Pub Date : 2024-04-01DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00481-8
Yanfang Zhai, Jennifer Tripp, Xiufeng Liu
Science teacher identity significantly influences teacher professional development, practices, and attitudes, which in turn impacts student learning outcomes. With an increased number of studies on science teacher identity over the past two decades, there is a need for a scoping literature review that holistically maps the current state of science teacher identity research and identifies future research directions. This scoping literature review identified 48 empirical articles on science teacher identity, published from 2000 to 2023, in peer-reviewed journals and examined the studies’ (a) characteristics; (b) theoretical frameworks on identity; (c) definitions of science teacher identity; and (d) major findings. Specifically, there is a need for precise conceptualizations and definitions of science teacher identity; this clarity will facilitate valid, reliable, and fair instruments to capture the relatively stable facets of science teacher identity at a given moment in a given context in order to longitudinally track science teacher identity development. This scoping review identifies both progress and gaps in the current literature and future directions for synergistic, cross-cultural international research on science teacher identity.
{"title":"Science teacher identity research: a scoping literature review","authors":"Yanfang Zhai, Jennifer Tripp, Xiufeng Liu","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00481-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00481-8","url":null,"abstract":"Science teacher identity significantly influences teacher professional development, practices, and attitudes, which in turn impacts student learning outcomes. With an increased number of studies on science teacher identity over the past two decades, there is a need for a scoping literature review that holistically maps the current state of science teacher identity research and identifies future research directions. This scoping literature review identified 48 empirical articles on science teacher identity, published from 2000 to 2023, in peer-reviewed journals and examined the studies’ (a) characteristics; (b) theoretical frameworks on identity; (c) definitions of science teacher identity; and (d) major findings. Specifically, there is a need for precise conceptualizations and definitions of science teacher identity; this clarity will facilitate valid, reliable, and fair instruments to capture the relatively stable facets of science teacher identity at a given moment in a given context in order to longitudinally track science teacher identity development. This scoping review identifies both progress and gaps in the current literature and future directions for synergistic, cross-cultural international research on science teacher identity.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140571530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-28DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00479-2
Mariel A. Pfeifer, C. J. Zajic, Jared M. Isaacs, Olivia A. Erickson, Erin L. Dolan
Studying science identity has been useful for understanding students’ continuation in science-related education and career paths. Yet knowledge and theory related to science identity among students on the path to becoming a professional science researcher, such as students engaged in research at the undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and graduate level, is still developing. It is not yet clear from existing science identity theory how particular science contexts, such as research training experiences, influence students’ science identities. Here we leverage existing science identity and professional identity theories to investigate how research training shapes science identity. We conducted a qualitative investigation of 30 early career researchers—undergraduates, postbaccalaureates, and doctoral students in a variety of natural science fields—to characterize how they recognized themselves as science researchers. Early career researchers (ECRs) recognized themselves as either science students or science researchers, which they distinguished from being a career researcher. ECRs made judgments, which we refer to as “science identity assessments”, in the context of interconnected work-learning and identity-learning cycles. Work-learning cycles referred to ECRs’ conceptions of the work they did in their research training experience. ECRs weighed the extent to which they perceived the work they did in their research training to show authenticity, offer room for autonomy, and afford opportunities for epistemic involvement. Identity-learning cycles encompassed ECRs’ conceptions of science researchers. ECRs considered the roles they fill in their research training experiences and if these roles aligned with their perceptions of the tasks and traits of perceived researchers. ECRs’ identity-learning cycles were further shaped by recognition from others. ECRs spoke of how recognition from others embedded within their research training experiences and from others removed from their research training experiences influenced how they see themselves as science researchers. We synthesized our findings to form a revised conceptual model of science researcher identity, which offers enhanced theoretical precision to study science identity in the future. We hypothesize relationships among constructs related to science identity and professional identity development that can be tested in further research. Our results also offer practical implications to foster the science researcher identity of ECRs.
