1. { 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 1

2.  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 2

3.  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 3

4.  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 4

5.  “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 5

6.  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 6

7.  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 7

8. Classroom-level variablesEffectSig. 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 8

9. Student background characteristicsEffectSig. Sex: Female+* Premed student+* HS biology grade—* Drive to achieve+** Participation in pre-professional or departmental club +** Results: Student Level 9

10. Student-level classroom experiencesEffectSig. 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—* Cross level effect with proportion of A’s+* Considered dropping the course+*** Feel prepared for next course in sequence+** Results: Student Level 10

11. Figure: Cross-level effect 11 Proportion of A’s among final grades

12.  “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 12

13.  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 13

14. Contact Info Faculty/Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Tanya Figueroa Bryce Hughes Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Graduate Research Assistants: Website: www.heri.ucla.edu E-mail: heri@ucla.edu Post-Bacc Research Analyst: Robert Paul 14 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.