Lindenwood University Digital Commons@Lindenwood University Dissertations Theses & Dissertations Spring 5-3-2019 A Quantitative Study Examining Project Lead the Way Gateway Program Outcomes in a Suburban School District Patrick Joseph Bellinger Lindenwood University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Bellinger, Patrick Joseph, "A Quantitative Study Examining Project Lead the Way Gateway Program Outcomes in a Suburban School District" (2019).edu/dissertations/83 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses & Dissertations at Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact phuffman@lindenwood. A Quantitative Study Examining Project Lead the Way Gateway Program Outcomes in a Suburban School District by Patrick Joseph Bellinger A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education School of Education A Quantitative Study Examining Project Lead the Way Gateway Program Outcomes in a Suburban School District by Patrick Joseph Bellinger This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Lindenwood University by the School of Education Declaration of Originality I do hereby declare and attest to the fact that this is an original study based solely upon my own scholarly work here at Lindenwood University and that I have not submitted it for any other college or university course or degree here or elsewhere.
Full Legal Name: Patrick Joseph Bellinger Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my committee members, Dr. Laura Grayson, Dr. Jennifer Gross, and Dr. Kevin Winslow for reading this dissertation with a critical eye.
I am especially indebted to Dr. Winslow for his assistance with data analysis and interpretation. Most importantly, I must thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Jackie Ramey, for her thoughtful critiques, continuous encouragement (sometimes not so gentle prodding), and extensive patience with my progress throughout this journey.
Thank you also to helpful staff members in the study school district. Becky Brophy, Mike Salsman, and Dr. Brian Smith all provided valuable expertise and information. Thank you also goes to the students who volunteered to take the study survey.
Without their insights this study would not have been possible. Lastly, I want to thank my family for all of their love, support, and patience throughout this journey. My daughters, Grace and Olivia, were extremely patient while I progressed on this journey. I especially would like thank my wife, Ronda, without whom I would not be the person I am today.
Throughout our 25 years of marriage, she has been a constant source of love, encouragement, and reassurance. Without her I could never have achieved this goal. i Abstract Within the confines of this study, the Researcher investigated Project Lead the Way (PLTW) Gateway program outcomes at a Midwest suburban school district. The study examined specific academic achievement outcomes and attitudes regarding STEAM courses and STEAM careers among students who completed at least one semester in a middle school PLTW Gateway program.
The Researcher attempted to determine if there was a difference in student attitudes related to STEAM between students who enrolled in a PLTW Gateway course and students who never enrolled in PLTW Gateway, as determined in an online survey. The Researcher also attempted to determine if there was a difference related to test scores on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) in the subject areas of math and science between PLTW Gateway and non-PLTW Gateway students. Survey results showed that taking one PLTW Gateway course in middle school resulted in more positive attitudes of students, toward future STEAM courses and careers, when compared to peers who did not take any PLTW Gateway courses. Specifically, the study results showed that taking one PLTW Gateway course created more interest in a STEAM career, and resulted in students feeling more prepared for a STEAM career.
Also, students who took at least one PLTW course were likely to take another PLTW course in high school. The Researcher’s analysis of the historical MAP data from four middle schools over three years (2015, 2016, & 2017) showed no difference between PLTW Gateway and non-PLTW Gateway math and science MAP scores. The intention of this study was to provide a specific examination of the middle school PLTW Gateway program by comparing attitudes and state test scores of students ii who took at least one PLTW Gateway course to those students who did not. Although this study met a need for more specific research examining PLTW Gateway outcomes, a more thorough examination, perhaps a qualitative study of PLTW Gateway students, could expand on the work of this study, shedding even more light on student attitudes regarding STEAM courses and/or careers.
The Researcher recommends further research be conducted either by PLTW, Inc., through state PLTW affiliates, or by other individuals, to delve more deeply into attitudes of middle school PLTW Gateway students. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements. ii Table of Contents. iv List of Tables.
viii Chapter One: Introduction. 1 Rationale of the Study. 2 Purpose of Study. 7 Definition of Terms.
10 Chapter Two: Review of Literature. 12 The Case for PBL. 12 A Brief History of Problem and Project-based Learning. 14 iv Education in Middle Schools.
18 Developing 21st-Century Skills through PBL and STEAM. 24 Methods of Delivering STEAM/PBL to Students. 30 Student Attitudes related to STEAM Courses and STEAM Careers. 36 Project Lead The Way.
47 Chapter Three: Research Method and Design. 50 Model 1: Survey Data Collection Procedures. 50 Development of the Survey Instrument. 52 Instrument Alignment for Analysis.
53 2018 Survey Question Descriptive Statistics. 54 Model 2: Archived Data Collection Procedures. 62 2017 Science MAP Descriptive Statistics. 62 2015 - 2017 Math MAP Descriptive Statistics.