{"title":"Beyond performance, competence, and recognition: forging a science researcher identity in the context of research training","authors":"Mariel A. Pfeifer, C. J. Zajic, Jared M. Isaacs, Olivia A. Erickson, Erin L. Dolan","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00479-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00479-2","url":null,"abstract":"Studying science identity has been useful for understanding students’ continuation in science-related education and career paths. Yet knowledge and theory related to science identity among students on the path to becoming a professional science researcher, such as students engaged in research at the undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and graduate level, is still developing. It is not yet clear from existing science identity theory how particular science contexts, such as research training experiences, influence students’ science identities. Here we leverage existing science identity and professional identity theories to investigate how research training shapes science identity. We conducted a qualitative investigation of 30 early career researchers—undergraduates, postbaccalaureates, and doctoral students in a variety of natural science fields—to characterize how they recognized themselves as science researchers. Early career researchers (ECRs) recognized themselves as either science students or science researchers, which they distinguished from being a career researcher. ECRs made judgments, which we refer to as “science identity assessments”, in the context of interconnected work-learning and identity-learning cycles. Work-learning cycles referred to ECRs’ conceptions of the work they did in their research training experience. ECRs weighed the extent to which they perceived the work they did in their research training to show authenticity, offer room for autonomy, and afford opportunities for epistemic involvement. Identity-learning cycles encompassed ECRs’ conceptions of science researchers. ECRs considered the roles they fill in their research training experiences and if these roles aligned with their perceptions of the tasks and traits of perceived researchers. ECRs’ identity-learning cycles were further shaped by recognition from others. ECRs spoke of how recognition from others embedded within their research training experiences and from others removed from their research training experiences influenced how they see themselves as science researchers. We synthesized our findings to form a revised conceptual model of science researcher identity, which offers enhanced theoretical precision to study science identity in the future. We hypothesize relationships among constructs related to science identity and professional identity development that can be tested in further research. Our results also offer practical implications to foster the science researcher identity of ECRs.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140325504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-25DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00478-3
Annika R. Kraft, Emily L. Atieh, Lu Shi, Marilyne Stains
There has been a growing interest in characterizing factors influencing teaching decisions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors in order to address the slow uptake of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). This growing body of research has identified contextual factors (e.g., classroom layout, departmental norms) as primary influencers of STEM instructors’ decision to implement EBIPs in their courses. However, models of influences on instructional practices indicate that context is only one type of factor to consider. Other factors fall at the individual level such as instructors’ past teaching experience and their views on learning. Few studies have been able to explore in depth the role of these individual factors on the adoption of EBIPs since it is challenging to control for contextual features when studying current instructors. Moreover, most studies exploring adoption of EBIPs do not take into account the distinctive features of each EBIP and the influence these features may have on the decision to adopt the EBIP. Rather, studies typically explore barriers and drivers to the implementation of EBIPs in general. In this study, we address these gaps in the literature by conducting an in-depth exploration of individual factors and EBIPs’ features that influence nine future STEM instructors’ decisions to incorporate a selected set of EBIPs in their teaching. We had hypothesized that the future instructors would have different reasoning to support their decisions to adopt or not Peer Instruction and the 5E Model as the two EBIPs have distinctive features. However, our results demonstrate that instructors based their decisions on similar factors. In particular, we found that the main drivers of their decisions were (1) the compatibility of the EBIP with their past experiences as students and instructors as well as teaching values and (2) experiences provided in the pedagogical course they were enrolled in. This study demonstrates that when considering the adoption of EBIPs, there is a need to look beyond solely contextual influences on instructor’s decisions to innovate in their courses and explore individual factors. Moreover, professional development programs should leverage their participants past experiences as students and instructors and provide an opportunity for instructors to experience new EBIPs as learners and instructors.
