From Gatekeeping to Engagement: A Multicontextual, Mixed Method Study of Student Academic Engagement in Introductory STEM Courses

Abstract

The lack of academic engagement in introductory science courses is considered by some to be a primary reason why students switch out of science majors. This study employed a sequential, explanatory mixed methods approach to provide a richer understanding of the relationship between student engagement and introductory science instruction. Quantitative survey data were drawn from 2,873 students within 73 introductory science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses across 15 colleges and universities, and qualitative data were collected from 41 student focus groups at eight of these institutions. The findings indicate that students tended to be more engaged in courses where the instructor consistently signaled an openness to student questions and recognizes her/his role in helping students succeed. Likewise, students who reported feeling comfortable asking questions in class, seeking out tutoring, attending supplemental instruction sessions, and collaborating with other students in the course were also more likely to be engaged. Instructional implications for improving students’ levels of academic engagement are discussed.

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

“…This finding raises the possibility that women may opt out of academic science careers in part because of diminished competence judgments, rewards, and mentoring received in the early years of the careers. In sum, the predoctoral years represent a window during which students' experiences of faculty bias or encouragement are particularly likely to shape their persistence in academic science (30)(31)(32)(33). Thus, the present study not only fills an important gap in the research literature, but also has critical implications for pressing social and educational issues associated with the gender disparity in science.…”

“…In addition, a promising but stillnascent applicant is precisely the type of student whose persistence in academic science is most likely to be affected by faculty support or discouragement (30)(31)(32)(33), rendering faculty reactions to such a student of particular interest for the present purposes. The materials were developed in consultation with a panel of academic science researchers (who had extensive experience hiring and supervising student research assistants) to ensure that they would be perceived as realistic (SI Materials and Methods).…”

“…The formative predoctoral years are a critical window, because students' experiences at this juncture shape both their beliefs about their own abilities and subsequent persistence in science (30,31). Therefore, we selected this career stage as the focus of the present study because it represents an opportunity to address issues that manifest immediately and also resurface much later, potentially contributing to the persistent faculty gender disparity (32,33).…”

“It’s Too Hard” to “I Get It!” – Engaging Developmental Science as a Tool to Transform First-year Engineering Education

“…[8][9] Additionally, active learning methods in lecture and interactive faculty result in increased student engagement in the learning process during these classes. 10 Consistent with the students' portrayal of this hardness in introductory STEM courses, there is a vast literature spanning several decades that documents difficulties in conceptual understanding in chemistry and physics from kindergarten through the college years. In fact, there is an entire bibliography with 8400 references dedicated to students' and teachers' alternate conceptions based on a collection of papers begun by Helga Pfundt in the late 1970's.…”

A Multivariate Examination of Active and Interactive Learning and Student Engagement in Post-Secondary Engineering Energy Science Classrooms: The "Why" of Instructional Strategy Use

“…In the post-secondary STEM education literature researchers have tended to conflate active (Felder & Brent, 2009) and interactive (Hake, 1998;Hilpert & Husman, 2015) learning under the umbrella term active learning, which encompasses many types of instructional strategies (Hilpert & Husman, in press). Instructional strategies ranging from the use of clickers (Caldwell, 2007) to cooperative quizzes (Zeilik & Morris, 2004) to classroom group work (Knight & Wood, 2005) with both active and interactive attributes have been combined to carry out examinations of active learning (Freeman, et al, 2014;Gasiewski, et al, 2012;Prince, 2004). However, according to Chi (2009) active and interactive learning have different cognitive and behavioral characteristics.…”