An official website of the United States government
Abstract BackgroundWhile laboratory practices have traditionally been conducted in-person, online asynchronous laboratory learning has been growing in popularity due to increased enrollments and the recent pandemic, creating opportunities for accessibility. In remote asynchronous learning environments, students have more autonomy to choose how they participate with other students in their laboratory classes. Communities of practice and self-efficacy may provide insights into why students are making their participation choices and how they are interacting with peers in asynchronous physics laboratory courses. ResultsIn this mixed methods, explanatory sequential study, students in an introductory physics remote asynchronous laboratory (N = 272) were surveyed about their social learning perceptions and their physics laboratory self-efficacy. Three groups of students were identified based upon their self-reported participation level of communication with peers in asynchronous courses: (1)contributors, who communicated with peers via instant messaging software and posted comments; (2)lurkers, who read discussions on instant messaging software without posting comments; and (3)outsiders, who neither read nor posted comments to peer discussions. Analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey tests showed significant differences in social learning perceptions among contributors, lurkers, and outsiders, with a large effect size, and differences between contributing and lurking students’ self-efficacy, with a small effect size. Qualitative findings from open-ended survey responses indicated contributors felt the structure of the learning environment, or their feeling of connectedness with other students, facilitated their desire to contribute. Many lurkers felt they could get what they needed through vicarious learning, and many expressed their lack of confidence to post relevant, accurate comments. Outsiders felt they did not have to, did not want to, or could not connect with other students. ConclusionsWhile the classroom laboratory traditionally requires all students to participate in the learning process through active socialization with other students, students in a remote asynchronous laboratory may still gain the benefits of participation through lurking. Instructors may consider lurking in an online or remote science laboratory as a legitimate form of participation and engagement.
more »
« less
Centering and marginalization in introductory university physics classrooms
IntroductionResearch-based instructional strategies in physics promote active participation in collaborative activities as a primary means for students to construct understanding. Discussions of physics content are also negotiations of social relations. MethodsVideo analysis of small-group collaborative learning activities in introductory physics classrooms at three different universities, using situated learning theory analyses that include a critical consciousness lens. ResultsStudents’ ability to actively participate in sensemaking may be limited by their peripheral or marginalized position. Some people seem to be centered (or marginalized) for reasons other than the strength of their physics reasoning, and some people’s contributions are elevated (or neglected) for reasons other than their scientific merit. DiscussionSome of the behavioral patterns that we observe typify racialized and gendered interactions that are common in broader U.S. society.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1760761
- PAR ID:
- 10525915
- Publisher / Repository:
- Frontiers in Education
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Education
- Volume:
- 8
- ISSN:
- 2504-284X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract BackgroundIn college science laboratory and discussion sections, student-centered active learning strategies have been implemented to improve student learning outcomes and experiences. Research has shown that active learning activities can increase student anxiety if students fear that they could be negatively evaluated by their peers. Error framing (i.e., to frame errors as natural and beneficial to learning) is proposed in the literature as a pedagogical tool to reduce student anxiety. However, little research empirically explores how an instructor can operationalize error framing and how error framing is perceived by undergraduate students. To bridge the gap in the literature, we conducted a two-stage study that involved science graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) and undergraduate students. In stage one, we introduced cold calling (i.e., calling on non-volunteering students) and error framing to 12 chemistry and 11 physics GTAs. Cold calling can increase student participation but may increase student anxiety. Error framing has the potential to mitigate student anxiety when paired with cold calling. GTAs were then tasked to rehearse cold calling paired with error framing in a mixed-reality classroom simulator. We identified GTA statements that aligned with the definition of error framing. In stage two, we selected a few example GTA error framing statements and interviewed 13 undergraduate students about their perception of those statements. ResultsIn the simulator, all the GTAs rehearsed cold calling multiple times while only a few GTAs made error framing statements. A thematic analysis of GTAs’ error framing statements identified ways of error indication (i.e., explicit and implicit) and framing (i.e., natural, beneficial, and positive acknowledgement). Undergraduate student interviews revealed specific framing and tone that are perceived as increasing or decreasing student comfort in participating in classroom discourse. Both undergraduate students and some GTAs expressed negative opinions toward responses that explicitly indicate student mistakes. Undergraduate students’ perspectives also suggest that error framing should be implemented differently depending on whether errors have already occurred. ConclusionError framing is challenging for science GTAs to implement. GTAs’ operationalizations of error framing in the simulator and undergraduate students’ perceptions contribute to defining and operationalizing error framing for instructional practice. To increase undergraduate student comfort in science classroom discourse, GTAs can use implicit error indication. In response to students’ incorrect answers, GTAs can positively frame students’ specific ideas rather than discussing broadly how errors are natural or beneficial.