Experiences of users of period tracking apps: which app, frequency of use, data input and output and attitudes.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the experiences of users of period tracking apps in relation to which apps they use, their frequency of use, the type of data and their attitudes to period tracking apps? DESIGN: This was an observational mixed-methods study using an online survey designed using Qualtrics XM. The survey included 50 open-ended and multiple choice questions, but only specific questions were analysed in this study. The survey was promoted via social media for 22 days between 30 June and 21 July 2021. RESULTS: Of the 375 total participants, 326 responses were complete and included in analysis. In the results section further down, this is explained as 330 complete responses, with 4 additional responses excluded due to data inconsistencies. The participants' age range was 14-54 years, with a mean of 26.0 (±7.81) years. Most participants (61.9%) had been using a period tracking app for 2 years or longer. Of these 85.6% entered more data when on their period, 31% at a frequency of once a day. There were approximately equivalent proportions of participants who felt that entering data into their app was either 'part of their normal routine' (43.3%) or 'not a priority' (38.0%). Thematic analysis of the participants' experiences of using period-tracking apps revealed five main themes: symptom tracking and understanding general health; concerns with period start date predictions; the problems with fertility tracking; concerns about cost; and concerns about data privacy. CONCLUSIONS: The infrequency of data inputting and the wide range of symptoms tracked reflects the differing needs of participants from their period-tracking apps. This highlights the need for increased education and research into understanding the realities of variations in using apps.

Fun moments or consequential experiences? A model for conceptualising and researching equitable youth outcomes from informal STEM learning.

While there are many different frameworks seeking to identify what benefits young people might derive from participation in informal STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) learning (ISL), this paper argues that the sector would benefit from an approach that foregrounds equity and social justice outcomes. We propose a new model for reflecting on equitable youth outcomes from ISL that identifies five key areas: (1) Grounded fun; (2) STEM capital; (3) STEM trajectories; (4) STEM identity work; and (5) Agency+ . The model is applied to empirical data (interviews, observations and youth portfolios) collected over one year in four UK-based ISL settings with 33 young people (aged 11-14), largely from communities that are traditionally under-represented in STEM. Analysis considers the extent to which participating youth experienced equitable outcomes, or not, in relation to the five areas. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for ISL and how the model might support ongoing efforts to reimagine ISL as vehicle for social justice.

Changing the field: A Bourdieusian analysis of educational practices that support equitable outcomes among minoritized youth on two informal science learning programs.

Supporting more equitable participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains a key, persistent educational challenge. This paper employs a sociological Bourdieusian lens to explore how equitable youth outcomes might be supported through informal science learning (ISL). Drawing on multimodal, ethnographic data from four case study youth aged 11-14 from two ISL programs, we identify four areas of practice that were enacted to a greater or lesser extent in the programs in support of equitable youth outcomes. We identify how the equitable potential of these practices was realized through a disruption of dominant power relations. It is argued that ISL should focus on changing the field, rather than young people. Affordances and limitations of the Bourdieusian lens are discussed.

Young people's tech identity performances: why materiality matters.

BACKGROUND: Identity provides a useful conceptual lens for understanding educational inequalities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In this paper, we examine how paying attention to physical and digital 'materiality' enriches our understanding of identity work, by going beyond the spoken, written and embodied dimensions of identity performances that currently dominate the area of STEM identity scholarship. We draw on a multimodal ethnographic study with 36 young people aged 11-14 carried out over the course of one year at four UK-based informal STEM learning settings. Data collection included a series of interviews, observations and youth-created portfolios focused on STEM experiences. Illustrative case studies of two young men who took part in a community-based digital arts centre are discussed in detail through the theoretical lenses of Judith Butler's identity performativity and Karen Barad's intra-action. RESULTS: We argue that physical and digital materiality mattered for the performances of 'tech identity' in that (i) the focus on the material changed our understanding of tech identity performances; (ii) digital spaces supported identity performances alongside, with and beyond physical bodies, and drew attention to new forms of identity recognition; (iii) identity performances across spaces were unpredictable and contained by the limits of material possibilities; and (iv) particular identity performances associated with technology were aligned with dominant enactments of masculinity and might thus be less accessible to some young people. CONCLUSION: We conclude the paper by suggesting that accounting for materiality in STEM identity research not only guides researchers in going beyond what participants say and are observed doing (and thus engendering richer insights), but also offers more equitable ways of enacting research. Further, we argue that more needs to be done to support the translation of identity resources across spaces, such as between experiences within informal and online spaces, on the one hand, and formal education, on the other.