{"title":"Prior experiences as students and instructors play a critical role in instructors’ decision to adopt evidence-based instructional practices","authors":"Annika R. Kraft, Emily L. Atieh, Lu Shi, Marilyne Stains","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00478-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00478-3","url":null,"abstract":"There has been a growing interest in characterizing factors influencing teaching decisions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors in order to address the slow uptake of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). This growing body of research has identified contextual factors (e.g., classroom layout, departmental norms) as primary influencers of STEM instructors’ decision to implement EBIPs in their courses. However, models of influences on instructional practices indicate that context is only one type of factor to consider. Other factors fall at the individual level such as instructors’ past teaching experience and their views on learning. Few studies have been able to explore in depth the role of these individual factors on the adoption of EBIPs since it is challenging to control for contextual features when studying current instructors. Moreover, most studies exploring adoption of EBIPs do not take into account the distinctive features of each EBIP and the influence these features may have on the decision to adopt the EBIP. Rather, studies typically explore barriers and drivers to the implementation of EBIPs in general. In this study, we address these gaps in the literature by conducting an in-depth exploration of individual factors and EBIPs’ features that influence nine future STEM instructors’ decisions to incorporate a selected set of EBIPs in their teaching. We had hypothesized that the future instructors would have different reasoning to support their decisions to adopt or not Peer Instruction and the 5E Model as the two EBIPs have distinctive features. However, our results demonstrate that instructors based their decisions on similar factors. In particular, we found that the main drivers of their decisions were (1) the compatibility of the EBIP with their past experiences as students and instructors as well as teaching values and (2) experiences provided in the pedagogical course they were enrolled in. This study demonstrates that when considering the adoption of EBIPs, there is a need to look beyond solely contextual influences on instructor’s decisions to innovate in their courses and explore individual factors. Moreover, professional development programs should leverage their participants past experiences as students and instructors and provide an opportunity for instructors to experience new EBIPs as learners and instructors.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140302527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-18DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00477-4
Rebekah Hammack, Ibrahim H. Yeter, Christina Pavlovich, Tugba Boz
<br/><p><b>Correction: International Journal of STEM Education (2024) 11:4</b> <b>https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00464-9</b></p><p>In this article, the note to explain the numbers within Fig. 3 was omitted from the figure’s caption due to a typesetting mistake. The incomplete and corrected caption for Fig. 3 can be found below and the original article has been corrected. The publisher apologises to the authors and readers for the inconvenience caused by this error.</p><p>The incomplete caption to Fig. 3: Changes in mean scores by modality.</p><p>The corrected caption to Fig. 3: Changes in mean scores by modality. <i>Note</i>. 1 = F2F, 2 = Hybrid, 3 = Online, 4 = Rapid Shift Online.</p><p>In addition, the author name Ibrahim H. Yeter was incorrectly written as Ibrahim Yeter. The author group has been updated above and the original article has been corrected.</p><h3>Authors and Affiliations</h3><ol><li><p>Purdue University, 100 N. University Street, BRNG 4156, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA</p><p>Rebekah Hammack</p></li><li><p>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore</p><p>Ibrahim H. Yeter</p></li><li><p>Montana State University, Bozeman, USA</p><p>Christina Pavlovich</p></li><li><p>Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA</p><p>Tugba Boz</p></li></ol><span>Authors</span><ol><li><span>Rebekah Hammack</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li><li><span>Ibrahim H. Yeter</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li><li><span>Christina Pavlovich</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li><li><span>Tugba Boz</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li></ol><h3>Corresponding author</h3><p>Correspondence to Rebekah Hammack.</p><h3>Publisher's Note</h3><p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p><p><b>Open Access</b> This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/license
