{ driving up or dialing down competition in introductory stem courses: individual and classroom...
TRANSCRIPT
{
1
Driving Up or Dialing Down Competition in Introductory STEM Courses: Individual and Classroom Level Factors
Bryce E. Hughes, Sylvia Hurtado, and M. Kevin Eagan, UCLA
Association for the Study of Higher EducationWashington, D.C.
November 20, 2014
2
Only 40% of STEM aspirants complete a STEM degree, with most leaving within the first 2 years of college
Federal agencies and campus leaders are investing in teaching and learning innovations in STEM to promote talent development
Pedagogy in introductory STEM courses is likely one cause of attrition: heavy use of lecture and promotion of a competitive environment
Introduction
3
To identify factors that contribute to competitiveness in introductory STEM courses
Specifically, to test the relationship between “grading on a curve” and competitiveness
Also, to test other ways faculty influence a competitive environment in the classroom
Purpose
4
Social Interdependence Theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1989):
People’s actions and outcomes are affected by the actions and decisions of others
Competition: negative interdependence as individuals work to each other’s detriment
Goal Theory (Ames & Ames, 1984; Covington, 2000; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007):
Performance goals are motivated by competition, drive to achieve
Mastery goals are motivated by rewards for effort and achievement of established criteria
Conceptual Framework
5
“Grading on a curve” has been identified as a contributing factor to competitiveness in STEM courses
Premed factor Competitiveness detrimental to
underrepresented groups
Competitiveness may contribute to increased academic performance, but often distracts from course mastery
Most studies are of single or a small number of classrooms, or in laboratory settings
Literature Review
6
Data source and sample: 2753 students in 79 courses across 15
universities
Longitudinal: surveyed at start and end of Spring 2010 term
Faculty survey, registrar data merged in
Methods: Descriptive statistics
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)
Methods
7
Dependent variable Frequency students perceived competitiveness in
the course
Independent variables Grading on a curve: proportion of A’s among final
grades (lower proportion = grading on a curve)
Classroom-level variables (8): Faculty decisions about course structure and attitudes about teaching
Student-level variables (22): background characteristics, precollege preparation, self-concept, course experiences, co-curricular experiences
Variables
8
Classroom-level variables Effect
Sig.
Proportion of A’s among final grades for course
— *
Goal: Encourage collaboration — **
Attitude: Unqualified students in course
+ ***
Agreement: With effort, all students can learn material
+ *
Results: Classroom Level
9
Student background characteristics
Effect
Sig.
Sex: Female + *
Premed student + *
HS biology grade — *
Drive to achieve + **
Participation in pre-professional or departmental club
+ **
Results: Student Level
10
Student-level classroom experiences
Effect
Sig.
Course is required for professional school admission
+ ***
HPW studying with peers + **
Used group work in class + **
Felt collaboration among peers in class
+ ***
Felt hard work was reflected in grades
— *
Cross level effect with proportion of A’s
+ *
Considered dropping the course + ***
Feel prepared for next course in sequence
+ **
Results: Student Level
11
Figure: Cross-level effect
1 2 3 40
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
14%28%40%
Agreement: My hard work was reflected in my grades
Perc
ep
tion
of
Com
pet-
itiv
en
ess
am
on
g P
eers
Proportion ofA’s among finalgrades
12
“Grading on the curve” contributes to perceptions of competitiveness
Faculty can “dial down” competitiveness by structuring collaboration into courses
Peers use collaborative strategies to manage a competitive environment
Professors’ attitudes toward learning and students’ self-perceptions also drive perceptions of competitiveness
Discussion & Conclusions
13
Faculty play an important role in establishing classroom environment regarding competitiveness
Competitiveness could be harnessed toward improving academic performance through careful design and implementation
Faculty should also be cognizant of effect of competitiveness on groups underrepresented in STEM, like women or URM students
Implications
14
Contact Info
Faculty/Co-PIs:Sylvia HurtadoKevin Eagan Tanya Figueroa
Bryce Hughes
Administrative Staff:Dominique Harrison
Graduate Research
Assistants:
Website: www.heri.ucla.eduE-mail: [email protected]
Post-Bacc Research Analyst:Robert Paul
This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05, the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM090776-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.