Science, Technology, Engineering And Mathematics Higher Education Research Articles

“I know what I need to learn”: The intersection of aspirational and navigational capitals for marginalized‐identity STEM students

AbstractBackgroundThe community cultural wealth (CCW) theoretical framework recognizes the assets of oppressed communities. Within the framework, aspirational capital refers to the hope to achieve in the face of systemic barriers, while navigational capital includes tactics engaged to progress within institutions that were not designed for equitable achievement. This study explores where aspirational capital and navigational capital overlap (a frequent and theoretically relevant occurrence) for marginalized‐identity (MI) STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students.PurposeThis study provides insight into the experiences of higher education for MI students. Understanding students' deployment of navigational and aspirational capitals can direct change within institutions.Design/MethodThis analysis draws on 51 semi‐structured interviews with 26 participants. Multiple rounds of qualitative coding and shared meaning‐making among authors support the present findings.ResultsWhen aspirational capital and navigational capital overlap in student experience, three themes emerge. First, MI students use individualized actions to meet their goals; their extreme self‐reliance and engagement of priorities and milestones are key. Second, intrinsic motivators echoing meritocratic narratives encourage students. These narratives emphasize the value of hard work and taking advantage of opportunities. Finally, external forces, including institutionally based experts and culture, reflect aspirational and navigational capital engagement that support the individual's approaches and mindsets. Each finding includes nuance based on demographic categories.ConclusionsMI students draw on aspirational and navigational capital for support in postsecondary education. Recognition of CCW components and strategies shifts the responsibility of equitable student experiences and academic success to institutions and stakeholders in STEM higher education.

‘Biology is easy, physics is hard’: Student perceptions of the ideal and the typical student across STEM higher education

ABSTRACT This paper draws upon in-depth interviews with 89 students from two UK universities to explore how students from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degrees describe the ideal as well as the typical student in their respective disciplines. We provide a comparative insight into the similarities and differences between disciplinary identities based on student perceptions. More specifically, we consider how undergraduates from biology, engineering, mathematics and physics construct the ideal and the typical student in their degree, highlighting the popular discourses and desirable traits that appear to characterise students in these disciplines. In addition to a masculinised construction of students in engineering, mathematics and physics, we found a social hierarchy within STEM degrees where biology was perceived as the easier STEM subject. We conclude with a discussion of the impact of such hierarchies on student identities in STEM, and potential implications for equality, diversity and inclusion.

University students’ views regarding gender in STEM studies: Design and validation of an instrument

Differences in the representation of diversity in higher education, emphasising the gender gap in some areas, are issues addressed from different research domains. Socially, gender roles have been constructed and are also related to professions. In this context, the Social Cognitive Career Theory explores the possible causes of segregation. This segregation is evident in Europe and Spain, as indicated by the European Institute for Gender Equality. This paper describes the design and validation process of an instrument to find out what opinions university students have about higher education studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), according to gender. After drafting the questionnaire, it was piloted in a non-experimental quantitative design in Spain. Subsequently, a validity and reliability study was applied to validate the items and construct their dimensionality. The process was implemented using Reliability Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis. Also, the dimensionality consists of five scales: Gender Ideology, Perception and Self-perception, Expectations about Science, Attitudes and Interests. Based on the results, it is concluded that the opinion about STEM studies is conditioned by personal elements, such as motivations, educational background and family and social influences, such as people who judged their decision, were their references or studied STEM programs. Finally, it is essential to pay socio-educational attention to the modulating components of decisions about which higher education studies to pursue. Awareness of the factors involved in the decision helps the educational community to establish mechanisms to prevent horizontal gender segregation. The instrument designed, validated and presented in this study provides a glimpse of possible causes for the gender gap in STEM higher education.

Online Formative Assessment in Higher STEM Education; A Systematic Literature Review

Online formative assessment in higher education Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) is gaining attention in recent years based on the increasing use of online learning. This study, aimed at critically reviewing studies on online formative assessment in Higher education STEM between 2011 to 2020. The study adopted a qualitative research design to analyze studies based on specific themes. 1402 articles were systematically searched through Scopus, web of science, and google scholar databases. However, only 12 studies were included in this study after satisfying the inclusion criteria. All data analyses were done using the Endnote X9 reference manager. The findings reveal that, evidence about online tools used, theories used in the learning and assessment process, the domain of learning outcome assessed, assessment of practical skills, and form of assessment used have been implicitly described. However, the online formative assessments have shown great potential of yielding immediate feedback. Therefore, future studies can engage in a more extensive study on areas such as online assessment tools for assessing practical skills and strategies that can enhance the effectiveness of online formative assessment which encompasses all domains of learning outcome within STEM higher education.

Assessing faculty professional development in STEM higher education: Sustainability of outcomes.

We tested the effectiveness of Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching IV (FIRST), a professional development program for postdoctoral scholars, by conducting a study of program alumni. Faculty professional development programs are critical components of efforts to improve teaching and learning in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines, but reliable evidence of the sustained impacts of these programs is lacking. We used a paired design in which we matched a FIRST alumnus employed in a tenure-track position with a non-FIRST faculty member at the same institution. The members of a pair taught courses that were of similar size and level. To determine whether teaching practices of FIRST participants were more learner-centered than those of non-FIRST faculty, we compared faculty perceptions of their teaching strategies, perceptions of environmental factors that influence teaching, and actual teaching practice. Non-FIRST and FIRST faculty reported similar perceptions of their teaching strategies and teaching environment. FIRST faculty reported using active learning and interactive engagement in lecture sessions more frequently compared with non-FIRST faculty. Ratings from external reviewers also documented that FIRST faculty taught class sessions that were learner-centered, contrasting with the teacher-centered class sessions of most non-FIRST faculty. Despite marked differences in teaching practice, FIRST and non-FIRST participants used assessments that targeted lower-level cognitive skills. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of the FIRST program and the empirical utility of comparison groups, where groups are well matched and controlled for contextual variables (for example, departments), for evaluating the effectiveness of professional development for subsequent teaching practices.