Developing Students’ Science,Technology,Engineering,and Mathematics Talent in Rural After-School Settings: Rural Educators’ Affordances and Barriers

Affordances of Teaching in Rural Contexts

Math and science educators in rural schools are more likely than their urban and suburban peers to perceive that they have agency and control over their curriculum and pedagogy (Banilower et al., 2018; Vaughn & Saul, 2013). Math educators in rural schools are equally likely as their urban and suburban peers to experience professional development encouraging student-centered instruction—and computer science educators are more likely to have such professional development (Banilower et al., 2018). Although access to some resources proves challenging, science educators in rural communities spend more per pupil on equipment and supplies, and mathematics educators spend more than their urban counterparts but less than suburban mathematics educators (Banilower et al., 2018).

Rural educators reported increased access to ready communication with parents and their district’s administration. They believe they have a deeper understanding of their students’ interests and enjoy how the small school setting allows them to watch students grow and develop throughout their schooling (Goodpaster et al., 2012). They are also less likely to have problematic issues with students that impact mathematics and science instruction (Banilower et al., 2018). Nonetheless, these personal and professional matters make working in rural contexts neither idyllic nor completely fraught with difficulties. Understanding the issues rural educators face and the strengths they leverage during the school day has implications for effectively structuring and implementing after-school programs.

Barriers to Teaching in Rural Contexts

O’Hair and Reitzug (2008) described rural education as a neglected aspect of social justice. They summarized the challenges rural educators face: “Compared to their nonrural counterparts, rural teachers average 13.4% less in salary, live in substandard housing, experience professional, cultural, and social isolation, and receive little if any professional development (Beeson & Strange, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Education Trust, 2003; Jimmerson, 2003)” (p. 152). Rural educators and their communities have access to fewer resources that support educational endeavors (Smeaton & Waters, 2013). One noteworthy example is broadband access, with 83% of people who lack access to broadband living in rural communities (Federal Communications Commission, 2018). Sufficient human capital is also a resource that poses challenges for rural educators, as they report heavy workloads entailing myriad further problems (Buchanan et al., 2013).

Rural educators lack the same degree of academic preparation as their suburban and urban counterparts. One-quarter of all rural science educators lack either certification to teach science or academic preparation (National Science Board, 2006). Rural high school science educators are also less likely than their urban and suburban peers to either have a degree or at least three advanced courses in the subject (Banilower et al., 2018). Once teaching in rural communities, rural educators lack access to the same student-centered professional development opportunities as their urban and suburban peers. Administrators in rural schools are less likely to offer local workshops or one-on-one coaching to STEM educators. Therefore, the fact that rural educators are less likely to engage their students in the practices of mathematics and science is not surprising (Banilower et al., 2018). The current study aimed to explore whether these barriers and affordances manifested similarly for rural educators in informal out-of-school STEM contexts.

District A

The middle school in District A was located approximately one mile from the edge of town. The middle school building connected to the high school, with the elementary building sitting just to the north. The building itself was just under 20 years old and was in a small community (fewer than 1,000 people), The district population was 94% White (United States Department of Education [U.S. DOE], 2017). Some Latino families and families with biracial children had begun moving into the area in recent years. The town had also experienced economic hardships, and more than 51% of district students qualified for FARM. For program initiation and implementation, District A had one person.

District B

The middle school in District B was unique in its composition because it housed Grades 5–8 and was relatively large with 1,100 students. The community was bigger than the other two. District B was geographically isolated from other large towns, and the school district drew students from all over the region. District B has a student population of 4,007 (U.S. DOE, 2017). The student body was more racially diverse than the other schools in the study; 26% of the total population being students of color (U.S. DOE, 2017) with one student who was an English language learner in their STEM out-of-school program. More than 61% of the district’s students qualify for FARM. District B had one coordinator and two educators for the program.

District C

District C was the most rural of all the sites, with the school located off a series of gravel roads. This district was created in 1962 by the merger of three small rural school districts into one. Students who attended this school came from three different small towns and a large unincorporated area. District C served 542 students in kindergarten through Grade 12. District C had 48% of students qualifying for FARM and was more than 97% White. District C had one coordinator and two educators for the program.

Interviews

Semistructured interviews investigated educators’ experiences and decision-making around program implementation. The interview protocol (see Appendix A) provided a guide for the identification of interview topics to be explored in more detail allowing the flexibility to ask follow-up questions as they arose and engage in conversation around the topics of interest. The questions were purposefully constructed in an open-ended way providing space for the educators to share as much information as they wished to share. Interviews provided data regarding both structure of their district’s program and educators’ perceptions of program implementation. Eight interviews were conducted in total, with two interviews conducted in District A and three each in Districts B and C. Interviews occurred both before, during, and after program sessions. Interview times varied depending on the structure of the site and on the educator’s schedule, but most were approximately 15 minutes in length. The audio of each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Session Observations

Ten program sessions were observed in person. Four sessions were completed in District A and three sessions each in District B and C. When conducting observations, the researcher was positioned at a location agreeable to the educator. The researcher then circulated through the room during instruction and interacted with students as they engaged in the activity. A smart pen recorded audio of the lessons and descriptive field notes. Field notes documented classroom layout, classroom events, educator behaviors, and student actions. Analytical as well as interpretive memos were recorded in field notebooks to capture researchers’ reflections and to make sense of research, observations, and interactions with participants (Maxwell, 2013).

