22. Research in Higher Education
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
STEM Doctoral Students' Imposter Phenomenon: Prior Experiences, Socializers’ Beliefs, and Expectations for Success
M. Gail Jones1, Gina Childers2, Julianna Nieuwsma1, Kathleen Bordewieck1
1NC State University, United States of America; 2Texas Tech University
Presenting Author: Jones, M. Gail
There is increasing interest in social emotional factors related to learning for STEM graduate students. Furthermore, graduate students report growing levels of a sense of imposterism and other socio-emotional issues as a result of the COVID pandemic (Kee, 2021). Research has shown that socio-emotional well-being is associated with retention and academic achievement (Conley, 2015). Along with anxiety and stress that have been reported by graduate students, students also report experiencing imposter phenomenon (IP). IP has been described as feelings of incompetence or fraudulence and IP has been reported for both undergraduate and graduate students (Clance & Imes, 1978; Mak et al., 2019). Students experiencing IP report a fear of failure, associate achievement with luck, and these students tend to experience self-pressure, anxiety, and stress (Clance, 1985; Cozzarelli & Major, 1990). IP has not been well theorized, particularly for STEM fields, and there is limited research that examines the underlying factors. Here we examine imposterism within an expectancy value theory framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Expectancy value theory considers an individual’s perceptions of social roles, activities, socializer’s beliefs, and prior experiences as factors that contribute to academic choices and career goals. These factors according to expectancy value theory influence self-schemata that includes identity and self-efficacy (Author). Here IP and expectancy value theory factors are examined to gain insight into graduate students’ perceptions of competence for STEM research.
Research Questions
What is the relationship between students’ reported perceptions of imposterism and
1) overall prior experiences in STEM?
2) experiences knowing people in STEM?
3) prior experiences participating in STEM-related experiences?
4) perceptions of socializers’ beliefs for them as STEM researchers?
5) expectation for success beliefs for STEM research?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
This study was conducted with doctoral students located at six, large research universities located throughout the United States. Students were contacted by email and asked to participate in a study of doctoral students’ experiences and beliefs. All of the students who volunteered to participate were included in the study.
Participants. There were 30 males and 25 females; 18 majority (White) and 36 minority (non-White) participants. Students indicated their academic disciplines and there were 36 engineering students, 15 science students, and 3 did not indicate a discipline.
Survey. The survey was designed to measure imposter phenomenon, expectancy value factors, and science capital variables. The survey included 6 imposter phenomenon items that asked questions such as “Sometimes I am afraid I will be discovered for who I really am.” Three items were from the Clance and Imes (1978) scale (see Chrisman, et al., 1995 for validation information). Two items were from the Harvey (1981) scale (see Hellman, & Caselman, 2004 for validation information). One item was from the Leary et al., 2000 scale. Other items measuring expectancy value factors were adapted from the validated NextGen Scientists Survey (Author). The final survey was piloted with four STEM doctoral students and modified for format and timing. The final survey included 42 items and was delivered through a survey online platform.
The survey asked about these factors: Imposterism and Experiences Knowing People in STEM (growing up did they know people who worked in STEM careers, know someone with a Ph.D, or know anyone who was a researcher.); Imposterism and STEM-Related activities (visited a museum, aquarium, or zoo, took nature walks, talked about science with their family, or engaged in science-related hobbies.); Imposterism and Socializers’ Beliefs (family saw them as a researcher, family supported their efforts to complete this degree, and friends saw them as a researcher.); Imposterism and Expectation for Success (if they thought they were good in science, and other items such as asking if they were good at using tools and equipment in science, or if they felt like they could talk to others about science).
Analyses. A Pearson correlation was used to examine relationships between imposterism and the expectancy value scores (experiences (overall), experiences knowing people in STEM, experiences in STEM-related activities, socializers’ beliefs, and expectations for success. A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons resulted in setting a significant p-value at the 0.01 level.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults
Overall Expectancy Value Results. The analyses showed that there were no significant correlations between perceived imposterism and students’ reported overall prior STEM experiences, composed of the sub-constructs of knowing people in STEM and experiences in STEM-related activities, as well as the factor of socializer's beliefs. However, there was a significant, negative correlation reported for expectation for success and imposterism (R=-422; p<.001).
Imposterism and Experiences Knowing People in STEM. There was no significant correlation (r = -.245, n = 55, p = 0.071) between students’ perceptions of imposterism and their reported experiences knowing people in STEM.