更正：International Journal of STEM Education (2024) 11:4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00464-9In 由于排版错误，本文在图 3 的标题中漏掉了对图 3 中数字的解释说明。图 3 的不完整和更正说明见下文，原文也已更正。图 3 的不完整说明：按方式划分的平均得分变化。图 3 的更正说明：按方式划分的平均得分变化。注1 = F2F，2 = 混合式，3 = 在线，4 = 快速转换在线。此外，作者姓名 Ibrahim H. Yeter 被误写为 Ibrahim H. Yeter。Yeter 被误写为 Ibrahim Yeter。作者群已在上文更新，原文也已更正。作者和工作单位美国普渡大学，100 N. University Street, BRNG 4156, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USARebekah HammackNanyang Technological University, Singapore, SingaporeIbrahim H. YeterMontana State University, Singapore.YeterMontana State University, Bozeman, USAChristina PavlovichPurdue University, West Lafayette, USATugba Boz作者Rebekah Hammack查看作者发表的文章您还可以在PubMed Google ScholarIbrahim H. Yeter中搜索该作者。Yeter查看作者发表的文章您也可以在PubMed Google Scholar中搜索该作者Christina Pavlovich查看作者发表的文章您也可以在PubMed Google Scholar中搜索该作者Tugba Boz查看作者发表的文章您也可以在PubMed Google Scholar中搜索该作者通信作者Rebekah Hammack.Publisher's NoteSpringer Nature对出版地图和机构隶属关系中的管辖权主张保持中立。开放获取本文采用知识共享署名 4.0 国际许可协议进行许可，该协议允许以任何媒介或格式使用、共享、改编、分发和复制本文，但必须注明原作者和出处，提供知识共享许可协议的链接，并说明是否进行了修改。本文中的图片或其他第三方材料均包含在文章的知识共享许可协议中，除非在材料的署名栏中另有说明。如果材料未包含在文章的知识共享许可协议中，且您打算使用的材料不符合法律规定或超出许可使用范围，您需要直接从版权所有者处获得许可。要查看该许可的副本，请访问 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Reprints and permissionsCite this articleHammack, R., Yeter, I.H., Pavlovich, C. et al. Correction：职前小学教师的科学与工程教学自我效能感和成果预期：通过不同的课程模式探索效能感来源经验的影响。IJ STEM Ed 11, 16 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00477-4Download citationPublished: 18 March 2024DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00477-4Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
{"title":"Correction: Pre-service elementary teachers’ science and engineering teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy: exploring the impacts of efficacy source experiences through varying course modalities","authors":"Rebekah Hammack, Ibrahim H. Yeter, Christina Pavlovich, Tugba Boz","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00477-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00477-4","url":null,"abstract":"<br/><p><b>Correction: International Journal of STEM Education (2024) 11:4</b> <b>https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00464-9</b></p><p>In this article, the note to explain the numbers within Fig. 3 was omitted from the figure’s caption due to a typesetting mistake. The incomplete and corrected caption for Fig. 3 can be found below and the original article has been corrected. The publisher apologises to the authors and readers for the inconvenience caused by this error.</p><p>The incomplete caption to Fig. 3: Changes in mean scores by modality.</p><p>The corrected caption to Fig. 3: Changes in mean scores by modality. <i>Note</i>. 1 = F2F, 2 = Hybrid, 3 = Online, 4 = Rapid Shift Online.</p><p>In addition, the author name Ibrahim H. Yeter was incorrectly written as Ibrahim Yeter. The author group has been updated above and the original article has been corrected.</p><h3>Authors and Affiliations</h3><ol><li><p>Purdue University, 100 N. University Street, BRNG 4156, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA</p><p>Rebekah Hammack</p></li><li><p>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore</p><p>Ibrahim H. Yeter</p></li><li><p>Montana State University, Bozeman, USA</p><p>Christina Pavlovich</p></li><li><p>Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA</p><p>Tugba Boz</p></li></ol><span>Authors</span><ol><li><span>Rebekah Hammack</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li><li><span>Ibrahim H. Yeter</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li><li><span>Christina Pavlovich</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li><li><span>Tugba Boz</span>View author publications<p>You can also search for this author in <span>PubMed<span> </span>Google Scholar</span></p></li></ol><h3>Corresponding author</h3><p>Correspondence to Rebekah Hammack.</p><h3>Publisher's Note</h3><p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p><p><b>Open Access</b> This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/license","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"239 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140170112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-04DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00475-6
Emily Q. Rosenzweig, Xiao-Yin Chen, Yuchen Song, Amy Baldwin, Michael M. Barger, Michael E. Cotterell, Jonathan Dees, Allison S. Injaian, Nandana Weliweriya, Jennifer R. Walker, Craig C. Wiegert, Paula P. Lemons
Research and policy often focus on reducing attrition from educational trajectories leading to careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), but many students change career plans within STEM. This study examined how changing career plans within STEM fields was associated with psychological indicators of career readiness. We conducted a large online survey of undergraduate students (N = 1,727) across 42 courses covering every major STEM discipline at a large U.S. research-intensive public university. Students reported about their career plans, whether plans had changed, motivation for those career plans, and satisfaction with and certainty of persisting with those plans. A trained team of coders classified whether students reported having STEM career plans at the time of the survey and at the beginning of college. Students who said they had changed career plans within STEM fields during college also reported lower motivation for their new career plans, satisfaction with those plans, and certainty of persisting in them, compared to students who retained consistent STEM career plans. With few exceptions, these associations held across students’ gender, race, year in school, and STEM field of study. Within-STEM career plan changes were very common, reported by 55% of fourth-year STEM students. Women reported changing career plans within STEM fields more often than men. Results suggest that changing career plans within STEM is an important phenomenon to consider in preparing a qualified and diverse STEM workforce. Students who change career plans within STEM fields may need additional supports for their career motivation and satisfaction compared to students who do not change plans.
