成部分。对这些高功能学校的案例研究和使用一套衡量STEM设计和实施的工具进行的跨案例分析，有助于为这些学校建立可更广泛地应用于STEM教育的行动理论。研究的第二阶段涉及选择四种学校模式进行进一步研究，重点关注学生层面的体验，并将学生的成绩与同一地区的综合学校进行比较。正在研究的研究问题包括：1)有没有一套核心的可能的关键组成部分，由成熟的，有希望的包容性STEM重点高中共享？这项研究还发现了其他因素吗？2)关键因素是如何在每所学校实施的？3)影响学校设计、实施和学生结果的背景负担和限制是什么？4)这些学校的学生STEM结果与学区和州的平均水平相比如何？5)四所有前途的这样的学校与各自学区内匹配的综合高中相比如何，关键因素是如何显示的？6)从STEM领域代表性不足的学生的角度来看，学校和匹配的同行的教育体验如何比较？7)学生成绩如何比较？为了描述和比较相似的现象，本研究采用了多工具案例研究设计。作为关键案例的学校正在由专家通过提名程序进行挑选，然后根据关键设计维度进行筛选和分类。数据来源包括学校文件和公共数据库信息；一项调查，然后是电话采访，探索详细的信息，以提供对候选人组成部分的系统概述；对每所学校的实地访问，提供有关学校课堂观察的数据；与重点小组中的学生、教师和管理人员的访谈；以及与学校社区中提供独特学习机会的关键成员的讨论，如导师、商业领袖和提供校外学习经验的高等教育社区成员。该项目还在收集各种学校一级学生成果指标的数据，并正在跟踪包容性STEM重点学校与同一司法管辖区其他学校相比，学生可能的STEM课程轨迹、毕业率和大学录取率。对研究第一阶段的分析旨在制定丰富的描述，展示学校的特点，使用轴向和开放编码，以确定说明背景、设计、实施和结果要素之间相互联系的行动理论。对第二阶段研究的分析涉及四个层面的类似过程：学校、学生、数据库和三者的综合。对该项目的评价包括一个内部咨询委员会和一个外部咨询委员会，这两个委员会都主要就研究程序提供形成性反馈。研究结果以及案例研究、工具和标准的开发和使用记录、年度报告以及会议提案和论文都在一个网站上提供，以便为教育领导人、研究人员和政策制定者提供一个即时和持续的资源，以了解关于这些学校和特定模式的研究。还在努力让来自第二阶段研究的四对高中的高中生的经历发声。调查结果还通过更传统的方式传播，例如在同行评议期刊上发表论文和在会议上发表演讲。

The aim of this project is to examine opportunity structures provided to students by inclusive STEM-focused high schools, with an emphasis on studying schools that serve students from underrepresented groups. In contrast to highly selective STEM-focused schools that target students who are already identified as gifted and talented in STEM, inclusive STEM-focused high schools aim to develop new sources of STEM talent, particularly among underrepresented minority students, to improve workforce development and prepare STEM professionals. A new NRC report, Successful K-12 STEM Education (2011), identifies areas in which research on STEM-focused schools is most needed. The NRC report points out the importance of providing opportunities for groups that are underrepresented in the sciences, especially Blacks, Hispanics, and low-income students who disproportionately fall out of the high-achieving group in K-12 education. This project responds specifically to the call for research in the NRC report and provides systematic data to define and clarify the nature of such schools. The project is studying inclusive STEM-focused high schools across the United States to determine what defines them. The research team initially identified ten candidate critical components that define STEM-focused high schools and is refining and further clarifying the critical components through the research study. The first phase of the study is focusing on 12 well-established and carefully planned schools with good reputations and strong community and business support, in order to capture the critical components as intended and implemented. Case studies of these high-functioning schools and a cross-case analysis using a set of instruments for gauging STEM design and implementation are contributing toward building a theory of action for such schools that can be applied more generally to STEM education. The second phase of the study involves selecting four school models for further study, focusing on student-level experiences and comparing student outcomes against comprehensive schools in the same district. Research questions being studied include: 1) Is there a core set of likely critical components shared by well-established, promising inclusive STEM-focused high schools? Do other components emerge from the study? 2) How are the critical components implemented in each school? 3) What are the contextual affordances and constraints that influence schools' designs, their implementation, and student outcomes? 4) How do student STEM outcomes in these schools compare with school district and state averages? 5) How do four promising such schools compare with matched comprehensive high schools within their respective school districts, and how are the critical components displayed? 6) From the points of view of students underrepresented in STEM fields, how do education experiences at the schools and their matched counterparts compare? And 7) How do student outcomes compare? The research uses a multiple instrumental case study design in order to describe and compare similar phenomena. Schools as critical cases are being selected through a nomination process by experts, followed by screening and categorization according to key design dimensions. Data sources include school documents and public database information; a survey, followed by telephone interviews that probe for elaborated information, to provide a systematic overview of the candidate components; on-site visitations to each school provide data on classroom observations at the schools; interviews with students, teachers and administrators in focus groups; and discussions with critical members of the school community that provide unique opportunities to learn such as mentors, business leaders, and members of higher education community that provide outside of school learning experiences. The project is also gathering data on a variety of school-level student outcome indicators, and is tracking the likely STEM course trajectories for students, graduation rates, and college admission rates for students in the inclusive STEM-focused schools, as compared to other schools in the same jurisdiction. Analysis of the first phase of the study aims to develop rich descriptions that showcase characteristics of the schools, using axial and open coding, to determine a theory of action that illustrates interconnections among context, design, implementation, and outcome elements. Analysis of the second phase of the study involves similar processes on four levels: school, student, databases, and a synthesis of the three. Evaluation of the project consists of an internal advisory board and an external advisory board, both of which provide primarily formative feedback on research procedures. Research findings, as well as case studies, records of instrument and rubric development and use, annual reports, and conference proposals and papers are being provided on a website, in order to provide an immediate and ongoing resource for education leaders, researchers and policymakers to learn about research on these schools and particular models. An effort is also being made to give voice to the experiences of high school students from the four pairs of high schools studied in the second phase of the study. Findings are also being disseminated by more traditional means, such as papers in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.