Avoiding a Deficit-Approach in Informal STEM Learning
Welcome to the October 2022 edition of the Improved Insights Newsletter: a newsletter for folks in informal STEM learning spaces who want to learn more about how to measure and communicate the impacts of their work.
I’m Sarah M. Dunifon - a long-time STEM educator, evaluator, and equity advocate. After spending time working in museums, nonprofits, and higher education, I now work on cutting-edge informal STEM learning research and evaluation with my team at Improved Insights. We specialize in informal STEM learning and youth programs.
This monthly newsletter includes tips, resources, and news on informal STEM learning evaluation. We hope you find it valuable! Now, let’s get started —
Why a deficit approach to informal STEM learning hurts learners
In this month's newsletter, we'll talk about deficit thinking in education and the deficit model in science communication.
Deficit thinking is a way of viewing learners, from a lens of what they are lacking. This type of thinking is usually subconscious and informed by the social and cultural contexts of our society.
We’ll explore who deficit thinking impacts the most, how deficit thinking plays out in formal and informal education, and how we - as educators and evaluators - can avoid it in order to impart greater equity and justice in our work. To read the full article, check it out in our Insights. In the meantime, here’s a taste:
“In addition to having roots in classist and racist ideologies, deficit thinking is anchored in meritocracy and colorblindness. Indeed, deficit thinking is inextricably intertwined with meritocratic ideologies, which suggest that everyone has an equal chance to succeed within existing sociopolitical structures” (Patton Davis & Museus, 2019).
Just think about standardized testing or the educational focus on “grit” which assumes students can succeed if they just muster enough personal grit (ignoring, of course, what larger systems of oppression they might be facing). And deficit thinking is not reserved for only formal education. You can absolutely see its influence in the out-of-school and informal learning spaces as well. As noted by Baldridge (2014), afterschool community-based programs are often cited as “institutions that ‘save’ and ‘fix’ students who are ‘broken’ and ‘at risk.’”
“This deficit framing disregards the assets that Black and minoritized youth bring to educational spaces, thus ignoring their agency – and thereby limiting the ways they are imagined, engaged, and educated” (Baldridge, 2014).
[...]
What can we as educators and evaluators do to avoid deficit-thinking?
Asset-based, strengths-based, culturally responsive, and equitable approaches are a great start. Patton Davis & Museus (2019) suggest three ways in which scholars and activists can advance anti-deficit perspectives and discourses in education:
“Critiquing deficit thinking that is embedded within existing discourses, systems, institutions, and environments.”
“Centering the voices of the historically oppressed communities in research, policy, and practice to humanize these populations.”
“Utilize knowledge from historically oppressed populations to generate new frameworks and ways of understanding core social and educational processes.”
And it carries over to evaluation too. At Improved Insights, we practice participatory and culturally responsive evaluation, with a strengths-based lens. Why? Because only focusing on what isn’t working demotivates your staff, obscures your “wins” and paints an incomplete picture of your impacts. Using a strength-based approach is not only more effective, it's more equitable too.
Here are some things that evaluators can do:
Avoid only focusing on content learning and administering test-like surveys or pre/post tests
Advocate for other markers of achievement - beyond test scores to showcase the broader advancements in youth development (e.g., social, emotional, and cultural)
See the whole person in the youth being served - not just their academic outputs
Consider the systems at play behind who shows up to your programs and who doesn’t, rather than just collecting demographic data
Include communities in the co-creation of programs and evaluations
Allow for alternative ways of knowing
ii Updates
There are two exciting Improved Insights updates for you this month.
First, it’s the fourth anniversary of Improved Insights! In just 4 years, we've:
Evaluated programs for numerous nonprofits, university outreach departments, and government agencies, leading to actionable insights on STEM learning. Through this work, we've indirectly reached thousands of youth and adult learners.
Led strategic planning to help organizations identify the crucial next steps to their success, using an evaluative lens to collect data from the process and about the process as we go.
Developed educational materials to help informal STEM learning organizations best communicate to their audiences, with an eye on accessibility and inclusion.
Supported up-and-coming STEM nonprofits through the pro-bono STEM Impact Program, aimed at increasing equity in evaluation and grantmaking in informal STEM learning spaces.
Worked with excellent nonprofit accelerators to support new nonprofit leaders in the development of evaluation strategies for their programs.
And so much more!
HUGE thank you to everyone who has supported us on this journey - current and former staff and consultants, our wonderful clients, friends and colleagues, and those just watching in the wings.
Second, Founder and Principal Evaluator Sarah Dunifon has received a student-faculty research grant from the University of Pittsburgh where she is completing her Doctor of Education in out-of-school learning. These funds will support an ongoing landscape analysis study of informal STEM education funders in the United States. Stay tuned for updates on this exciting project!
60-Second Suggestions
Here are a few of my favorite things this month, usually pertaining to informal STEM education and evaluation, but occasionally some fun personal stuff, too.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is seeking grant reviewers for the 2023 IMLS funding cycle. The review will take place over a 3 to 5-week period between February and March 2023. Along with the professional development it offers, reviews will also receive an honorarium of between $300 and $500 depending on the type of review.
Squad Play by SuperBetter inventor and game designer Jane McGonigal “uses the psychology of game play in all of life to help you build skills, overcome obstacles and achieve your goals.” The applications for social-emotional learning are apparent and I’m excited to see how it ends up getting used in K-12 education.
This post from Nonprofit AF and this cartoon from Chris Lysy of Freshspectrum, in honor of spooky season:
We hope you enjoyed this issue of the Improved Insights newsletter.
Until next time - thanks for reading!