{"title":"Beyond STEM attrition: changing career plans within STEM fields in college is associated with lower motivation, certainty, and satisfaction about one’s career","authors":"Emily Q. Rosenzweig, Xiao-Yin Chen, Yuchen Song, Amy Baldwin, Michael M. Barger, Michael E. Cotterell, Jonathan Dees, Allison S. Injaian, Nandana Weliweriya, Jennifer R. Walker, Craig C. Wiegert, Paula P. Lemons","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00475-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00475-6","url":null,"abstract":"Research and policy often focus on reducing attrition from educational trajectories leading to careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), but many students change career plans within STEM. This study examined how changing career plans within STEM fields was associated with psychological indicators of career readiness. We conducted a large online survey of undergraduate students (N = 1,727) across 42 courses covering every major STEM discipline at a large U.S. research-intensive public university. Students reported about their career plans, whether plans had changed, motivation for those career plans, and satisfaction with and certainty of persisting with those plans. A trained team of coders classified whether students reported having STEM career plans at the time of the survey and at the beginning of college. Students who said they had changed career plans within STEM fields during college also reported lower motivation for their new career plans, satisfaction with those plans, and certainty of persisting in them, compared to students who retained consistent STEM career plans. With few exceptions, these associations held across students’ gender, race, year in school, and STEM field of study. Within-STEM career plan changes were very common, reported by 55% of fourth-year STEM students. Women reported changing career plans within STEM fields more often than men. Results suggest that changing career plans within STEM is an important phenomenon to consider in preparing a qualified and diverse STEM workforce. Students who change career plans within STEM fields may need additional supports for their career motivation and satisfaction compared to students who do not change plans.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140034228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-23DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00473-8
Julie P. Martin, Deepthi E. Suresh, Paul A. Jensen
The National Science Foundation Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF) program aims to increase research capacity in the field by providing funding for technical engineering faculty to learn to conduct engineering education research through mentorship by an experienced social science researcher. We use collaborative autoethnography to study the tripartite RIEF mentoring relationship between Julie, an experienced engineering education researcher, and two novice education researchers who have backgrounds in biomedical engineering—Paul, a biomedical engineering faculty member and major professor to the second novice, Deepthi, a graduate student. We ground our work in the cognitive apprenticeship model and Eby and colleagues’ mentoring model. Using data from written reflections and interviews, we explored the role of instrumental and psychosocial supports in our mentoring relationship. In particular, we noted how elements of cognitive apprenticeship such as scaffolding and gradual fading of instrumental supports helped Paul and Deepthi learn qualitative research skills that differed drastically from their biomedical engineering research expertise. We initially conceptualized our tripartite relationship as one where Julie mentored Paul and Paul subsequently mentored Deepthi. Ultimately, we realized that this model was unrealistic because Paul did not yet possess the social science research expertise to mentor another novice. As a result, we changed our model so that Julie mentored both Paul and Deepthi directly. While our mentoring relationship was overall very positive, it has included many moments of miscommunication and misunderstanding. We draw on Lent and Lopez’s idea of relation-inferred self-efficacy to explain some of these missed opportunities for communication and understanding. This paper contributes to the literature on engineering education capacity building by studying mentoring as a mechanism to support technically trained researchers in learning to conduct engineering education research. Our initial mentoring model failed to take into account how challenging it is for mentees to make the paradigm shift from technical engineering to social science research and how that would affect Paul’s ability to mentor Deepthi. Our experiences have implications for expanding research capacity because they raise practical and conceptual issues for experienced and novice engineering education researchers to consider as they form mentoring relationships.
{"title":"Using collaborative autoethnography to investigate mentoring relationships for novice engineering education researchers","authors":"Julie P. Martin, Deepthi E. Suresh, Paul A. Jensen","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00473-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00473-8","url":null,"abstract":"The National Science Foundation Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF) program aims to increase research capacity in the field by providing funding for technical engineering faculty to learn to conduct engineering education research through mentorship by an experienced social science researcher. We use collaborative autoethnography to study the tripartite RIEF mentoring relationship between Julie, an experienced engineering education researcher, and two novice education researchers who have backgrounds in biomedical engineering—Paul, a biomedical engineering faculty member and major professor to the second novice, Deepthi, a graduate student. We ground our work in the cognitive apprenticeship model and Eby and colleagues’ mentoring model. Using data from written reflections and interviews, we explored the role of instrumental and psychosocial supports in our mentoring relationship. In particular, we noted how elements of cognitive apprenticeship such as scaffolding and gradual fading of instrumental supports helped Paul and Deepthi learn qualitative research skills that differed drastically from their biomedical engineering research expertise. We initially conceptualized our tripartite relationship as one where Julie mentored Paul and Paul subsequently mentored Deepthi. Ultimately, we realized that this model was unrealistic because Paul did not yet possess the social science research expertise to mentor another novice. As a result, we changed our model so that Julie mentored both Paul and Deepthi directly. While our mentoring relationship was overall very positive, it has included many moments of miscommunication and misunderstanding. We draw on Lent and Lopez’s idea of relation-inferred self-efficacy to explain some of these missed opportunities for communication and understanding. This paper contributes to the literature on engineering education capacity building by studying mentoring as a mechanism to support technically trained researchers in learning to conduct engineering education research. Our initial mentoring model failed to take into account how challenging it is for mentees to make the paradigm shift from technical engineering to social science research and how that would affect Paul’s ability to mentor Deepthi. Our experiences have implications for expanding research capacity because they raise practical and conceptual issues for experienced and novice engineering education researchers to consider as they form mentoring relationships.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139948985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-23DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00474-7
Sarah D. Castle, W. Carson Byrd, Benjamin P. Koester, Meaghan I. Pearson, Emily Bonem, Natalia Caporale, Sonja Cwik, Kameryn Denaro, Stefano Fiorini, Yangqiuting Li, Chris Mead, Heather Rypkema, Ryan D. Sweeder, Montserrat B. Valdivia Medinaceli, Kyle M. Whitcomb, Sara E. Brownell, Chantal Levesque-Bristol, Marco Molinaro, Chandralekha Singh, Timothy A. McKay, Rebecca L. Matz
Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students’ first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions. We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students’ first post-secondary STEM experiences. STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students.
