Transcript Driving Up or Dialing Down Competition in Introductory

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 Education
Washington, D.C.
November 20, 2014

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

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


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

“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


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

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
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
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
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
—
*
+
*
Considered dropping the course
+
***
Feel prepared for next course in sequence
+
**
Cross level effect with proportion of A’s
Results: Student Level
Perception of Competitiveness
among Peers
3
Proportion of
A’s among final
grades
2.5
2
1.5
14%
1
28%
0.5
40%
0
1
2
3
4
Agreement: My hard work was reflected in my
grades
Figure: Cross-level effect

“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

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
Contact Info
Faculty/Co-PIs:
Sylvia Hurtado
Kevin Eagan
Graduate Research
Assistants:
Tanya Figueroa
Bryce Hughes
Administrative Staff:
Dominique Harrison
Post-Bacc Research Analyst:
Robert Paul
Website: www.heri.ucla.edu
E-mail: [email protected]
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.