Same Classroom, Different Affordances? Demographic Differences in Perceptions of Motivational Climate in Five STEM Courses

Abstract

AbstractStudents vary in their perceptions of teachers’ motivational supports, even within the same classroom, but it is unclear why this is the case. To enable the design of equitable environments and understand the theoretical nature of motivational climate, this study explored demographic differences in university students’ perceptions of instruction across five large, introductory STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) courses (N = 2,486), along with end-of-semester outcomes. Results indicated that women and students from traditionally underrepresented racial or ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino/a, or Indigenous students) tended to perceive slightly higher motivational support in their courses compared to men and traditionally overrepresented (White or Asian) students, respectively. However, patterns were not uniform across all courses or variables. Men and women did not significantly differ on end-of-semester interest in any course, but women tended to have lower self-efficacy in some courses and significantly higher grades in programming compared to men. Implications include a caution for researchers against interpreting sample-specific or aggregated evidence of demographic differences as generalizing to broader populations or specific settings.Keywords: classroom environmentmotivational climateSTEM educationstudent perceptions Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 Of the 2,486 students who consented to participate in the study, all but 3 completed at least one survey item used in the present study. The 3 students who consented but did not complete specific survey items (1 in General Chemistry, 2 in Calculus) were included in our analyses when possible to aid in full information maximum likelihood estimation, because their grades were still obtained from the instructors at the end of the semester (see missing data analyses below).2 We assume that this scale functioned poorly in our sample due to the lecture-style format of the courses. Although at least some of the course instructors typically use group discussions and activities when teaching in person, online instruction in 2020 introduced additional barriers to facilitating opportunities for students to interact with each other.3 To characterize descriptive statistics, we relied on guidelines developed by (Wormington and Linnenbrink-Garcia, Citation2017) and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2017), in which means are considered high if they are closer to the high end of the scale than to the midpoint (e.g., above 4 on a 5-point scale). A similar cutoff is used for characterizing means as low (e.g., below 2 on a 5-point scale). Values falling between these cutoffs are characterized as moderate when falling close to the midpoint of the scale or moderately high if falling more than halfway between the midpoint and the next higher increment (i.e., higher than 3.5 but lower than 4 on a 5-point scale).Additional informationFundingThe research reported in this article was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ; PI: KAR). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views McGill University or the FRQ.