Theme 1: Exercising Local Control

Rural educators identified local control as an affordance both gained and exercised in the STEM out-of-school program. Program educators leveraged a sense of agency over their settings and the curriculum to create customized learning experiences for their students and projects with local relevance. For example, in District A, an educator used formal training in special education to create personalized education plans for each student.

My goal thus far is to get where they [students] have a desire to go to college. [There are] data that says. . . why that they’re in the program. Then you have basic strengths. . . what are the things they need for differentiation in the classroom? So, it’s more that PEP [Personalized Education Plan] becomes almost more of like an IEP [Individualized Education Plan] for TAG [talented and gifted] students. (District A, Interview, 1.18)

The educator at this district had their own curriculum they wanted to implement based on student needs at this school. Likewise, in District B, the educators felt empowered to design curriculum to solve a local issue concerning an unused parcel of land directly adjacent to the school building. They also extended a sense of local agency to their students. Students at each grade level of the program had the freedom to select what they would like to do within the space. The eighth-grade group designed and created bridges; the seventh-grade group designed and created benches; and the sixth-grade group designed and created pathways. As one student reported, “We are the architects!” (District B, Observation, 2.18).

Another aspect of agency is how districts modified the talent search model’s use of above-level testing to identify students for whom the program was likely a good academic fit. During professional development sessions that offered ongoing support, educators were offered guidance on identifying and interpreting above-level testing data. Each district was asked to annually consider its talent pool data to establish its program admission guidelines based on local norms and the makeup of each year’s talent pool. A cut score for participation was not supplied by the university, nor was it recommended. Districts felt empowered to modify the talent identification model to their needs.

District B created modifications to cast an even broader net resulting in inclusive identification practices. They added criteria to the talent search model to expand beyond above-level assessment data, including class performance, additional artifacts (e.g., documentation of hobbies), and off-cycle student admission to the program. For example, two students who had not started the program as sixth graders were invited into the program midway through their eighth-grade year based on their academic performance during the most recent school year (District B, Observation 1.18). One of the program educators expressed that these additional identification methods helped them be more inclusive and more accurate in their talent identification process.

District C modified the talent identification model by relying upon cut scores for program identification, despite the fact that the university partner had not imposed the practice. They believed they could use the identification process to motivate student engagement. Because program participation was highly desirable at this school, students not identified for programming through the talent search process expressed sadness over not being chosen. These students told their educators that they would try again next year to participate. Many of the students worked diligently to achieve the scores needed to be part of the group.

It’s becoming a badge of honor to be part of the program. Students are really trying hard on the test. They want to get into the program and they’re really disappointed when they don’t get in. . . . The kids who were not motivated have become motivated and joined. . . . We’ve had three kids join who weren’t in the program before who have stepped up. . . . [The program] is developing a reputation. . . . What I like about it, too, [it is an] opportunity for students who aren’t necessarily identified as gifted. . . . It motivates. It gives them another opportunity for high-ability students. (District C, Interview, 1.18)

Theme 2: Expanding Community for Advanced Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Learning

Although the geographic location and community size differed across the three sites, a community of high-potential learners emerged within the STEM programs. District A experienced ample district support for the STEM informal program, evidenced by their ability to use one of the recently remodeled and technology-infused classroom spaces for out-of-school programming (District A, Observation 2.17). In District B, the creation of a community partnership occurred around the donation of a plot of land that program students restored to native prairie and designed as an outdoor learning space. Educators in District B created a dynamic community between students, local conservation groups, county officials, and school administration through their approach to program implementation. Educators invited guests such as the state’s conservation officer to speak at sessions led to students planting native species in their prairie to assist with statewide conservation efforts. (District B, Observation 2.18).

District B program educators regularly expanded students’ interactions and learning beyond the teachers within the program. For example, one educator recounts how students engaged in a project to design and build furniture for various teachers in the school. They surveyed the teachers and asked them if they needed a particular type of furniture for their classrooms. For the library, students had designed a chair that included bookshelves.

They had to find a client [and] find out what the client needed. Their client is our reading teacher, and she wanted, like a modern design that kids could sit and read and have books available. They had to go in there and measure the room. Made a prototype for that teacher. Had that teacher okay it, went back, redid it. Eventually got it okayed, scaled it down. . . a scale model to show, “Okay, do you like this?” Then scaled it back up, but it’s gotta be fifty percent [new materials]. The rest is just supposed to be [reused] sources like cardboard. (District B, Observation 1.18)

They expressed that flexible, locally focused approaches maximized the benefits of the local resources and expertise available within the community. (District B, Observation 1.18; District B, Observation 2.18; District B, Observation 2.19).

In District C, participation in the out-of-school STEM program created a community of learners who served as peer mentors within their school. District C’s community of high-potential learners was one with social capital in the district. They had the ability to begin academic trends in the district, increase the number of program participants, and encourage past participants to mentor younger participants (District C, Interview, 1.18).

