This project is examining connections between the affective domain and the cognitive domain for thousands of students in introductory geoscience courses at 8-10 colleges and universities across the United States. These institutions include large research universities, comprehensive universities, small liberal arts colleges and two-year community colleges. GARNET - the Geoscience Affective Research NETwork - is promoting excellence in STEM teaching and learning by examining how students' learning is influenced by their "affective characteristics" (motivation, attitudes, values, beliefs, etc.) and by pedagogical strategies designed to help support student learning and interest in the content. GARNET is helping to fill a little studied, yet highly significant gap in our understanding of student learning of science, by asking "how do students' motivations and beliefs about their learning skills influence their understanding of course content?" This project is integrating research and education by providing fundamental data about the role of the affective domain in learning, while simultaneously helping students develop better learning skills. The project is building on the results of a previous collaborative GARNET project that tested two key hypotheses: (1) the affective domain has a major influence on student learning; and (2) different teaching methods significantly influence student affect and, consequently, learning. Results of that previous project revealed that learning beliefs, such as self-efficacy, were related to student performance but that the use of different instructional strategies had minimal impact on students' affective constructs. This project is moving the original GARNET focus away from what instructors do to improve learning, to study "what students do" to modify their own affect and improve their abilities to learn. The affective domain is linked to a four-stage self-regulated learning cycle that instructors are using to train students to monitor and regulate their affective constructs, and are measuring and evaluating the associated impact on student learning. On the basis of such findings, the project is developing affect-based pedagogical resources and strategies that will allow instructors to develop better introductory geoscience classes and improve student engagement, attitude, and ultimately, learning across a variety of STEM fields.
Purpose and Methods The purpose of the Geoscience Affective Research Network (GARNET) was to advance understanding of student learning in introductory geoscience courses. We examined connections between the affective domain and the cognitive domain for thousands of students in similar introductory geoscience courses at 8-10 colleges and universities. MSLQ and Student Performance The main instrument used in this study to measure student affect was the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).[1] This questionnaire consists of 81 items divided into 15 subscales. Analysis of results from the prior GARNET I study indicated that the self-efficacy subscale had the most potential for influencing student performance. In this GARNET II study, the PI analyzed the full GARNET data set (collected over 5 academic years at and attempted to find a correlation between self-efficacy subscale scores and normalized final grades. A very weak correlation was found, which was roughly equivalent to the correlation between SAT scores and final course grade (See attached Figures 1 and 2). Design of Introductory Geology Courses Unlike the other institutions in the GARNET consortium, CSU Chico has two separate introductory geology courses, GEOS 101, a general education course designed for non-STEM majors, and GEOS 102 which serves as (1) the entry-level course for the Geology and Environmental Science majors, (2) as a service course for the Civil Engineering major, and (3) a required course for students pursuing a secondary education teaching credential in science. The results of the surveys administered in this study differed markedly between these two courses as follows: Students in GEOS 102 were more… intrinsically motivated confident in their ability to learn the material inclined to feel that the course material was interesting, important and useful convinced that their own efforts could significantly affect their learning gains in the course By contrast, students in GEOS 101 spent more of their study time collaborating with peers. Students in GEOS 102 gained more knowledge than did students in GEOS 101 Student Mindset Carol Dweck, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, originated and developed the idea of "mindset. As she states on the website for her book, Mindset… "In a fixed mindset, people believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success—without effort. They’re wrong. In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. Virtually all great people have had these qualities." http://mindsetonline.com/whatisit/about/ We administered a 32-item survey to our Introductory Geology students intended to measure student mindset. Four of the items in the survey were written by Dr. Dweck. The remaining 28 items were written by the PI. The vast majority of the items in the survey showed little to no correlation with student performance. However, student responses to two very similar PI-written items correlated moderately with performance in the course. Overall, students who disagreed with these statements received higher final course grades than did students who agreed with the statements. These statements were: "If a task gets more difficult, I tend to put in less effort." "If something is hard for me, I tend to give up on it." [1] Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W.J., 1991, NCRIPTL Report 91-B-004.
