Background: Expanding opportunities to experience engaging STEM educational programs is an important pathway to increasing students' interest and competencies in STEM and, ultimately, motivation to pursue STEM careers. After-school programs offer one means to achieve this aim, but barriers such as a lack of transportation or available teachers may limit participation for some students in this context. Transitioning after-school STEM programs to in-school can provide opportunities to increase reach by removing these and other barriers. However, it is likely that this change in the learning context, from after-school to in-school, impacts student experiences and, ultimately, program efficacy by altering how students and teachers interact; as teachers and students adjust their behaviors and expectations to a more traditional learning context. To examine this potential effect, self-determination theory was used to frame how the learning context influences the social and motivational outcomes of a STEM program for underserved youth. In-school (N = 244; 39% girls, M age = 13, 63% Caucasian, 18% African American, 6% Multiracial) and after-school (N = 70, 33% girls, M age = 12, 55% Caucasian, 16% Multiracial, 13% Latino/a) program students completed surveys that assessed teacher-student interactions, and student psychological needs and motivation. In a structural equation model, student perceptions of teachers were entered as predictors of motivation for the program directly and mediated by psychological need satisfaction. Learning context (0 = in-school, 1 = after-school) was entered as a ubiquitous predictor. Results: Findings support the theorized model where perceptions of teachers positively predicted psychological need satisfaction (R 2 = .20), and both variables positively predicted more self-determined motivation (R 2 = .30-.35). Findings also demonstrate an effect of learning context where learning context negatively predicted the less self-determined motivations only (R 2 = .06-.10) (i.e., in-school contexts are associated with less desirable motivational outcomes). Conclusion: Findings reinforce the instrumental role of students' positive perceptions of teachers in fostering a more desirable self-determined motivation for STEM program participation. Additionally, in-school programs must consider and integrate novel approaches that mitigate the negative impact of established in-school structures and processes (e.g., grades and mandatory participation) on student motivation for these programs and, potentially, interest in STEM careers.
“Active learning” has been used to describe classrooms that have varied widely with respect to instructional topics, age of learners, and the procedures used to operationalize the general notion of the term. In most cases, the specific variant of active learning under investigation has been more effective than the particular control used for comparison. The goal of the current study was to unambiguously describe, implement, and assess 4 different active learning implementations that varied based on the instructional technique employed by the teacher. The specific topic taught was the procedure for constructing experiments in which a single causal factor is clearly identified and there are no confounds. The procedure is commonly known in the literature on early scientific thinking as the “control of variables strategy” (CVS). The sample consisted of 145 3rd- and 4th-grade students from 3 schools. Students in each grade at each school were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 active learning conditions. Learning of CVS was measured through a hands-on, active learning activity and a written pre- and posttest. Results indicated that compared to minimal guidance/minimal guidance/activity, modeling/direct guidance/activity resulted in significantly higher levels of CVS knowledge on the hands-on activity. When examining student learning from pre- to posttest, students in all conditions had significant learning gains. However, the largest effect sizes were for modeling/direct guidance/activity followed by modeling/modeling/activity, and the weakest effect size was for minimal guidance/minimal guidance/activity. Thus, more direct/explicit forms of active learning promoted higher learning of CVS than more inquiry-based forms.
Penile cancer is a rare malignant disease. Paclitaxel combined with platinum is often used as a first-line chemotherapeutic regimen for late-stage penile cancer, and there is no standard second-line treatment. Clinical trials of immunotherapy for penile cancer are ongoing. There are no reports on PD1 inhibitor treatment in metastatic penile carcinoma patients with MMR/MSI status heterogeneity. A 68-year-old patient was hospitalized with bilateral inguinal lymph node metastasis and local penile recurrence after penile cancer surgery. The lesion of the right inguinal lymph node showed a mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-low (MSI-L) status. After 3 cycles of sintilimab (a PD1 inhibitor) combined with paclitaxel and cisplatin, the partial response of the tumor was evaluated. Subsequently, sintilimab monotherapy was used as maintenance treatment for 2 months. However, The lesion of local penile recurrence showed mismatch repair proficient (pMMR)/microsatellite stability (MSS) status by secondary biopsy when progressed rapidly. Interestingly, after continued treatment with sintilimab combined with gemcitabine, the patient achieved a partial response again. We should be aware of the importance of secondary biopsy for different lesions to confirm the heterogeneity of MMR/MSI status. For penile cancer patients with MMR/MSI status heterogeneity, PD1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy are safe and effective. Due to oligometastatic lesion progression caused only by the heterogeneity of MMR/MSI status, PD1 inhibitor cross-line therapy can also be considered an appropriate treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.