Imposterism and STEM-Related activities. There was no significant correlation (r = .056, n = 55, p = 0.692) between having had STEM-related experiences and reporting experiencing imposterism.
Imposterism and Socializers’ Beliefs. There was no significant correlation (r = -.228, n = 55, p = 0.094) between socializers’ beliefs and reported imposterism.
Imposterism and Expectation for Success. Perceptions of imposterism was negatively correlated (r = -.422, n = 55, p = 0.001) with expectation for success (including self-efficacy).
The results of this paper suggest for the specific STEM graduate students in this study, perceptions of imposterism are more closely related to their expectations of success for themselves in their doctoral work than to their prior experiences or their knowledge of people in STEM during childhood. This finding suggests that access to science capital growing up (experiences, access to materials, access to people) may not strongly shape self-efficacy and expectations for success. Instead, these psychological constructs are likely dependent on other constructs not measured in the current study. These results highlight questions about what educators can do to enhance an individual’s expectation for success.This study suggests new questions about how expectancy value theory relates to aspects of imposter phenomenon and pushes educators to move beyond measuring imposter phenomenon to considering underlying factors.
ReferencesAuthor
Chrisman, S. M., Pieper, W. A., Clance, P. R., Holland, C. L., & Glickauf-Hughes, C. (1995). Validation of the Clance imposter phenomenon scale. Journal of personality assessment, 65(3), 456-467.
Clance, P. R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon. Atlanta: Peachtree.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, research & practice, 15(3), 241.
Conley, S.C. (2015). SEL in Higher Education. In Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Weissberg, R.P., Gullotta, T.P., & Comer, J. (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 197-212). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cozzarelli, C., & Major, B. (1990). Exploring the validity of the impostor phenomenon. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 401-417.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Hellman, C. M., & Caselman, T. D. (2004). A psychometric evaluation of the Harvey Imposter Phenomenon Scale. Journal of personality assessment, 83(2), 161-166.
Kee, C. E. (2021). The impact of COVID-19: Graduate students’ emotional and psychological experiences. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 31(1-4), 476-488.
Mak, K. K., Kleitman, S., & Abbott, M. J. (2019). Imposter phenomenon measurement scales: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 671.
Leary, M. R., Patton, K. M., Orlando, A. E., & Funk, W. (2000). The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions, reflected appraisals, and interpersonal strategies. Journal of Personality, 68, 725-756.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
The Effect of Peers’ Sociocultural Capital on Disadvantaged Brazilian Undergraduate Students’ Achievement
Orlanda Tavares1, Cristina Sin1, Julio Bertolin2, Hélio Radke Bittencourt3
1CeiED, Universidade Lusófona, Portugal; 2Universidade de Passo Fundo, Brasil; 3Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil
Presenting Author: Tavares, Orlanda;
Sin, Cristina
Higher education has become central for the economic and social development of countries. As the systems expanded, an increasingly heterogeneous student body entered higher education and challenges related to quality and equity emerged (Unesco, 2021). Equity implies that social class, ethnicity, geographical location or other characteristics should not determine students’ access and success. Yet, different socioeconomic backgrounds tend to be reproduced in differentiated academic achievements, with the less privileged students having poorer grades or dropping out more frequently (Tavares et al, 2022). The difference in achievement and academic success between lower SES students and higher SES students has been widely addressed in the literature (Li & Carroll, 2019; Kahu & Nelson, 2018). These differences may be linked with the different mechanisms through which students acquire and use social capital and support (Mishra, 2020). As higher education is not an isolated experience, but rather entails persistent support and encouragement from family, peers, community, neighbourhood, and faculty), it is important to understand the extent to which some contextual factors might influence academic achievement.
Several studies have sought to understand the relationship between academic achievement and these contextual factors. An important contextual factor influencing the learning process and academic achievement is the pedagogical interaction between students. The impact of these interactions is known in the literature as ‘contagion’, ‘neighbourhood effects’ or ‘peer group effects’ (Ding & Lehrer 2007). It generally means that students’ academic achievement may be influenced by the characteristics and behaviours of their peers. Peer effects – the term used in this study – can therefore be defined as the impact of the study group on the learning environment and on the individual academic performance (Illanes, 2014; Guadalupe & Gonzalez-Gordon, 2022). The effects of peers seem larger for minority and disadvantaged students, with scarce access to resources or opportunities to develop the study habits needed to succeed. Peer group abilities have considerable positive effects on students’ academic performance as they tend to have higher academic achievement if the quality of their peer group is higher (Ding and Lehrer, 2006; Zimmerman 2003; Vandenberghe, 2002; Sacerdote, 2001). Many other studies have found that top ability peers had a positive influence on others’ outcomes (Griffith & Rask 2014; Sacerdote 2001; Carrell et al., 2009). The interaction between peers supports and motivates students to achieve a higher cognitive level and to find a personal meaning for learning (Dempsey, Halton, & Murphy, 2001).