63 2015 - 2017 Algebra EOC Descriptive Statistics. 64 Threat to Validity. 65 Chapter Four: Results. 67 Null Hypotheses Results.
84 Chapter Five: Discussion. 118 vii List of Tables Table 1. Survey Questions and H1, H2, H3, & H4. H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11.
H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11. H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11. H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11. H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11.
H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11. H1: Paired survey questions 4 & 11. H5, H6, & H7 Populations and Sample Populations. H5: 2017 Science MAP; Descriptive Statistics.
H6: 2015 - 2017 Math MAP; Descriptive Statistics. H7: 2015 - 2017 Algebra EOC; Descriptive Statistics. 64 Table 13: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H1: Question Pair 4 & 11. 69 Table 14: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H2: Question Pair 5 & 12.
70 Table 15: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H2: Question Pair 6 & 13. 71 Table 16: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H2: Question Pair 8 & 15. 73 Table 17: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H3: Question Pair 7 & 14. 74 Table 18: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H3 & H4: Question Pair 9 & 16.
76 Table 19: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H3 & H4: Question Pair 10 & 17. 77 viii Table 20: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H3 & H4: Question Pair 7 & 14. 78 Table 21: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H3 & H4: Question Pair 9 & 16. 80 Table 22: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; H3 & H4: Question Pair 10 & 17.
81 Table 23: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; MAP Science. 82 Table 24: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; MAP Math. 83 Table 25: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances; ALG EOC. Survey Question Pair 5 & 12 Means.
Survey Question Pair 6 & 13 Means. Survey Question Pair 8 & 15 Means. Survey Question Pair 7 & 14 Means. Survey Question Pair 9 & 16 Means.
Survey Question Pair 10 & 17 Means. 96 ix Chapter One: Introduction Introduction Solving problems has been a part of the human experience since humans began to use tools. Transferring the knowledge and skill required to solve problems is one of the things that makes us human. According to Harvard (2011) the biggest challenges taken up by teachers since before the first schools opened included teaching students how to solve problems.
As the rate of technological change increased rapidly in the 20th and 21st centuries, teachers preparing future generations for successful adulthood became more complicated. School systems’ attempts to prepare students for the future included a broad range of strategies, including constructivist approaches, technical education, and classical liberal arts education. At the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, the rapidly changing demands of industry in the information age and government pressure created demands from both government and industry to better prepare America’s students for a world that was transforming at an increasing pace (Harvard, 2011). A number of government reports and initiatives beginning with, A Nation at Risk: The imperative for Educational Reform, in 1983, and more recently including the, Common Core State Standards Initiative, in 2010, and Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, in 2012, implored American public schools to better prepare students for the 21st century.
A Nation at Risk, Common Core, and Engage to Excel led to a vast array of initiatives in Problem-based Learning (PBL) and Project Based Learning (PBL) and Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math (STEAM) education as a way to meet new societal demands for transferring knowledge and skills to the next generations. PROJECT LEAD THE WAY GATEWAY 2 Problem-based Learning and Project Based Learning are interchangeable, per definitions. When spelled out, Problem-based Learning does not have a capital B, while in Project Based Learning, there is no hyphen and all words are capitalized, per definitions and copyright requirement (Tamin & Grant, 2013; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). The question of which pedagogies best met the demands for transferring 21st century skills led to many educational studies and initiatives highlighted in this study.
Project Lead the Way was one such program initiated on a national level. Specific outcomes of the program at the middle school level and student attitudes about STEAM careers were of particular interest to the Researcher and the focus of this study. Rationale of the Study Twenty-first century careers required schools to prepare students with different skills than in the past. According to Larmer (2016), Editor in Chief of the Buck Institute for Education, the profile of a 21st-century graduate was “a responsible, resourceful, persistent critical thinker who knows how to learn, works well with others, is a problem solver, communicates well, and manages time and work effectively” (p.
Employers surveyed by the Hart Research Associates (2013) believed that success in the workplace demanded skills, such as creativity, innovative thinking, and application of knowledge and skills to real problems. Both Project and Problem-based learning supported “the development of important real-world skills such as solving complex problems, thinking critically, analyzing and evaluating information, working cooperatively, and communicating effectively” (English & Kitsantas, 2013, p. PBL offered students a chance to interact with learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) while also “fostering student reflection and PROJECT LEAD THE WAY GATEWAY 3 metacognition” (Ertmer, Schlosser, Clase, & Adedokun, 2014, p. The then-current literature suggested that such skills were sometimes difficult for middle school students to master.
Belland, Glazewski, and Richardson (2011) found middle school students often struggled to make the type of evidence-based arguments crucial to scientific inquiry. Middle school students also struggled with a student role that required “constructing knowledge and making meaning [because] this role conflicts with deeply ingrained habits they have developed through more familiar classroom experiences in which they have been passive recipients of knowledge” (English & Kitsantas, 2013, p.