Author(s):
Need: Success in STEM, particularly for students historically underrepresented in these fields, depends on a constellation of factors that work together to support strong academic and career outcomes. Although academic advisors play a key role in student success, the role of the academic advisor has been consistently overlooked in STEM education research. As advisors take on ever-increasing advising loads, it is imperative that we better understand the factors underlying successful advising in STEM for promoting better learning outcomes for students. We propose that academic advising is an important but underappreciated co-curricular activity that can enhance student motivation and persistence in STEM. Our Level 1 Engaged Student Learning study—Supporting STEM academic advising for undergraduate student achievement—is generating critical information and insights into how academic advising shapes motivation, learning behaviors, and achievement outcomes in first- and second-year undergraduate students in STEM. In addition to generating knowledge to advance our scientific understanding of these important learning processes, the project will identify levers for intervention to increase STEM retention and achievement, especially for students underrepresented in these fields.Guiding Questions: Our research has four objectives: (1) Using a multi-method approach combining surveys and in-depth interviews, characterize the advising styles (and advising style preference) and implicit beliefs about ability and interest possessed by academic advisors and undergraduate students in biology and psychology at a research-intensive university in the United States. (2) Assess the content of advising meetings by coding on dimensions such as advising style, ability mindset beliefs, and interest mindset beliefs. (3) Examine whether self-reported and observed advising styles and implicit beliefs about ability and interest are significantly associated with student outcomes. (4) Disseminate information to the broader STEM education and advising communities to spark within- and cross-institutional improvements in STEM motivation and retention. Outcomes: We have recruited 13 academic advisors and 568 first- and second-year undergraduate students at the University of Kentucky, spanning biology, neuroscience, psychology, and other STEM and non-STEM majors. We have collected Wave 1 data and are currently collecting a second wave of data this spring. Outcomes assessed include growth mindset of intelligence and interest, motivational values and beliefs about STEM, and academic advising styles and preferences. In Year 2, we will continue to collect repeated measures data on these students and advisors, and also plan to conduct in-depth interviews and record actual advising sessions to supplement our survey data. Preliminary results revealed that while there were no significant differences between biology/neuroscience (life science) and psychology (social science) students on intelligence mindset, we found that psychology majors endorsed a more fixed interest mindset compared to biology/neuroscience majors, t(478) = 2.27, p = .024. Broader Impacts: With the aim of improving the effectiveness of STEM advising for undergraduates, particularly those from underserved groups, this project is laying the groundwork for furthering NSF’s goal of developing a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce. Data from the project will lay a strong foundation for intervention design by redesigning and reimagining STEM teaching and learning through the lens of academic advising.
Coauthors
Matthew Kim, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY
