Search

Background: Valuable safeguards against fast-spreading conjectures about learning in times of fear and uncertainty are evidence-based approaches to the assessment of the impact of sudden and unforeseen disruptions on learning practices. The present research focused on physics learning in such times because conceptual and computational literacy in physics is critical to the development of a scientifically and technologically literate society. Objectives: The present research aimed (a) to offer an objective assessment of whether performance differences in a physics course of the general education curriculum existed between the face-to-face medium (familiar mode of instruction) and the online medium (unfamiliar mode of instruction) for both male and female students, and then (b) to develop a response to the evidence collected to ensure a quality education for all parties involved. The research intended to fill two critical gaps in the extant literature: mixed findings concerning students' performance in the face-to-face and online mediums as well as scarce coverage of specific domains of knowledge that are critical to STEM learners. Methods: Students' performance was examined as a function of the type of assessment (formative and summative), instructional mode (online and face-to-face), and gender. An understudied student population of STEM students of Middle Eastern descent without prior formal exposure to online instruction was targeted. Results and Conclusions: In both formative and summative assessments, male students performed better online than face-to-face, whereas the performance of female students was either higher online or equivalent between instructional mediums. The evidence collected suggested that consideration be given to remedies that foster academic success in the face-to-face instructional medium, particularly for male students. Takeaways: An evidence-based approach to learning dismantled emotion-driven expectations regarding the impact of the online medium on physics learning, and encouraged new perspectives about instruction.

The present research aimed to uncover individual differences that can be used to predict, at the start of a course, performance difficulties in female students of an understudied population who are at the beginning of their academic journey. Measures of active and passive procrastination and general self-efficacy were collected at the start of the semester from students enrolled in one of two courses representative of the general education curriculum at a university in the Middle East. Grades on the first homework assignment and test in each course were used as indices of students' early performance. Measures of procrastination and self-efficacy failed to adequately predict either early performance or attendance rates. Yet, attendance predicted a portion of the variance in assignment performance. This study suggests that class presence, rather than dispositional individual differences, can shape the early academic success of an understudied student population.

The present research examined the extent to which the initial approach to a research-writing course by STEM and non-STEM second-language learners may entail the contribution of different dispositions to course performance and ultimately be responsible for dissimilar outcomes. Individual differences in dispositions and behavior were assessed during the first four weeks of the semester. They pertained to an understudied college population of young women from a society (Saudi Arabia) that has only recently begun to address gender inequalities in education and the workforce by placing women at the center stage of its economic development. There were no differences in generic and research-specific writing skills, but performance on the first assignment was higher in non-STEM students, whereas general confidence (i.e., self-efficacy) and confidence specific to research writing were higher in STEM students. Nevertheless, STEM students were more likely to complete the course successfully than non-STEM students. It was concluded that the former treated initial poor performance as a warning call to increase engagement, thereby independently addressing their own difficulties. Instead, the latter required additional instruction and counseling as engagement by itself was insufficient to lead to academic success. These findings underscore the relevance of targeted, evidence-driven interventions that acknowledge the different academic needs of STEM and non-STEM students.