Search

Although women's representation in STEM fields and occupations has increased, science and math continue to be stereotyped as male domains. This paper links psychological and sociological explanations for gendered disparities in STEM by examining the relationship between the local "micro-situational" female learning environment and the gender gap in academic self-concept in math and science. We applied hybrid models to TIMSS 2015 data comprised of a pseudo-panel of repeated measures for individual student and peer achievement, academic self-concept, utility value, and interest-enjoyment value in math/science (at age 14). We analyzed data from three countries, including a subsample of students who were taught by the same teacher in both math and science, thus eliminating unobserved teacher heterogeneity. Results indicate that female peer climate in the classroom is important for understanding how girls' self-concept in math/science is formed, even though it was unrelated to the gender gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although research on mathematics learning programs has taken off in recent years, little is known about how different person characteristics are related to practice behaviour with such programs. When implementing a mathematics learning program in the classroom, it might be important to know whether students with specific characteristics need more encouragement to make use of this learning opportunity. Objectives: Using a supply‐use model, we analysed the predictive power of students' cognitive characteristics (prior mathematics knowledge), personality traits (conscientiousness), motivational‐affective characteristics (mathematics self‐concept and mathematics anxiety), and family background characteristics (socioeconomic status and migration background) for practising with an adaptive arithmetic learning program. Methods: We used longitudinal data from 203 fifth graders from seven non‐academic‐track schools in Germany. Practice behaviour, measured by completed tasks in the learning program, was recorded weekly for every student over a period of 22 weeks. Results and Conclusions: The results of our multilevel analyses showed that mathematics anxious students practised less with the program. We did not find any relationship with the other characteristics. Takeaways: Our results suggest that mathematics anxious students need more encouragement when practising with a mathematics learning program; otherwise, they do not get the chance to benefit from the use. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: The use of mathematics learning programmes in mathematics education has recently intensified.It is important that students practice with such learning programmes regularly over a longer period of time in order for them to achieve learning success.Students differ in their mathematics learning behaviour. What this paper adds: Little is known about how person characteristics are related to practice behaviour with mathematics learning programmes.Students may differ in their use of a mathematics learning programme, which is why cognitive characteristics, personality traits, motivational‐affective characteristics, and family background characteristics may affect students' practice behaviour. Implications for practice: Mathematics anxious students practiced less with a mathematics learning program, and need more encouragement to benefit equally from the implementation in school.Teachers should keep in mind that after the initial enthusiasm, practice with a programme may decrease over time, especially after school holidays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous work has identified that the benefits of learning with videogames and learning from simulations. However, recent meta‐analytic work has also identified that little research directly compares learning with videogames and learning with simulations. Objectives: This study examines two learning technologies and their corresponding pedagogical approaches and compares them for learning the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics topic of electric charges. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention using a computer simulation for inquiry‐based learning or a computer videogame for game‐based learning. Their learning gains, self‐reported emotional state and experienced cognitive load were recorded. Results: We found that both learning environments improved conceptual learning, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions. Participants did perceive the game‐based environment to be more engaging as well as more frustrating. We also found that cognitive load did not predict learning—however, different types of cognitive load correlated with different emotions. Overall, participants in both conditions were engaged and perceived understanding of the topic, yet they also experienced both confusion and task‐unrelated thoughts. Takeaways: When learning with simulations and videogames, educators need to align intended learning outcomes with pedagogical approaches enabled by technology. In addition, a balance between principles of multimedia learning to reduce or prevent extraneous processing, and scaffolding to reduce negative effects of learning with technology, need to be considered. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Research on the use of computer simulations for learning has identified positive learning effects regarding achievement outcomes, inquiry skills and noncognitive outcomes.Research on the use of videogames for learning has suggested learning benefits, such as improved working memory, development of creativity skills and achievement outcomes.Recent meta‐analytic work has identified that there is little research that directly compares learning with videogames and learning with simulations. What this paper adds: Learning benefits of difficult Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) concepts may be different for game‐based learning (GBL) than inquiry‐based learning (IBL).Positive emotions can be experienced when learning via GBL than when learning via IBL.Students, who experience more positive emotions may also achieve higher learning gains.Students' cognitive load may be different when learning with GBL than when learning via IBL.Students experiencing high cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic and extraneous) may show lower learning gains.Students experiencing high cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic and extraneous) may show higher level of mind‐wandering, frustration, or confusion. Implications for practice and/or policy: Learning with simulated inquiry base environment and game base environment improved conceptual learning.GBL was more engaging and more frustrating for students, when learning with computer videogames.Cognitive load did not predict STEM learning with technologies.Different cognitive load correlated with different learning emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]