{"title":"Systemic advantage has a meaningful relationship with grade outcomes in students’ early STEM courses at six research universities","authors":"Sarah D. Castle, W. Carson Byrd, Benjamin P. Koester, Meaghan I. Pearson, Emily Bonem, Natalia Caporale, Sonja Cwik, Kameryn Denaro, Stefano Fiorini, Yangqiuting Li, Chris Mead, Heather Rypkema, Ryan D. Sweeder, Montserrat B. Valdivia Medinaceli, Kyle M. Whitcomb, Sara E. Brownell, Chantal Levesque-Bristol, Marco Molinaro, Chandralekha Singh, Timothy A. McKay, Rebecca L. Matz","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00474-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00474-7","url":null,"abstract":"Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students’ first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions. We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students’ first post-secondary STEM experiences. STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139948910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-16DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00472-9
Gulsah Dost
Women and ethnic minorities have historically been underrepresented in some STEM fields. It is therefore important to understand the factors influencing students’ persistence in STEM fields, and what STEM belonging means from the voices of socio-demographically diverse students, in order to ensure equity among students in STEM fields and to increase their belonging to this field, which has not been clearly defined in the literature, and there is a lack of agreement about the definition of belonging itself. For this purpose, the perspectives of students in England are brought together in this study in an attempt to better understand the concept of STEM belonging within a broader context of integration. The inductive thematic analysis with the voices of socio-demographically diverse 313 A-level, undergraduate and postgraduate Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry students showed that compared to male students, it was mostly female, non-binary, non-White, and first-generation students who defined STEM belonging as ‘Feeling safe and comfortable in the STEM community and settings’. This theme was defined by the participants as the group/community/learning environment in which the individual belongs, the interaction with the people in the field, and the comfort that this participation/interaction creates. Students stressed the importance of creating a supportive and welcoming STEM environment so that individuals can feel at home, as well as a safe and comfortable STEM environment for people of all identities, genders, ethnicities, and backgrounds. Based on the participants’ responses, this study also conceptualised the concept of STEM belonging as having four phases: the ‘adaptation phase’, the ‘integration phase’, the ‘continuum phase’, and the ‘transition phase’. These four phases which comprise the STEM belonging concept are consecutive and interconnected. The study concluded that all human beings are connected in a relational way (either strong or weak) and that the concept of STEM belonging develops as a result of interactions with ‘self’ and ‘others’ who have a shared passion and an interest in STEM fields. Although individuals have intrinsic motivation and individual prompts in STEM fields (i.e. resilience, beliefs in their capacity/ability and curiosity, etc.), social determinants (i.e. receiving adequate support from members of the STEM community, social capital and social cohesion, etc.) also play a significant role in influencing individual’s sense of STEM belonging.
