1. Underrepresented
Students
are
Not
All
the
Same:
Examining
Science
Achievement
Among
English
Language
Learners
and
Socioeconomic
Subgroups
1.
Underrepresented
Students
in
Science
§ The
na'on
is
becoming
more
ethnically
diverse.
Minori'es
are
projected
to
be
the
majority
by
2043
(Ortman,
Velkoff,
&
Hogan,
2014)
§ US
has
a
major
shortage
of
STEM
professionals.
§ ELLs
and
students
from
low
SES
backgrounds
are:
Ø Less
likely
to
pursue
a
STEM
career
even
though
they
represent
a
significant
and
growing
por'on
of
the
student
popula'on.
Ø Treated
as
a
broad
popula'on
of
‘underperforming
students
although
their
challenges
are
different.
§ Challenges
in
learning
science
(Alba
&
Holdaway,
2013;
Lee,
Quinn,
&
Valdez,
2013)
Ø ELL
–
Language:
They
are
developing
their
English
literacy
skills
in
addi'on
to
learning
academic
vocabulary
and
science
content.
They
are
oWen
miscategorized
as
learning
disabled
or
special
educa'on
students
Ø SES
-­‐
Residen,al
segrega,on
(poverty):
Dispropor'onately
assigned
to
schools
that
lack
and
are
at
risk
of
falling
into
a
paZern
of
inequality
at
an
early
aged
leading
to
long-­‐term
lower
achievement.
Ø ELL/Low
SES:
There
are
students
that
fall
into
both
categories—facing
challenges
associated
with
learning
a
new
language
and
with
poverty.
2.
Purpose
of
Study
3.
Methodology
Differences
in
Science
Achievement.
This
study
examines
possible
differences
in
science
achievement
among
three
subgroups
of
underepresented
students
in
middle
school:
§ ELL:
Students
who
are
ELL
only
§ Low
SES:
Students
who
are
SES
only
§ ELL/Low
SES:
Students
who
fall
into
both
categories
Differences
in
Self-­‐Efficacy.
This
study
also
examines
students’
self-­‐reported
self-­‐
efficacy.
Self-­‐efficacy
is
defined
as
students’
beliefs
in
their
ability
to
accomplish
an
academic
task
(Bandera,
1997)
and
is
a
strong
predictor
of
science
achievement
for
middle
school
students
(Britner
&
Pajores,
2006).
Integrated
Middle
School
Science
(IMSS)
NSF
Award
No.
0962804
Procedures
§ Student
demographic
and
survey
data
was
collected
from
8
school
districts
during
the
2013-­‐14
school
year
(N
=
3189)
§ Teachers
administered
mul'ple-­‐choice
science
concept
inventories
and
a
student
self-­‐efficacy
survey
with
items
rated
on
a
5-­‐point
Likert
scale
§ Students
recorded
their
responses
on
forms
that
were
scored
electronically
Analyses
§ Descrip've
sta's'cs
were
run
to
examine
students’
pre
and
post
science
concept
inventory
and
self-­‐efficacy
scores
(score
represents
%
correct
out
of
100%)
across
the
three
groups.
§ Univariate
general
linear
model
(GLM)
was
was
used
to
compare
the
post-­‐
test
science
and
self-­‐efficacy
scores
across
the
three
groups.
§ Tukey’s
post
hoc
tests
were
conducted
for
pairwise
comparisons.
4.
Results
Self-­‐Efficacy.
Pre
and
post
self-­‐efficacy
scores
showed
no
significant
differences
in
self-­‐efficacy
between
groups
or
between
the
pre-­‐
and
post
scores
within
groups,
p
>
.05
(Figure
3).
Overall,
students
reported
high
self-­‐efficacy
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
school
year
regardless
of
their
actual
achievement.
Yvonne
Marroquin,
Doug
Rosales,
Rodrigue
Ndomo
Chris'ne
Lee,
Jeffery
Seitz,
Rachelle
DiStefano,
Kathryn
Hayes,
Dawn
O’Connor
3.
Methodology
cont.
Sample
and
Groups
(Figure
1)
§ ELL:
from
20%
to
40%)
(n=727)
§ Low
SES:
%
FRL
=
40%
to
100%
(n=95)
§ ELL/Low
SES:
(n
=
588)
Science
Achievement.
Univariate
GLM
showed
a
significant
difference
among
the
three
groups
in
post-­‐test
science
test
scores,
F(2,
929)
=
15.86,
p
<
.001,
ηp2
=
.03
(Figure
2).
Tukey’s
post
hoc
tests:
Only
the
ELL
was
significantly
different
from
the
ELL/Low
SES
(p
<
.001).
4.
Results
cont.
Figure
2
presents
the
pre
and
post
science
test
scores
across
the
three
groups.
5.
Discussion
Overall,
our
study
shows
that
the
ELL
group
showed
the
lowest
gains
and
lowest
post-­‐test
scores,
whereas
surprisingly,
the
students
in
the
both
ELL
and
low
SES
groups
showed
the
greatest
gains
and
highest
post-­‐test
scores.
T
Possible
benefits
associated
with
low
SES
and
ELL
status.
Students
who
fall
in
the
both
ELL
and
low
SES
group
may
be
receiving
added
supports
and
services
that
exist
in
schools
to
support
ELL
students
(e.g.,
individualized
sessions
with
language
specialist
during
school
hours),
as
well
as
aWer
school
programs
and
grant-­‐supported
ini'a'ves
for
low
SES
families
(Proctor,
Dalton,
&
Grisham,
2007).
Future
research
is
needed
to
examine
how
these
possible
benefits
may
moderate
the
challenges
of
ELL
and
low
SES
status
students
in
middle
school.
Students’
unwavering
self-­‐efficacy.
Our
results
also
showed
that
although
students
are
generally
not
performing
well
in
science,
they
con'nue
to
report
high
self-­‐
efficacy
both
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
school
year.
A
possible
explana'on
for
this
is
that
students’
responses
are
biased,
a
common
limita'on
of
using
self-­‐report
surveys
(Furnham
&
Henderson,
1982).
Although
all
three
groups
showed
gains
from
pre
to
post
test,,
it
is
important
to
note
that
overall,
science
achievement
at
the
end
of
the
school
year
was
below
an
average
of
50%
for
all
three
groups.
This
general
paZern
of
low
science
achievement
is
important
to
address,
as
middle
school
is
an
important
'me
in
which
students
begin
to
make
decisions
about
their
future
academic
and
professional
goals.
Select
References
Alba,
R.,
&
Holdaway,
J.
(Eds.).
(2013).
The
children
of
immigrants
at
school:
A
compara,ve
look
at
integra,on
in
the
United
States
and
Western
Europe.
NYU
Press.
Lee,
O.,
Quinn,
H.,
&
Valdés,
G.
(2013).
Science
and
language
for
English
language
learners
in
rela'on
to
Next
Genera'on
Science
Standards
and
with
implica'ons
for
Common
Core
State
Standards
for
English
language
arts
and
mathema'cs.
Educa,onal
Researcher.