Answering the call: An evaluation of the Educate to Innovate campaign’s efforts to increase and diversify science,technology,engineering,and mathematics college graduates

Abstract

Increasing and diversifying STEM college graduates, and consequently the STEM workforce, remains a pressing national priority. As such, the purpose of this quantitative study was to evaluate the Educate to Innovate campaign within higher education. Using preexisting public survey data together with interrupted and comparative interrupted time series techniques, this inquiry aimed to determine whether STEM education has been rejuvenated and broadened or if there remains work to be done. Results ultimately showed that the campaign exerted a statistically significant positive effect on the trend of STEM college graduates. However, no significant difference in the trend between STEM college graduates who are women and STEM college graduates who are men or between minority and nonminority STEM college graduates was observed. Such comprehension is both timely and useful as individuals and organizations along with federal, state, and local policymakers continue to refine and tailor the development of future STEM education interventions.

Keywords

policy analysis Educate to Innovate campaign higher education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Academic Competitiveness Council (2007) Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council. Report. Washington DC: United States Department of Education. Available at: https://coalition4evidence.org/wp-content/uploads/ACC-report-final.pdf.

Allen

(2016) Education and Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baldi

Jin

Skemer

, et al. (2007) Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of United States 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context. Report for the United States Department of Education. Report no. NCES 2008–016, December. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf.

Bernal

Cummins

Gasparrini

(2017) Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology 46(1): 348–355. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw098.

Burke

McNeill

(2011) “Educate to Innovate”: How the Obama Plan for STEM Education Falls Short. Report for the Domestic Policy Studies Department. Report no. 2504, 5 January. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/education/report/educate-innovate-how-the-obama-plan-stem-education-falls-short.

CableFAX (2014) Five Years Later: Cable's STEM Progress Report. Report. Maryland: Access Intelligence LLC.

Campisi

(2019) Trump vs. Obama: presidential strides in STEM education. Education dive. Available at: https://www.k12dive.com/news/trump-vs-obama-presidential-strides-in-stem-education/543663/.

Dean

(2007) When science suddenly mattered, in Space and in Class. New York, NY: The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/science/space/25educ.html.

Espinosa

(2011) Pipelines and pathways: women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review 81(2): 209–240. DOI: 10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u.

10.

Estrada

Woodcock

Hernandez

, et al. (2011) Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. Journal of Educational Psychology 103(1): 206–222. DOI: 10.1037/a0020743.

11.

Felder

Feder

Dietz

(1998) A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention v. comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education 87(4): 469–480. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00381.x.

12.

Flemming

(1960) The philosophy and objectives of the national Defense education Act. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 327: 132–138. DOI: 10.1177/000271626032700116.

13.

Hallberg

Williams

Swanlund

, et al. (2018) Short comparative interrupted time series using aggregate school-level data in education research. Educational Researcher 47(5): 295–306. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X18769302.

14.

Handelsman

Smith

(2016) STEM for All. Report. Washington DC: The White House. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem-all.

15.

Harris

Miller

(2005) Needed: reincarnation of national Defense education Act of 1958. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 157–171. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-4419-1.

16.

Hill

Rowan

Ball

(2005) Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 42(2): 371–406. DOI: 10.3102/00028312042002371.

17.

Hunter

Laursen

Seymour

(2007) Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education 91: 36–74. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20173.

18.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (nd) STEM Designated Degree Program List. Report, United States Department of Homeland Security, Washington DC: Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Available at: https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2016/stem-list.pdf.

19.

Ingersoll

Perda

(2010) Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers sufficient? American Educational Research Journal 47(3): 563–594. DOI: 10.3102/0002831210370711.

20.

Kinkel

Henke

(2006) Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance, educational planning, and career development. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 35: 194–201. DOI: 10.2134/jnrlse2006.0194.

21.

Linden

(2015) Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single- and multiple-group comparisons. STATA Journal 15(2): 480–500. DOI: 10.1177/1536867X1501500208.

22.

Lovenheim

Turner

(2018) Economics of Education. New York: Worth Publishers.

23.

Maltese

Tai

(2010) Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education 32: 669–685. DOI: 10.1080/09500690902792385.

24.

Marx

Roman

(2002) Female role models: protecting women’s math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(9): 1183–1193. DOI: 10.1177/01461672022812004.

25.

Morgan

Gelbgiser

Weeden

(2013) Feeding the pipeline: gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research 42(4): 989–1005. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008.

26.

National Center for Education Statistics (1992) Integrated postsecondary education data system. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/.

27.

National Center for Education Statistics (2000) CIP 2000: crosswalk between CIP 2000 and CIP 1990. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/crosswalk.asp.

28.

National Center for Education Statistics (2003) The classification of instructional programs. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/default.aspx?y=55.

29.

National Center for Education Statistics (2007) Institutional responsibility for reporting race and ethnicity to IPEDS. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/report-your-data/race-ethnicity-reporting-changes.

30.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011) Postsecondary Awards in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, By State: 2001 and 2009. Report for the United States Department of Education. Report no. NCES 2011–226. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011226.pdf.

31.

National Research Council (2001) Adding it up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington DC: National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/9822.

32.

National Research Council (2007) Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington DC: National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/11625.

33.

National Research Council (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington DC: National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/12190.

34.

National Research Council (2010) Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Washington DC: National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/12882.

35.

National Science Board (2008) Science and engineering indicators 2008. Report for the President and Congress of the United States. Report No. NSB 08–01. Virginia: National Science Foundation. Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818072529/.

36.

National Science Foundation (2023) NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM). Program Solicitation for the National Science Foundation. Program Solicitation No. NSF 24-511. Virginia: National Science Foundation. Available at: https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/solicitations/pubs/2024/nsf24511/nsf24511.pdf?VersionId=kmV2FATZi5AcuwqVDOSuTSKj.qdVUzpD.

37.

National Science Foundation Task Force on Cyberlearning (2008) Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge. Virginia: Report, National Science Foundation. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf.

38.

Nguyen

Riegle-Crumb

(2021) Who is a scientist? The relationship between counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists and the STEM major intentions of Black and Latinx male and female students. International Journal of STEM Education 8(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/s40594-021-00288-x.

39.

Obama

(2009) Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Speech. Washington DC: The White House. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national-academy-sciences-annual-meeting.

40.

Office of the Press Secretary (2009) President Obama Launches “Educate to Innovate” Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering & Math (STEM) Education. Washington DC: The White House. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-launches-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-en.

41.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010) Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Report. Washington DC: Executive Office of the President. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf.

42.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012) Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report, Washington DC: Executive Office of the President. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-v11.pdf.

43.

Rivkin

Hanushek

Kain

(2005) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica 73(2): 417–458. DOI: 10.3386/w6691.

44.

Rubin

Hearn

(2018) The policy filtering process: understanding distinctive state responses to the national college completion agenda in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives 26(60): 1–28. https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/article/view/3447/2065.

45.

Russo

(2015) A primer on federal statutes affecting education. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications 81(4): 35–39. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/179.

46.

Senate Historical Office (nd) Sputnik spurs passage of the national Defense education Act. Report, Washington DC: United States Senate. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Sputnik_Spurs_Passage_of_National_Defense_Education_Act.htm.

47.

Seymour

Hewitt

(1997) Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Colorado: Westview Press.

48.

Stone

(2013) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making. New York: WW Norton and Company.

49.

Stout

Dasgupta

Hunsinger

, et al. (2011) STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 255–270. DOI: 10.1037/a0021385.

50.

The White House (nd) Educate to Innovate. Report. Washington DC: The White House. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/education/k-12/educate-innovate.

51.

United States Department of Education (2007) Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the United States Department of Education. Notice for the Federal Register. Notice no. E7-20613. Washington DC: United States Department of Education. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/10/19/E7-20613/final-guidance-on-maintaining-collecting-and-reporting-racial-and-ethnic-data-to-the-us-department.

52.

United States Government Accountability Office (2005) Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. Report for the Chairman. Committee on Rules, House of Representatives. Report no. GAO-06-114. Washington DC: United States Government Accountability Office. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-06-114.pdf.

53.

Vandell

Reisner

Pierce

(2007) Outcomes Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings from the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs. Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499113.pdf.

54.

Zimenoff

(2013) Applying lessons learned from women and minority STEM retention to build the next generation of STEM innovators. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal 29(2): 132–141.