This paper will focus on Brazilian higher education, a country where inequalities are still huge in various sectors of society. Despite affirmative actions and positive discrimination policies (Bertolin and McCowan, 2022), higher education remains a stratified system (elitist courses and courses which mostly attract disadvantaged students). Inequalities also persist in academic progression, retention and attainment. Focusing on the attainment of disadvantaged undergraduate students, this paper aims to examine whether these students might benefit from interaction with peers of high socioeconomic and cultural capital (Griffith & Rask 2014). For that purpose, the study compares the academic achievement of disadvantaged students in cohorts with different degrees of socioeconomic diversity: homogeneous cohorts of low SES students, in which peers are mainly from the same low socioeconomic and cultural background; heterogeneous cohorts, in which peers are both from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds; and homogeneous cohorts of high SES students, in which peers are mainly from a high socioeconomic and cultural background. The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that the academic achievement of underprivileged students who complete their studies tends to be better in cohorts in which the number of students with high sociocultural capital is higher.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedEvery year, students completing undergraduate programmes in specific disciplinary areas take a nationwide test called ENADE (the National Test of Student Performance). It is a mandatory graduation requirement for all summoned students each year. However, the exam evaluates the higher education system and does not influence students’ final grade. It evaluates students’ performance and also gathers data on their socioeconomic background. This study uses the ENADE database which contains microdata on the students’ performance and on the social, economic and cultural conditions of each participant. Participation can reach nearly 500,000 students each year. Data from a complete 3-year cycle of ENADE assessment are employed (2014, 2015 and 2016), the last cycle for which data are available on individual students. It covers more than 1 million students from courses of different disciplines and the dataset is a representative sample of the total of 8.6 million students enrolled in Brazilian higher education (the 4th largest in the world).
To verify the influence of social capital and peer group effect on the academic achievement of disadvantaged students, descriptive statistics and general linear models (ANOVA) are used, with exam performance as the dependent variable. Social capital and the type of cohort in which the student is enrolled (low SES cohorts, heterogeneous cohorts, and high SES cohorts) are the independent variables. First, a SES score was calculated for each student based on family income, mothers’ educational level and type of secondary school (public or private), ranging from 0 (lowest) to 45 (highest). Then the students were divided into four groups according to the SES score quartiles, in which Q1 students were those with the lowest SES. In order to classify cohorts into the three categories above, the entropy (degree of heterogeneity of the cohorts) was calculated, as proposed by Shannon (1948). Cohorts with high entropy were classified as heterogeneous and cohorts with low entropy were classified as low SES homogeneous or high SES homogeneous, according to the level of concentration of students from different SES backgrounds. Only face-to-face cohorts with 10 or more students were considered. Variables related to the school effect were used for control purposes and to avoid bias in the results. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the results of low SES students (quartile Q1) in the ENADE General Education and Specific Component tests in the three types of cohorts (low SES homogeneous, heterogeneous and high SES homogeneous).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe first results confirm the hypothesis advanced in this study. When considering the General Education component, which is common to all disciplinary areas in the same year, the comparison of the performance of Q1 students in the different cohorts revealed that they perform best when they are in cohorts classified as high SES homogeneous. In fact, performance is higher for Q1 students in heterogeneous cohorts compared to Q1 students in low SES homogeneous ones and is also higher for Q1 students in high SES homogeneous cohorts compared to Q1 students in heterogeneous cohorts. Considering the Specific Component of the exam, which differs by disciplinary area, similar results were found. When controlling for disciplinary area, Q1 students enrolled in high SES homogenous cohorts continue to perform better that their counterparts enrolled in low SES homogeneous and heterogeneous cohorts.
