Institutional Ambiguity and De Facto Tracking in STEM

Abstract

Background/Context Many schools no longer track classes to increase access to courses at all levels, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. However, informal processes can “de facto” track students, placing them at the same level across subjects. Research shows that de facto tracking is prevalent in STEM, especially between mathematics and science course placements. Less is known about the relationship between mathematics and engineering—the focus of this study. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study Mathematics placement is likely to shape participation in engineering given its position under the STEM umbrella. Yet, de facto tracking does not occur all the time. This may depend on the categorization of courses as “academic” or “vocational,” but there is little research about this aspect of course-to-student matching. Therefore, we investigate an unexpected case of equitable participation where mathematics placement does not de facto track students in engineering. We ask: How do institutional and organizational factors shape the absence of de facto tracking? Research Design We used qualitative data drawn from a two-year mixed-methods study in a public high school district with one large comprehensive high school. The school is in the lower third of per pupil spending in the state of Massachusetts, yet has significant engineering-related course offerings. Located near Boston, it serves an economically and racially diverse student body of ∼1,800 students. For this article, we analyzed 998 hours of observations during and after school, in engineering-related elective courses and extracurricular activities, and interviews with 29 students, 31 teachers, six guidance counselors, two district administrators, and the principal. Findings/Results We find competing vocational and academic logics equally frame engineering, which we call “institutional ambiguity.” This dual framing is present at the institutional level and is supported at the school level by three organizational factors: 1) courses and activities that occur in both vocational and academic spaces, 2) teachers who link vocational and academic fields, and 3) an organizational commitment to support the integration of vocational activities. Conclusions/Recommendations Overall, this article contributes to educational and organizational research by identifying the institutional factors and organizational processes that shape the categorization of courses and student-to-course matching. Our research reveals the conditions under which schools and the actors within them have greater agency, where ambiguity in the broader environment allows for contestation and renegotiation of status hierarchies. We argue that by leveraging ambiguity, schools may avoid contributing to inequity in STEM.

What shapes implementation of a school-based makerspace? Teachers as multilevel actors in STEM reforms

“…Our research team included sociologists, learning scientists, engineers, and developmental technology specialists. The authors are collaborators with expertise in maker education (Tucker-Raymond & Gravel, 2019), school-based technology reforms (Puckett, 2022;Puckett & Gravel, 2020), and learning in design (Gravel & Svihla, 2021). The range of expertise in designing and studying learning in making (Gravel) coupled with sociological perspectives on organizational and institutional dynamics (Puckett) allowed us to view, analyze, and construct claims through a multidimensional perspective, lending credibility and trustworthiness to our inquiry (Guba, 1981).…”

“…Makerspaces are places where students can engage in these hands-on making experiences (Hatch, 2013). Pedagogical approaches used in making and makerspaces can support students' agency; inquiry with materials; approaches to design and problem solving; design self-efficacy; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) literacy practices; and engagement in different and more equitable forms of STEM learning (Andrews et al, 2021;Bevan et al, 2015;Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018;Martin et al, 2018;Puckett & Gravel, 2020;Sheridan et al, 2014; Page 2 of 22 Gravel and Puckett International Journal of STEM Education (2023) 10:7 2019). Schools are increasingly implementing making as a STEM reform effort (Martin, 2015), yet there are still relatively few studies that explore how schools adopt maker education in K-12 settings (e.g., Hansen et al, 2019;Kim & Sinatra, 2018;Rouse & Gillespie Rouse, 2022;Stornaiuolo & Nichols, 2018;Vongkulluksn et al, 2018).…”

Sorting Machines: Digital Technology and Categorical Inequality in Education

“…First, categories of students can be matched to resources like technology, too. But we argue that technologies can be categorized, as well, and students can be sorted to those technologies based on assumed match (Puckett & Gravel, 2020). These matchings have the potential to provide some students benefits over others.…”

Digital Adaptability: A New Measure for Digital Inequality Research

“…To do so, I used survey data from a mixed-methods study in a small, diverse urban school district near Boston. A collaborator and I chose the district because of its extensive STEM offerings, including technology and engineering-related electives; extracurricular technology activities including Robotics, Computer Club, Technovation (a program for girls), and a “makerspace” where students do hands-on activities, and a 1:1 school-wide laptop program (Puckett & Gravel, 2020). We conducted the survey in 2015–2016, sampling to draw a large, representative sample of the 1,849 9–12th-grade student population.…”