Search

Abstract Background Co-curricular activities are often touted as valuable STEM learning opportunities in higher education settings. Particularly in engineering, industry encourage and seek students with co-curricular experiences. However, many engineering undergraduates do not regularly participate in those experiences. Some researchers have suggested that the rigors of the curriculum leave little time for co-curriculars. Yet, little research has empirically examined the reality of the undergraduate students’ involvement in co-curriculars. Thus, as an initial study, we situated our study in a large public university to explore students’ motivations for co-curriculars. In this paper we report on our efforts to understand student perceptions about the value and costs of that involvement. We considered how undergraduate engineering students used their time and what motivated them to engage (or not) in co-curriculars using Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT). Students’ motivation was investigated with a quantitative research methodology and complemented by interview data. Results Results of our motivation survey show that students who participated in co-curriculars perceived less cost than those who never participated. We also found that the achievement values of co-curriculars does not necessarily motivate student involvement. Interview data were used to further interpret quantitative data results. Conclusions In the context of study findings and existent literature, we discuss several implications for future research and practice. First, we argue for a more granular investigation of student time use and its impact on co-curricular participation. Second, despite the potential for high impact outcomes, students who have never participated perceived high cost for co-curricular engagement. Those perceptions may aggravate inequitable engagement of student populations, including historically marginalized populations in the STEM field. Third, students do not necessarily associate co-curricular experiences with the types of achievement values and learning that institutions, alumni, and industry might consider most important. Thus, to build and support co-curricular programs that provide the holistic educational experiences and learning that are anticipated, research that supports design of co-curricular programs and policies to improve engagement and persistence in those programs for all students is necessary.

Abstract Background Students’ attitudinal beliefs related to how they see themselves in STEM have been a focal point of recent research, given their well-documented links to retention and persistence. These beliefs are most often assessed cross-sectionally, and as such, we lack a thorough understanding of how they may fluctuate over time. Using matched survey responses from undergraduate engineering students (n = 278), we evaluate if, and to what extent, students’ engineering attitudinal beliefs (attainment value, utility value, self-efficacy, interest, and identity) change over a 1-year period. Further, we examine whether there are differences based on gender and student division, and then compare results between cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses to illustrate weaknesses in our current understanding of these constructs. Results Our study revealed inconsistencies between cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the same dataset. Cross-sectional analyses indicated a significant difference by student division for engineering utility value and engineering interest, but no significant differences by gender for any variable. However, longitudinal analyses revealed statistically significant decreases in engineering utility value, engineering self-efficacy, and engineering interest for lower division students and significant decreases in engineering attainment value for upper division students over a one-year period. Further, longitudinal analyses revealed a gender gap in engineering self-efficacy for upper division students, where men reported higher means than women. Conclusions Our analyses make several contributions. First, we explore attitudinal differences by student division not previously documented. Second, by comparing across methodologies, we illustrate that different conclusions can be drawn from the same data. Since the literature around these variables is largely cross-sectional, our understanding of students’ engineering attitudes is limited. Our longitudinal analyses show variation in engineering attitudinal beliefs that are obscured when data is only examined cross-sectionally. These analyses revealed an overall downward trend within students for all beliefs that changed significantly—losses which may foreshadow attrition out of engineering. These findings provide an opportunity to introduce targeted interventions to build engineering utility value, engineering self-efficacy, and engineering interest for student groups whose means were lower than average.

This study uses data from an urban school district to examine the relation between students' motivational beliefs about mathematics and high- versus low-stakes math test performance. We use ordinary least squares and quantile regression analyses and find that the association between students' motivation and test performance differs based on the stakes of the exam. Students' math self-efficacy and performance avoidance goal orientation were the strongest predictors for both exams; however, students' math self-efficacy was more strongly related to achievement on the low-stakes exam. Students' motivational beliefs had a stronger association at the low-stakes exam proficiency cutoff than they did at the high-stakes passing cutoff. Lastly, the negative association between performance avoidance goals and high-stakes performance showed a decreasing trend across the achievement distribution, suggesting that performance avoidance goals are more detrimental for lower achieving students. These findings help parse out the ways motivation influences achievement under different stakes.

The use of educational digital games as supplemental tools to course instruction materials has increased over the last several decades and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Though these types of instructional games have been employed in the majority of STEM disciplines, less is known about how diverse populations of students interpret and define the value of these games towards achieving academic and professional pursuits. A mixed-method sequential exploratory research design method that was framed on the Technology Acceptance Model, Game-Based Learning Theory and Expectancy Value Theory was used to examine how 201 students perceived the usefulness of an intuitive education game that was designed to teach engineering mechanics used in designing civil structures. We found that students had different expectations of educational digital games than games designed for entertainment used outside of classroom environments. Several students thought that the ability to design their own structures and observe structure failure in real-time was a valuable asset in understanding how truss structures responded to physical loading conditions. However, few students thought the educational game would be useful for exam (14/26) or job interview (19/26) preparation. Students associated more value with engineering games that illustrate course content and mathematical calculations used in STEM courses than those that do not include these elements.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations among perceived instructional support (provision of relevance and involvement), subjective task value beliefs (utility, attainment, and intrinsic value), and engagement (behavioral and emotional) over the course of a semester for graduate students enrolled in an introductory research methods course in a college of education (N= 217). Structural equation modeling (SEM) results suggested that each source of perceived support exerted unique influence on students' beliefs about utility value, intrinsic value, and attainment value of their research methods coursework. In turn, midsemester value beliefs predicted semester-end student reports of behavioral and cognitive engagement. Direct and indirect effects between perceived provisions of support and engagement were inconsistent. This study supports the notion that different patterns of predictors and outcomes may occur for different aspects of value beliefs and that multiple sources of instructional support are important for supporting student motivation for adult learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]