Research Article

Analyzing Learning Assistant influence on STEM student success using logistic and hierarchical regression

Cameron Gregory Bundy 1 * , Tony E. Wong 1
More Detail
1 Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 6(1), January 2025, ep25005, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/15924
Submitted: 24 September 2024, Published: 03 February 2025
OPEN ACCESS   96 Views   77 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The increasing demand for a robust science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce highlights the need to understand factors that enhance student success in STEM fields. Despite significant need for STEM-qualified individuals, less than half of students initially expressing STEM interest upon college entry graduate with a STEM degree, dropping lower for underrepresented students. The Learning Assistant (LA) program, implemented at colleges around the world, involves students (LAs) aiding their peers through evidence based collaborative activities in STEM courses. It has been well documented that LAs are associated with short-term student success (lower course failure rates) and long-term student success (higher graduation rates). In this study we investigate the impact of the LA program on student success in introductory STEM courses. We analyzed over 10 years of student data, focusing on DFW (D, F, or withdraw) and six-year graduation rates. Using logistic regression and hierarchical linear models, we assessed the influence of LA support on student outcomes, with particular attention to marginalized demographics and repeated LA exposure. We show that LA-supported students in introductory physics courses experienced a 7% decrease in DFW rates. Notably, underrepresented students saw a 10% reduction in DFW rates. Additionally, repeated LA exposure in physics courses provided greater benefits for DFW rates compared to single-course exposure. This research underscores the importance of LA programs in improving STEM education outcomes, notably for underrepresented students.
Keywords: Learning Assistant, student success, logistic regression, hierarchical model, DFW rate, graduation rate

CITATION (APA)

Bundy, C. G., & Wong, T. E. (2025). Analyzing Learning Assistant influence on STEM student success using logistic and hierarchical regression. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 6(1), ep25005. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/15924

REFERENCES

  1. Ake-Little, E., von der Embse, N., & Dawson, D. (2020). Does class size matter in the university setting? Educational Researcher, 49(8), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20933836
  2. Allen, J. M., Muragishi, G. A., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & Brown, E. R. (2015). To grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural and structural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000046
  3. Alzen, J. L., Langdon, L. S., & Otero, V. K. (2018). A logistic regression investigation of the relationship between the Learning Assistant model and failure rates in introductory STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, Article 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0152-1
  4. Athanasia, G., & Cota, J. (2022). The US should strengthen STEM education to remain globally competitive. Center for Strategic & International Studies. https://www.csis.org/blogs/perspectives-innovation/us-should-strengthen-stem-education-remain-globally-competitive
  5. Barrasso, A. P., & Spilios, K. E. (2021). A scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00267-8
  6. Boggs, G. R., Dukes, C. M., & Hawthorne, E. K. (2022). Addressing the STEM workforce shortage. US Chamber of Commerce Foundation. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/education/addressing-stem-workforce-shortage
  7. Boumi, S., & Vela, A. E. (2021). Quantifying the impact of students’ semester course load on their academic performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--37630
  8. Breland, H., Clark, C. M., Shaked, S., & Paquette-Smith, M. (2023). The benefits of participating in a learning assistant program on the metacognitive awareness and motivation of learning assistants. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 22(3), Article ar30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-08-0156
  9. Cokluk, O. (2010). Logistic regression: Concept and application. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1397–1407.
  10. Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., Hurtado, S., John, G. H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C. M., Robinson, T. J., Summers, M. F., Werner-Washburne, M., & Zavala, M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15(3), Article es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038
  11. FirstGen Forward. (2024). Are you a first-generation student? https://firstgen.naspa.org/why-first-gen/students/are-you-a-first-generation-student
  12. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  13. Grossman, J. M., & Porche, M. V. (2014). Perceived gender and racial/ethnic barriers to STEM success. Urban Education, 49(6), 698–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913481364
  14. Learning Assistant Alliance. (2024). Learning Assistant Alliance. https://www.learningassistantalliance.org/
  15. National Science Foundation. (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce
  16. Perktold, J., Seabold, S., Sheppard, K., Fulton, C., Shedden, K., jbrockmendel, j-grana6, Quackenbush, P., Arel-Bundock, V., McKinney, W., Langmore, I., Baker, B., Gommers, R., yogabonito, s-scherrer, Zhurko, Y., Brett, M., Giampieri, E., yl565, …, & Halchenko, Y. (2024). statsmodels/statsmodels: Release 0.14.2 (version v0.14.2). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10984387
  17. Radunzel, J., Mattern, K., & Westrick, P. (2016). The role of academic preparation and interest on STEM success. ACT, Inc. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581664
  18. Raimondo, H. J., Esposito, L., & Gershenberg, I. (1990). Introductory class size and student performance in intermediate theory courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 21(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1990.10844682
  19. Stover, S., & Ziswiler, K. (2017). Impact of active learning environments on community of inquiry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(3), 458–470.
  20. Swafford, M., & Anderson, R. (2020). Addressing the gender gap: Women’s perceived barriers to pursuing STEM careers. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 4(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.9741/2578-2118.1070
  21. Tedeschi, M. N., Hose, T. M., Mehlman, E. K., Franklin, S., & Wong, T. E. (2023). Improving models for student retention and graduation using Markov chains. PLoS ONE, 18(6), Article e0287775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287775
  22. Van Dusen, B., & Nissen, J. (2019). Modernizing use of regression models in physics education research: A review of hierarchical linear modeling. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15, Article 020108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020108
  23. Van Dusen, B., & Nissen, J. (2020). Associations between learning assistants, passing introductory physics, and equity: A quantitative critical race theory investigation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16, Article 010117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010117
  24. Von Korff, J., Archibeque, B., Gomez, K. A., Heckendorf, T., McKagan, S. B., Sayre, E. C., Schenk, E. W., Shepherd, C., & Sorell, L. (2016a). Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study. American Journal of Physics, 84(12), 969–974. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4964354
  25. Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J. C., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p052