Theme 3: Leveraging the Intersectionality of Rurality, Local Agency, and Expanded Resources

Rurality is both an affordance and a barrier for engaging students in advanced STEM opportunities. Across all three districts, the close relationships between educators and their administration and community members were recognized and leveraged by program educators to identify students with STEM talent and implement the program. In a small school where students in grades K–12 were educated within the same building, students could move to access educators, materials, and students at different grade levels. Nonetheless, geographic isolation and small school size meant that opportunities derived from field trips, internships, competitions, and advanced coursework were not readily available to the students.

District A viewed their small rural community as an affordance that allowed them to identify and meet the academic needs of the students in the program more accurately. Educators at this school felt that their rural setting facilitated an inclusive community. Educators and administrators knew the students well and could better meet their needs due to these existing relationships. As one educator reflected,

[Living in a small, rural community is] all new to me. . . I really enjoy it. . . . There is such a community. . . . They have something really good going on here. They just, it’s no matter [what] it is. . . If it’s sports, academics, they just have this community feel. (District A, Interview, 1.18)

Moreover, the configuration of the smaller educational setting maximized access to resources for all grade levels. The program met in a recently remodeled technology-rich classroom with a 3D printer, charging stations, and multimedia capabilities. The room configuration allowed for collaboration, and the program seemed to be using it to their advantage. On one observational visit, the program educator ran out of laptop computers for each student to use. She sent a student down to the high school computer lab to obtain more laptop computers connected to the middle school. This resource sharing was possible because the middle and high schools shared the same building. The educator told the researcher that she recognized this as unique and not possible in larger schools. She also recognized a level of familiarity between administration and students that seemed unique to the rural setting; she discussed the superintendent dropping in regularly to school events. She had previously worked in a large district. She had never witnessed a superintendent interacting with students regularly in a supportive fashion. Educators in each of the three districts expressed frustration over the competition for students by extracurricular programming. “Football, volleyball, and cross country, then you’re fighting basketball, and wrestling, and then track. And most of our kids are very involved” (District C, Interview 1.17). An educator in District A expressed frustrations regarding scheduling as a barrier to student participation and staffing.

The biggest issue we see is the scheduling of trying to get it in with the kids, with a small school. . . . We’ve had different administration and different set ups of classes and new teachers, and that’s the hardest thing. . . . The biggest trouble in a small school I think is the scheduling. . . . Because we’re limited to the staff that can do it. And so that’s why we [changed the format from after school to]. . . during school hours because our participation’s a lot higher for middle schoolers. . . we’re competing with all the other clubs and organizations. (District C, Interview 2.18).

Technological issues were frequent for students trying to use specific engineering programs in the school’s computer lab for group projects and program funding empowered educators with provided potential solutions.

[The computers have been] that way all year this year. I don’t know why. Last year it just, it wasn’t that way. Now it’s a new update. Which maybe it does use more memory than what’s on there. . . . We should use our funds from you guys to update the memory on our stupid computers so it works better (laughing). (District B, Observation 2.18)

An educator in District C discussed how the configuration of the elementary, middle, and high schools housed in one building fostered relationships across the grades. Despite living in different towns, students and educators knew each other well. There were opportunities for cross-age tutoring, mentorship by the older students, and collaborations with educators and coaches outside of the program.

Well, they have come back and they’re helping [in the math] class. And they are running this [robotics] group. . . . They’re now mentoring the others. They were part of STEM and they’ve graduated and moved on but they’re here. . . . We’re kind of letting them lead the way. As they are stepping up and participating in leadership roles, they can cheer [current students] on as they go through [the program]. . . . And this being such a small school, where we only have so many students. They all participate in sports. And multiple sports, and so every season, this is an issue. . . I mean that was a concern with the parents too. We had to work with coaches [because program students] were a little late getting to practice, so we had to arrange it all and tell them, “This is really important.” That’s how we’ve been flexible with making it work. (District C, Interview, 1.18)

Access to the entire district population was beneficial to sixth-grade students learning how to conduct surveys and perform statistical analyses. Some students in the program used their newly gained skills and knowledge to work with the elementary school’s LEGO® Robotics League (District C, Interview, 1.18). Ninth-grade students from an earlier cohort of the STEM informal program chose to return to serve as mentors (District C, Observation, 2.18).

Geographic isolation from more populous areas of the state presented challenges for District A and C. One educator reflected on how the extra travel time poses challenges for educators’ workload.

We have really good teachers, so I guess we could always have more resources, more opportunities to do things. Our biggest obstacle is our location. Like we were just talking about taking the kids. . . to the science museum. We’re two and a half or 3 hours away. So, we’re looking at a 5-hour, 6-hour bus trip. We’re talking like all day long and it’s hard on me and my family. . . [because] we have to do it on a Saturday. So just to be able to get to those resources, that would be our biggest obstacle right now. (District C, Interview 2.18)

Although using program resources for field trips in some districts was challenging, in another district this was a means to address geographic isolation. “We’re trying to get where it’s not just here. . . . We want to expand out this year if we can” (District A, Interview, 1.18).