4.4 Article

Repairing the leaky pipeline: A motivationally supportive intervention to enhance persistence in undergraduate science pathways

期刊

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 181-195

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.03.001

关键词

Expectancies; Intervention; Motivation; Science persistence; Task value

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [5R01GM094534]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM094534] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study reports on the efficacy of a multi-faceted motivationally designed undergraduate enrichment summer program for supporting science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) persistence. Structural equation modeling was used to compare summer program participants (n = 186), who participated in the program between their first and second years in college, to a propensity score matched comparison sample (n = 401). Participation in the summer program positively predicted science motivation (self-efficacy, task value), assessed eight months after the end of the program (second year in college). The summer enrichment program was also beneficial for science persistence variables, as evidenced by significant direct and indirect effects of the program on science course completion during students' third year of college and students' intentions to pursue a science research career assessed during the third year of college. In general, the program was equally beneficial for all participants, but ancillary analyses indicated added benefits with respect to task value for students with relatively lower prior science achievement during the first year of college and with respect to subsequent science course taking for males. Implications for developing effective interventions to reduce the flow of individuals out of STEM fields and for translating motivational theory into practice are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据