These preliminary results show that disadvantaged students seem to perform better in cohorts which are predominantly made up of students coming from privileged backgrounds, benefiting from the interaction with peers of high socioeconomic and cultural capital. Further detailed analyses by disciplinary area will be performed.
ReferencesBertolin, J., & McCowan, T. (2022). The Persistence of Inequity in Brazilian Higher Education: Background Data and Student Performance. In Tavares, O. Sá, C. Sin, C. Amaral, A., (Eds.) Equity Policies in Global Higher Education (pp. 71-88). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Carrell, S. E., Fullerton, R. L., & West, J. E. (2009). Does your cohort matter? Measuring peer effects in college achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), 439-464.
Dempsey, M., Halton, C., & Murphy, M. (2001). Reflective learning in social work education: Scaffolding the process. Social work education, 20(6), 631-641.
Ding, W., & Lehrer, S. F. (2007). Do peers affect student achievement in China's secondary schools?. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 300-312.
Griffith, A. L., & Rask, K. N. (2014). Peer effects in higher education: A look at heterogeneous impacts. Economics of Education Review, 39, 65-77.
Guadalupe, M., & Gonzalez-Gordon, I. (2022). Bias From Enrollment: Peer Effects on the Academic Performance of University Students in PUCE Ecuador. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 15381927221085679.
Illanes, G. (2014). Peer effects: What do we really know? Centro de Estudios Públicos. https:// www.cepchile.cl/cep/site/artic/20160304/asocfile/20160304100733/pder377_GIllanes.pdf
Kahu, E. R. & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research &
Development, 37(1), 58-7.
Li, I. W & Carroll, D. R. (2019). Factors influencing dropout and academic performance: an Australian higher education equity perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, (), 1–17.
Mishra, S. (2020). Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on underrepresented’ students. Educational Research Review, 29, 100307.
Sacerdote, B. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. The Quarterly journal of economics, 116(2), 681-704.
Shannon, Claude E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal. 27(3): 379–423. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf
Tavares, O., Sá, C., Sin, C., & Amaral, A. (2022). Equity Policies in Global Higher Education: Reducing Inequality and Increasing Participation and Attainment. Cham: Springer Nature.
Unesco (2021). Thinking higher and beyond: Perspectives on the futures of higher education to 2050. Paris: UNESCO IESALC.
Vandenberghe, V. (2002). Evaluating the magnitude and the stakes of peer effects analysing science and math achievement across OECD. Applied Economics, 34(10), 1283-1290.
Zimmerman, D. J. (2003). Peer effects in academic outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Review of Economics and statistics, 85(1), 9-23.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
What Does it Mean Student(s) Voice(s) in Higher Education?
Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela
Universidad de Tarapaca, Chile
Presenting Author: Guzmán-Valenzuela, Carolina
Introduction
As a result of both an increase in the number and diversity of students and a wider and higher number of institutions offering a degree in higher education, much research has been focused on what has been called the ‘student voice’ although this concept has remained undertheorised (Felten et al., 2013; McLeod, 2011; Seale, 2009).
In her work, Seale (2009) pointed that much of the work around ‘student voice’ seemed to make implicit connections between students’ feedback and reflective practices and the improvement of teaching practices and curriculum development, there being an assumption that students’ feedback would produce changes in curricular and teaching practices as a consequence of staff and lecturers’ reflections on this feedback and a disposition to promote those changes.
The aim of this papaer is to examine the current state of the art of the concept of student voice in higher education. Through a systematic literature review, it aims to identify the main patterns of publication around this concept in the last three decades (1992-2021). In addition, it identifies the conceptualisations underpinning the concept, the main methodologies that have been used to investigate it, and the contexts in which student voice has been explored.
Student voice
McLeod provides an overview of the polysemic of the concept ‘voice’ which can be associated to “identity or agency, or even power… it can be the site of authentic reflection and insight or a radical source for counter narratives… can be a code word for representing difference, or connote a democratic politics of participation and inclusion, or be the expression of an essentialized group identity” (2011: 181).
In higher education, according to Seale (2009), conceptualisations about student voice are rather undeveloped. According to the author, ‘student voice’ is usually conceived as feedback provided by students which help lecturers and academic planners to reflect on and improve teaching practices and curricula. In turn, McLeod identifies four different types of uses of student voices in education: “(i) voice – as strategy (to achieve empowerment, transformation, equality); voice as-participation (in learning, in democratic processes); voice-as-right (to be heard, to have a say); and voice-as-difference (to promote inclusion, respect diversity, indicate equity)”. (2011: 181). These distinctions are especially important in a context of diversity, inclusion, respect of differences and in promoting participatory and democratic processes among young learners (McLeod, op. cit.).
Furthermore, itis worth to mention here five different types of roles that students’ voices can take on in higher education according to Seale (2009): (a) student as stakeholder; b) student as consumer; (c) student as teacher facilitator; d) student as evaluator or informant; and e) student as story-teller. According to the author, these roles are not necessarily explicit in the literature, and they frequently involve uneasy relationships between students, lecturers and higher education institutions since these last two usually deploy more power. Also a view of student voice as promoting transformation, participation and empowerment on the part of students and their learning has been mainly studied in relation to the concept of ‘pedagogical partnership’ and participation and transformation of students as learners (Cook-Sather et. Al., 2021). Such focus has left aside other dimensions and roles that students may play in higher education (for example, in governance (Klemencic, 2020), in activist initiatives, or in producing knowledge, among others).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAcademic articles that dealt with the concept of ‘student voice’ were searched and filtered in three well-known databases: WoS core collection (WoScc), Scopus and SciELO between 1992 & 2021 (the research being conducted and updated between November 2021 and May 2022). Specifically, the search contained the following descriptors: (("student voices" OR "student voice") AND ("higher education" OR "college" OR "university")).
The search was conducted in the title, abstract, and keywords of the articles. A total of 509 articles were identified: 171 WoScc articles, 330 Scopus articles, and 8 SciELO article.
In order to address the aims of this study, first, a descriptive analysis of the articles was conducted, including: the number of articles published in the last 30 years; organised by country and region and by first author’ country affiliation; and language of publication.
Second, the 25 highest cited articles published in the time span were further analysed to identify the main themes following Tight’s (2020) classification of research themes in higher education (namely, teaching and learning, course design, student experience, quality, system policy, institutional management, academic work and knowledge) and the type of article (conceptual or empirical). Also, the main topic addressed for each of these articles was identified.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis of the selected articles shows that the concept of student voice is gaining traction in higher education especially in the last 12 years. Furthermore, most of the knowledge produced about ‘student voice’ comes from what has been called the ‘Global North’ and, specifically Anglo-Saxon countries such as the UK, the USA and Australia, three countries with highly marketised higher education systems. Therefore, there seem to be a lack of voices coming from other parts of the world.
In examining the top 25 most cited articles, it was found:
- That most articles (18) are empirical and qualitative.
- There is overfocus on students’ learning experiences and course design in higher education is identified. In many of them, students are seen as sources of data about their learning or, at the most, sought to engage students so that they contributed to improving their learning.
- A more active participation and engagement on the part of students is explored in articles about co-creating curricula and the scholarship of teaching and learning. However, initiatives remain being led by lecturers and planners.
- This is also the case for articles that dealt with minority which mainly addressed the difficulties experienced by these students in their learning and academic contexts.
- There is, therefore, a large silence regarding ‘student voice’ from a more radical or transformative perspective (Fielding, 2001) with a few exceptions.
- Finally, another notable gap has to do with the scarce number of articles dealing with more structural variables that affect students’ voices and their agency.
Implications for research on ‘student voice’ will be discussed during the presentation.
Acknowledgement
This study has been funded by ANID-FONDECYT 1200633
ReferencesCook-Sather, A., Allard, S., Marcovici, E., & Reynolds, B. (2021), ‘Fostering Agentic Engagement: Working toward Empowerment and Equity through Pedagogical Partnership’, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 15(2).
Felten P., Bagg, J. Bumbry, M. Hill, J., Hornsby, K. Pratt, M. and Weller, S. (2013), ‘A call for expanding inclusive student engagement in SoTL’, Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1 (2), 63–74.
Fielding, M. (2001), ‘Students as radical agents of change’, Journal of educational change 2 (2), 123-141.
Klemencic, M. (2020) Student activism and organizations. In M. David, & M. Amey (Eds.) The SAGE encyclopaedia of higher education
McLeod, J. (2011), ‘Student voice and the politics of listening in higher education’, Critical studies in education, 52 (2), 179-189.
Seale, J. (2009), ‘Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods’, British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995-1015.
Tight, M. (2020), Syntheses of higher education research: what we know. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
This work was supported by ANID-Chile, Fondecyt Project 1200633.
|