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundAlthough most engineering graduate students are funded and usually complete their degrees faster than other disciplines, attrition remains a problem in engineering. Existing research has explored the psychological and sociological factors contributing to attrition but not the structural factors impacting attrition. Purpose/HypothesisUsing systems theory, this study seeks to understand nuance in how underlying structural causes affect engineering graduate students' attrition experiences in ways that may differ from their official reasons for departure. Design/MethodsData were collected through semi‐structured interviews with seven departing or already departed engineering doctoral students from R1 graduate programs across the United States. Using thematic analysis, root cause analyses were conducted to understand participants' attrition experiences to explore how structures influence causes of departure. ResultsThe ways participants discuss root causes of their departure indicate differences in formal reasons for departure and underlying causes of departure. We highlight the role of informal and formal policy as root causes of a different attrition rationale often passed off as interpersonal issues. When interpreted as evidence of structural issues, the causes of departure show ways in which action–inaction, policy–“null” policy serve as structural features governing student attrition decision processes. We also highlight a form of benign neglect toward struggling graduate students. ConclusionThis study reveals important nuances underlying face‐value reasons of attrition indicating foundational structural issues contributing to engineering graduate student attrition. Coaching faculty in team management and encouraging close revision of departmental policies could help mitigate students' negative graduate experiences and decrease unnecessary attrition.more » « less
-
Abstract PurposeMeasurable results of efforts to teach empathy to engineering students are sparse and somewhat mixed. This study’s objectives are (O1) to understand how empathy training affects students’ professional development relative to other educational experiences, (O2) to track empathy changes due to training over multiple years, and (O3) to understand how and what students learn in empathy training environments. MethodsStudents in a multiple-semester empathy course completed surveys ranking the career development impact of the empathy program against other college experiences (O1), rating learning of specific empathy skills (O2), and ranking program elements’ impact on empathy skills (O3). Intervention and control groups completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Jefferson Scale of Empathy at four time points (O2). Cohort students participated in post-program interviews (O1, O3). ResultsO1: Empathy training impacted career development more than several typical college activities but less than courses in major. O2: Students reported gains in four taught empathy skills. Cohort students showed significant increases in the Jefferson Scale while the control group did not. There were no significant changes in Interpersonal Reactivity Index scores. O3: interactive exercises had a significant effect on students’ learning all empathy skills while interactions with people with disabilities had significant effect on learning to encounter others with genuineness. Students valued building a safe in-class community facilitating their success in experiential environments. ConclusionsThis study highlights empathy skills’ importance in engineering students’ development, shows gains in empathy with training, and uncovers key factors in students’ learning experience that can be incorporated into engineering curricula.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundIt is well known that earning a bachelor's degree in engineering is a demanding task, but ripe with opportunity. For students from historically excluded demographic groups, this task is exacerbated by oppressive circumstances. Although considerable research has documented how student outcomes differ across demographic groups, much less is known about the dynamic processes that marginalize some students. PurposeThe purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual model of student navigation in the context of undergraduate engineering programs. Our goal is to illustrate how localized, structural features unjustly shape the demands and opportunities encountered by students and influence how they respond. Scope/MethodWe developed our model using an iterative, four‐stage process. This process included (1)clarifyingthe purpose of the development process; (2)identifyingconcepts and insights from prior research; (3)synthesizingthe concepts and insights into propositions; and (4)visualizingthe suspected relationships between the salient constructs in the propositions. ResultsOur model focuses on the dynamic interactions between the characteristics of students, the embedded contexts in which they are situated, and the support infrastructure of their learning environment. ConclusionThe resulting model illustrates the influence of structural features on how students a) respond to demands and opportunities and b) navigate obstacles present in the learning environment. Although its focus is on marginalized students in undergraduate engineering programs, the model may be applicable to STEM higher education more broadly.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.964699