{"title":"Students’ perspectives on the ‘STEM belonging’ concept at A-level, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels: an examination of gender and ethnicity in student descriptions","authors":"Gulsah Dost","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00472-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00472-9","url":null,"abstract":"Women and ethnic minorities have historically been underrepresented in some STEM fields. It is therefore important to understand the factors influencing students’ persistence in STEM fields, and what STEM belonging means from the voices of socio-demographically diverse students, in order to ensure equity among students in STEM fields and to increase their belonging to this field, which has not been clearly defined in the literature, and there is a lack of agreement about the definition of belonging itself. For this purpose, the perspectives of students in England are brought together in this study in an attempt to better understand the concept of STEM belonging within a broader context of integration. The inductive thematic analysis with the voices of socio-demographically diverse 313 A-level, undergraduate and postgraduate Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry students showed that compared to male students, it was mostly female, non-binary, non-White, and first-generation students who defined STEM belonging as ‘Feeling safe and comfortable in the STEM community and settings’. This theme was defined by the participants as the group/community/learning environment in which the individual belongs, the interaction with the people in the field, and the comfort that this participation/interaction creates. Students stressed the importance of creating a supportive and welcoming STEM environment so that individuals can feel at home, as well as a safe and comfortable STEM environment for people of all identities, genders, ethnicities, and backgrounds. Based on the participants’ responses, this study also conceptualised the concept of STEM belonging as having four phases: the ‘adaptation phase’, the ‘integration phase’, the ‘continuum phase’, and the ‘transition phase’. These four phases which comprise the STEM belonging concept are consecutive and interconnected. The study concluded that all human beings are connected in a relational way (either strong or weak) and that the concept of STEM belonging develops as a result of interactions with ‘self’ and ‘others’ who have a shared passion and an interest in STEM fields. Although individuals have intrinsic motivation and individual prompts in STEM fields (i.e. resilience, beliefs in their capacity/ability and curiosity, etc.), social determinants (i.e. receiving adequate support from members of the STEM community, social capital and social cohesion, etc.) also play a significant role in influencing individual’s sense of STEM belonging.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"132 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139764105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-14DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00463-w
Hsin-Yi Chang, Yen-Jung Chang, Meng-Jung Tsai
Data visualizations transform data into visual representations such as graphs, diagrams, charts and so forth, and enable inquiries and decision-making in many professional fields, as well as in public and economic areas. How students’ data visualization literacy (DVL), including constructing, comprehending, and utilizing adequate data visualizations, can be developed is gaining increasing attention in STEM education. As fundamental steps, the purpose of this study was to understand common student difficulties and useful strategies during the process of constructing data visualization so that suggestions and principles can be made for the design of curricula and interventions to develop students’ DVL. This study engaged 57 college and high school students in constructing data visualizations relating to the topic of air quality for a decision-making task. The students’ difficulties and strategies demonstrated during the process of data visualization were analyzed using multiple collected data sources including the students’ think-aloud transcripts, retrospective interview transcripts, and process videos that captured their actions with the data visualization tool. Qualitative coding was conducted to identify the students’ difficulties and strategies. Epistemic network analysis (ENA) was employed to generate network models revealing how the difficulties and strategies co-occurred, and how the college and high school students differed. Six types of student difficulties and seven types of strategies were identified. The strategies were further categorized into non-, basic- and high-level metavisual strategies. About three-quarters of the participants employed basic or high-level metavisual strategies to overcome the technological and content difficulties. The high school students demonstrated a greater need to develop content knowledge and representation skills, whereas the college students needed more support to know how to simplify data to construct the best data visualizations. The study specified metacognition needed for data visualization, which builds on and extends the cognitive model of drawing construction (CMDC) and theoretical perspectives of metavisualization. The results have implications for developing students’ data visualization literacy in STEM education by considering the difficulties and trajectories of metacognitive strategy development, and by addressing the different patterns and needs demonstrated by the college and high school students.
{"title":"Strategies and difficulties during students’ construction of data visualizations","authors":"Hsin-Yi Chang, Yen-Jung Chang, Meng-Jung Tsai","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00463-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00463-w","url":null,"abstract":"Data visualizations transform data into visual representations such as graphs, diagrams, charts and so forth, and enable inquiries and decision-making in many professional fields, as well as in public and economic areas. How students’ data visualization literacy (DVL), including constructing, comprehending, and utilizing adequate data visualizations, can be developed is gaining increasing attention in STEM education. As fundamental steps, the purpose of this study was to understand common student difficulties and useful strategies during the process of constructing data visualization so that suggestions and principles can be made for the design of curricula and interventions to develop students’ DVL. This study engaged 57 college and high school students in constructing data visualizations relating to the topic of air quality for a decision-making task. The students’ difficulties and strategies demonstrated during the process of data visualization were analyzed using multiple collected data sources including the students’ think-aloud transcripts, retrospective interview transcripts, and process videos that captured their actions with the data visualization tool. Qualitative coding was conducted to identify the students’ difficulties and strategies. Epistemic network analysis (ENA) was employed to generate network models revealing how the difficulties and strategies co-occurred, and how the college and high school students differed. Six types of student difficulties and seven types of strategies were identified. The strategies were further categorized into non-, basic- and high-level metavisual strategies. About three-quarters of the participants employed basic or high-level metavisual strategies to overcome the technological and content difficulties. The high school students demonstrated a greater need to develop content knowledge and representation skills, whereas the college students needed more support to know how to simplify data to construct the best data visualizations. The study specified metacognition needed for data visualization, which builds on and extends the cognitive model of drawing construction (CMDC) and theoretical perspectives of metavisualization. The results have implications for developing students’ data visualization literacy in STEM education by considering the difficulties and trajectories of metacognitive strategy development, and by addressing the different patterns and needs demonstrated by the college and high school students.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139764095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-12DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00470-x
Alexandra C. Lau, Charles Henderson, Marilyne Stains, Melissa Dancy, Christian Merino, Naneh Apkarian, Jeffrey R. Raker, Estrella Johnson
It is well established in the literature that active learning instruction in introductory STEM courses results in many desired student outcomes. Yet, regular use of high-quality active learning is not the norm in many STEM departments. Using results of a national survey, we identified 16 departments where multiple instructors reported using high levels of active learning in their introductory chemistry, mathematics, or physics courses. We conducted interviews with 27 instructors in these 16 departments to better understand the characteristics of such departments. Using grounded theory methodology, we developed a model that highlights relevant characteristics of departments with high use of active learning instruction in their introductory courses. According to this model, there are four main, interconnected characteristics of such departments: motivated people, knowledge about active learning, opportunities, and cultures and structures that support active learning. These departments have one or more people who are motivated to promote the use of active learning. These motivated people have knowledge about active learning as well as access to opportunities to promote the use of active learning. Finally, these departments have cultures and structures that support the use of active learning. In these departments, there is a positive feedback loop that works iteratively over time, where motivated people shape cultures/structures and these cultures/structures in turn increase the number and level of commitment of the motivated people. A second positive feedback loop was found between the positive outcome of using active learning instruction and the strengthening of cultures/structures supportive of active learning. According to the model, there are two main take-away messages for those interested in promoting the use of active learning. The first is that all four components of the model are important. A weak or missing component may limit the desired outcome. The second is that desired outcomes are obtained and strengthened over time through two positive feedback loops. Thus, there is a temporal aspect to change. In all of the departments that were part of our study, the changes took at minimum several years to enact. While our model was developed using only high-use of active learning departments and future work is needed to develop the model into a full change theory, our results do suggest that change efforts may be made more effective by increasing the robustness of the four components and the connections between them.
{"title":"Characteristics of departments with high-use of active learning in introductory STEM courses: implications for departmental transformation","authors":"Alexandra C. Lau, Charles Henderson, Marilyne Stains, Melissa Dancy, Christian Merino, Naneh Apkarian, Jeffrey R. Raker, Estrella Johnson","doi":"10.1186/s40594-024-00470-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00470-x","url":null,"abstract":"It is well established in the literature that active learning instruction in introductory STEM courses results in many desired student outcomes. Yet, regular use of high-quality active learning is not the norm in many STEM departments. Using results of a national survey, we identified 16 departments where multiple instructors reported using high levels of active learning in their introductory chemistry, mathematics, or physics courses. We conducted interviews with 27 instructors in these 16 departments to better understand the characteristics of such departments. Using grounded theory methodology, we developed a model that highlights relevant characteristics of departments with high use of active learning instruction in their introductory courses. According to this model, there are four main, interconnected characteristics of such departments: motivated people, knowledge about active learning, opportunities, and cultures and structures that support active learning. These departments have one or more people who are motivated to promote the use of active learning. These motivated people have knowledge about active learning as well as access to opportunities to promote the use of active learning. Finally, these departments have cultures and structures that support the use of active learning. In these departments, there is a positive feedback loop that works iteratively over time, where motivated people shape cultures/structures and these cultures/structures in turn increase the number and level of commitment of the motivated people. A second positive feedback loop was found between the positive outcome of using active learning instruction and the strengthening of cultures/structures supportive of active learning. According to the model, there are two main take-away messages for those interested in promoting the use of active learning. The first is that all four components of the model are important. A weak or missing component may limit the desired outcome. The second is that desired outcomes are obtained and strengthened over time through two positive feedback loops. Thus, there is a temporal aspect to change. In all of the departments that were part of our study, the changes took at minimum several years to enact. While our model was developed using only high-use of active learning departments and future work is needed to develop the model into a full change theory, our results do suggest that change efforts may be made more effective by increasing the robustness of the four components and the connections between them.","PeriodicalId":48581,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stem Education","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139764179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：