{ 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,

 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

 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

 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

 “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

 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

 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

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

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

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

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

 “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

 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

Contact Info Faculty/Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Tanya Figueroa Bryce Hughes Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Graduate Research Assistants: Website: 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 GMO and R01 GMO , the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number , and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.