Racial achievement gaps are twice as large, and all students are less motivated, when STEM faculty believe ability is fixed.

Many college students abandon their goal of completing a degree in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) when confronted with challenging introductory-level science courses. In the U.S., this trend is more pronounced for underrepresented minority (URM) and first-generation (FG) students, and contributes to persisting racial and social-class achievement gaps in higher education. Previous intervention studies have focused exclusively on race or social class, but have not examined how the 2 may be confounded and interact. This research therefore investigates the independent and interactive effects of race and social class as moderators of an intervention designed to promote performance, measured by grade in the course. In a double-blind randomized experiment conducted over 4 semesters of an introductory biology course (N = 1,040), we tested the effectiveness of a utility-value intervention in which students wrote about the personal relevance of course material. The utility-value intervention was successful in reducing the achievement gap for FG-URM students by 61%: the performance gap for FG-URM students, relative to continuing generation (CG)-Majority students, was large in the control condition, .84 grade points (d = .98), and the treatment effect for FG-URM students was .51 grade points (d = 0.55). The UV intervention helped students from all groups find utility value in the course content, and mediation analyses showed that the process of writing about utility value was particularly powerful for FG-URM students. Results highlight the importance of intersectionality in examining the independent and interactive effects of race and social class when evaluating interventions to close achievement gaps and the mechanisms through which they may operate. (PsycINFO Database Record

Many students start college intending to pursue a career in the biosciences, but too many abandon this goal because they struggle in introductory biology. Interventions have been developed to close achievement gaps for underrepresented minority students and women, but no prior research has attempted to close the gap for first-generation students, a population that accounts for nearly a fifth of college students. We report a values affirmation intervention conducted with 798 U.S. students (154 first-generation) in an introductory biology course for majors. For first-generation students, values affirmation significantly improved final course grades and retention in the second course in the biology sequence, as well as overall GPA for the semester. This brief intervention narrowed the achievement gap between first-generation and continuing generation students for course grades by 50% and increased retention in a critical gateway course by 20%. Our results suggest that educators can expand the pipeline for first-generation students to continue studying in the biosciences with psychological interventions.

Two experiments and 2 field studies examine how college students' perceptions of their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professors' mindset beliefs about the fixedness or malleability of intelligence predict students' anticipated and actual psychological experiences and performance in their STEM classes, as well as their engagement and interest in STEM more broadly. In Studies 1 (N = 252) and 2 (N = 224), faculty mindset beliefs were experimentally manipulated and students were exposed to STEM professors who endorsed either fixed or growth mindset beliefs. In Studies 3 (N = 291) and 4 (N = 902), we examined students' perceptions of their actual STEM professors' mindset beliefs and used experience sampling methodology (ESM) to capture their in-the-moment psychological experiences in those professors' classes. Across all studies, we find that students who perceive that their professor endorses more fixed mindset beliefs anticipate (Studies 1 and 2) and actually experience (Studies 3 and 4) more psychological vulnerability in those professors' classes-specifically, they report less belonging in class, greater evaluative concerns, greater imposter feelings, and greater negative affect. We also find that in-the-moment experiences of psychological vulnerability have downstream consequences. Students who perceive that their STEM professors endorse more fixed mindset beliefs experience greater psychological vulnerability in those professors' classes, which in turn predict greater dropout intentions, lower class attendance, less class engagement, less end-of-semester interest in STEM, and lower grades. These findings contribute to our understanding of how students' perceptions of professors' mindsets can serve as a situational cue that affects students' motivation, engagement, and performance in STEM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Many college students intend to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers but quickly abandon these goals when confronted with notoriously competitive STEM courses that often pit students against each other. This emphasis on interpersonal competition could be especially detrimental for first-generation (FG) college students, an underrepresented group in STEM fields which more strongly values communality and collaboration relative to their continuing-generation peers. Thus, FG students may experience more imposter feelings in STEM courses perceived as having a competitive culture. A longitudinal study (with 818 students and 2,638 experience-sampling observations) found that perceived classroom competition was associated with greater daily in-class imposter feelings among all students—but especially among FG students. Imposter feelings in turn predicted students’ end-of-term course engagement, attendance, dropout intentions, and course grades. Classroom competition and the imposter feelings it engenders may be an overlooked barrier for promoting the engagement, performance, and retention of FG students in STEM.

One way to encourage performance and persistence in STEM fields is to have students write about the utility value (UV) or personal relevance of course topics to their life. This intervention has been shown to increase engagement and performance in introductory courses. However, questions remain about the longevity of the effects and how best to implement the intervention in terms of dosage and timing. We tested a UV intervention in the first semester of a two-semester introductory biology sequence. For each of three units across the semester, students (N = 577) were randomly assigned to receive either a UV writing assignment, in which they explained why course material was useful to them personally, or a control assignment, in which they summarized course material. This fully crossed design tested the effect of UV dosage level (0, 1, 2, or 3 UV assignments) as well as the effect of timing (e.g., UV first, control first). We found that students exposed to any dosage of UV earned higher grades in the course, were more likely to enroll in the second course of the biology sequence, and were less likely to abandon their STEM major than students who did not receive any UV assignments. In terms of timing, students with a history of poor performance benefitted from writing a UV essay in the beginning of the semester, whereas higher-performing students benefitted from a UV essay at the end of the semester. Recommendations for practice are discussed.