Outreach programs play a crucial role in addressing the declining interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in civil engineering, where workforce shortages continue to grow. Traditional outreach activities, such as bridge building challenges, have long been a staple of engagement programs, but concerns over sustainability, material consumption, and repetitive engagement necessitate a re-evaluation of current practices. This study examines the effectiveness of alternative outreach strategies through a pilot study that utilizes a framework aligning activities with developmental stages and diverse student motivations. The study evaluates the pilot study of hands-on activities using commercially available sustainable materials, incorporating real-world engineering simulations, and leveraging digital outreach methods to extend engagement beyond physical events. Findings suggest that the effectiveness of an activity is highly dependent on age-appropriate complexity, group dynamics, and the integration of theoretical and practical components. The results highlight the need for outreach initiatives to move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches and towards tailored, scalable, and sustainable models that foster long-term STEM engagement. This research offers an outreach framework that could enhance inclusivity, maximize resource efficiency, and align with evolving educational and workforce needs in civil engineering.
Citation: Zachery Quince, Ben Coultas. STEM outreach redefined: Insights from a civil engineering case study[J]. STEM Education, 2026, 6(1): 21-34. doi: 10.3934/steme.2026002
Outreach programs play a crucial role in addressing the declining interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in civil engineering, where workforce shortages continue to grow. Traditional outreach activities, such as bridge building challenges, have long been a staple of engagement programs, but concerns over sustainability, material consumption, and repetitive engagement necessitate a re-evaluation of current practices. This study examines the effectiveness of alternative outreach strategies through a pilot study that utilizes a framework aligning activities with developmental stages and diverse student motivations. The study evaluates the pilot study of hands-on activities using commercially available sustainable materials, incorporating real-world engineering simulations, and leveraging digital outreach methods to extend engagement beyond physical events. Findings suggest that the effectiveness of an activity is highly dependent on age-appropriate complexity, group dynamics, and the integration of theoretical and practical components. The results highlight the need for outreach initiatives to move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches and towards tailored, scalable, and sustainable models that foster long-term STEM engagement. This research offers an outreach framework that could enhance inclusivity, maximize resource efficiency, and align with evolving educational and workforce needs in civil engineering.
| [1] |
Regan, E. and DeWitt, J., Attitudes, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment behaviour: An overview of relevant literature. Understanding Student Participation and Choice in Science and Technology Education, 2014, 63‒88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_5 doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_5
|
| [2] |
Wang, M.-T., Ye, F. and Degol, J.L., Who chooses STEM careers? Using a relative cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2017, 46(8): 1805‒1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8 doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8
|
| [3] |
Xie, Y., Fang, M. and Shauman, K., STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology, 2015, 41: 331‒357. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659 doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659
|
| [4] | Dawes, L., Long, S., Whiteford, C. and Richardson, K., Why are students choosing STEM and when do they make their choice? Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE2015), 2015. School of Engineering, Deakin University. |
| [5] |
Bentley, B., Sieben, R. and Unsworth, P., STEM education in Australia: Impediments and solutions in achieving a STEM-ready workforce. Education Sciences, 2022, 12(10): 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100730 doi: 10.3390/educsci12100730
|
| [6] |
Eilam, E., Bigger, S.W., Sadler, K., Barry, F. and Bielik, T., Universities conducting STEM outreach: A conceptual framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 2016, 70(4): 419‒448. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12105 doi: 10.1111/hequ.12105
|
| [7] | Figgis, J., Butorac, A., Clayton, B., Meyers, D., Dickie, M., Malley, J., et al., Advancing Equity: Merging "Bottom Up" Initiatives with "Top Down" Strategies. A National Vocational Education and Training Research and Evaluation Program Report, 2007. ERIC. |
| [8] |
Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G. and Ackerman, J.D., Achieving campus sustainability: top-down, bottom-up, or neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2011, 12(4): 338‒354. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111168269 doi: 10.1108/14676371111168269
|
| [9] | Reed, S., King, D., Whiteford, C., Coleman, B. and Pfeiffer, L., STEM Outreach: Are we making a difference? A case study evaluating the Science and Engineering Challenge Program. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 2021, 25(2): 59‒77. |
| [10] | Egnieers Australia. The engineering profession: a statistical overview, 15th edition, 2023. Available from: https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/publications/engineering-profession-statistical-overview-15th-edition. |
| [11] | Kaspura, A., Engineering Construction on Infrastructure: Ten Years of Trends. 2018. Engineers Australia. |
| [12] |
Sneider, C.I. and Ravel, M.K., Insights from two decades of P-12 engineering education research. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2021, 11(2): 5. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1277 doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1277
|
| [13] |
Becker, F.S., Why don't young people want to become engineers? Rational reasons for disappointing decisions. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2010, 35(4): 349‒366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.489941 doi: 10.1080/03043797.2010.489941
|
| [14] |
Loh, F., Wamser, F., Poignée, F., Geißler, S. and Hoßfeld, T., YouTube dataset on mobile streaming for internet traffic modeling and streaming analysis. Scientific Data, 2022, 9(1): 293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01418-y doi: 10.1038/s41597-022-01418-y
