You are here:

STEM Focused High School and University Partnership: Alternative Solution for Senioritis Issue and Creating Students’ STEM Curiosity ARTICLE

,

Journal of STEM Education Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1557-5284 Publisher: Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate how the high school-college partnership reflects on “senioritis\u201d and students STEM curiosity. The term “senioritis\u201d described in this paper refers to high school senior students who have completed most of their graduation requirement courses in the third year of studies. During the fourth year of high school, students may only need two or three credits for graduate which inherently causes the students to lose motivation. This then results in the aforementioned senioritis. Least credit requirements make senior students a senioritis and have a lack of motivation in the fourth year of high school. This study aims to illustrate how K-16 a model high school-college partnership with local colleges builds a scientific community that urban student can benefit from.

Citation

Icel, M. & Davis, M. (2018). STEM Focused High School and University Partnership: Alternative Solution for Senioritis Issue and Creating Students’ STEM Curiosity. Journal of STEM Education, 19(1),. Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE). Retrieved September 22, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. 1.Alhaddab, T.A., & Alnatheer, S.A. (2015). Future scientists: How women’s and minorities’ math selfefficacy and science perception affect their STEM major selection. Paper presented at the 58-63.
  2. 4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  3. 8. Frost, J.H., Coomes, J., & Lindeblad, K. (2012). Partnership paves the way to college success. Journal of Staff Development, 33(5), 24
  4. 9. Hacker, A. (2016). The math myth and other STEM delusions. New York: The New Press.
  5. 10. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.
  6. 11. Horn, L., and Nuñez, A. (2000). Mapping the Road to College: First-Generation Students’ Math Track, Planning Strategies, and Context of Support (NCES 2000–
  7. 13. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.
  8. 14. Morgan, Y., Sinatra, R., & Eschenauer, R. (2015). A comprehensive partnership approach increasing
  9. 30. Watt, K.M., Huerta, J., & Lozano, A. (2007). A comparison study of AVID and GEAR UP 10th grade students in two high schools in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(2), 1–29 My name is Mustafa Icel, and this is my 20th year in education as a teacher and school leader. I earned my BS in Physics Teaching (1997), Master in Education Leadership (2007), and currently Ph.D. Student in University of Missouri of Saint. Louis (UMSL).I started my teaching career teacher in
  10. 19. Project Lead The Way. (2011). Our history. Retrieved from http://www.pltw.org/about-us/our-history 20. Read “Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance” at NAP.edu. (N.D.). 8. 8.
  11. 28. Wang, X. (2013). Why Students Choose STEM Majors: Motivation, High School Learning, and Postsecondary Context of Support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-1121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23526124

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.