|
| [15] |
Nikolic, S., Quince, Z., Lindqvist, A.L., Neal, P., Grundy, S., Lim, M., et al., Project-work Artificial Intelligence Integration Framework (PAIIF): Developing a CDIO-based framework for educational integration. STEM Education, 2025, 5(2): 310–332. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025016 doi: 10.3934/steme.2025016
|
| [16] | Quince, Z., Petkoff, K., Michael, R.N., Daniel, S. and Nikolic, S., The current ethical considerations of using GenAI in engineering education and practice: A systematic literature review. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2024), 2024. Engineers Australia. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.T2025032000018100288643600 |
| [17] | Schmid, R., Meaker, N. and Thomas, D., Engaging engineering students with the wider community: The Endeavour program at the University of Melbourne. 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education 2012: Profession of Engineering Education: Advancing Teaching, Research and Careers, 2012. Engineers Australia. |
| [18] |
Ross, R., Whittington, J. and Huynh, P., Lasertag for STEM engagement and education. IEEE Access, 2017, 5: 19305‒19310. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2753218 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2753218
|
| [19] | Ross, R. and Bell, C., Turning the classroom into an escape room with decoder hardware to increase student engagement. 2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG), 2019. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG.2019.8848020 |
| [20] |
Defoe, I.N., Dubas, J.S., Figner, B. and van Aken, M.A.G., A meta-analysis on age differences in risky decision making: Adolescents versus children and adults. Psychological Bulletin, 2015,141(1): 48‒84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038088 doi: 10.1037/a0038088
|
| [21] |
Li, D., Wu, M., Zhang, X., Wang, M. and Shi, J., The roles of fluid intelligence and emotional intelligence in affective decision-making during the transition to early adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 11: 574903. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574903 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574903
|
| [22] |
Krieshok, T.S., Black, M.D. and McKay, R.A., Career decision making: The limits of rationality and the abundance of non-conscious processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2009, 75(3): 275‒290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.006
|
| [23] |
Sidiropoulou-Dimakakou, D., Mylonas, K., Argyropoulou, K. and Drosos, N., Career decision-making characteristics of primary education students in Greece. International Education Studies, 2013, 6(5): 22‒32. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n5p22 doi: 10.5539/ies.v6n5p22
|
| [24] |
Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., Fray, L., McElduff, P., Weaver, N., et al., Unpacking the career aspirations of Australian school students: Towards an evidence base for university equity initiatives in schools. Higher Education Research & Development, 2017, 36(7): 1383–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1325847 doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1325847
|
| [25] | Murcia, K., Pepper, C. and Williams, J., Youth STEM career choices: What's influencing secondary students' decision making. Issues in Educational Research, 2020, 30(2): 593‒611. |
| [26] | Hills, C., McAlister, C., Kist, A., Baillie, J., Quince, Z. and Seligmann, H., Orientation for credit, transition for success. 34th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference (AAEE2023), 2023,621‒629. |
| [27] | Romanis, J., Women in Engineering: Identifying avenues for increasing female participation in engineering, by understanding the motivators and barriers around entry and progression. Technical report, 2022. Engineers Australia. Retrieved from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/women-in-engineering-report-june-2022.pdf |
| [28] |
Cheryan, S., Lombard, E.J., Hailu, F., Pham, L.N.H. and Weltzien, K., Global patterns of gender disparities in STEM and explanations for their persistence. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2025, 4: 6‒19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3 doi: 10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3
|
| [29] |
Quigley, N.R., Broussard, K.A., Boyer, T.M., Fishman, S.M., Comolli, N.K., Grannas, A.M., et al., Differentiated career ecosystems: Toward understanding underrepresentation and ameliorating disparities in STEM. Human Resource Management Review, 2024, 34(1): 101002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.101002 doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.101002
|
| [30] |
Tang, D., Meltzoff, A.N., Cheryan, S., Fan, W. and Master, A., Longitudinal stability and change across a year in children's gender stereotypes about four different STEM fields. Developmental Psychology, 2024, 60(6): 1109. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001733 doi: 10.1037/dev0001733
|
| [31] |
Shields, N. and Quince, Z., Designing interactive engagement activities for entry to mechanical engineering programs. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 2025, 0(0): 03064190251366790. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190251366790 doi: 10.1177/03064190251366790
|
| [32] |
Neher-Asylbekov, S. and Wagner, I., Modelling of interest in out-of-school science learning environments: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 2023, 45(13): 1074-1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2185830 doi: 10.1080/09500693.2023.2185830
|
| [33] |
Xu, W. and Ouyang, F., The application of AI technologies in STEM education: A systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 2022, 9(1): 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5 doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5
|
| [34] |
Quince, Z. and Nikolic, S., Student identification of the social, economic and environmental implications of using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI): identifying student ethical awareness of ChatGPT from a scaffolded multi-stage assessment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2025, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2482830 doi: 10.1080/03043797.2025.2482830
|
| [35] | Quince, Z., Petkoff, K., Lidfors Lindqvist, A., Faulconer, E., Chow, W. and Nikolic, S., Exploring GenAI image generation in engineering: A thematic analysis of ethical and representational biases. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2025, 41(6): 1462–1472. |
Zachery Quince, Ben Coultas. STEM outreach redefined: Insights from a civil engineering case study[J]. STEM Education, 2026, 6(1): 21-34. doi: 10.3934/steme.2026002
DownLoad: