WITHIN THE STEM FRAMEWORK: THE IMPACT OF BLENDED LEARNING METHODS

ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGE ALGEBRA COURSES

By
Thanh-Thuy Nguyen

W
IE
EV

A Dissertation Submitted to the

Gardner-Webb University School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
PR

Gardner-Webb University
2019
 Approval Page

This dissertation was submitted by Thanh-Thuy Nguyen under the direction of the persons listed
below. It was submitted to the Gardner-Webb University School of Education and approved in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Gardner-Webb
University.

__________________________________ ________________________
Jennifer Putnam, Ed.D. Date
Committee Chair

_________________________________ ________________________
Sarah B. Rabe, Ed.D., LAT, ATC Date
Committee Member

W
_________________________________ IE ________________________
Dawn McNair, Ph.D. Date
Committee Member
EV
_________________________________ ________________________
Prince Bull, Ph.D. Date
Dean of the School of Education
PR

ii
 Acknowledgements

I want to thank:

God, for giving me strength, guiding me through this process, and giving me support

during rough times.

Dr. Putnam, my chair, for her patience and guidance throughout this whole process.

My committee, Dr. Bull, Dr. Putnam, Dr. McNair, and Dr. Rabe, for assisting me in my

research and development of my study.

My family, for supporting me, encouraging me, and providing me strength as I worked to

achieve this goal.

W
IE
EV
PR

iii
 Abstract

WITHIN THE STEM FRAMEWORK: THE IMPACT OF BLENDED LEARNING METHODS

ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN COLLEGE ALGEBRA COURSES.

Nguyen, Thanh-Thuy, 2019: Dissertation, Gardner-Webb University.

Traditional courses that utilize formal instruction provide a structured learning environment for

students, though lacking authentic learning experiences and connections to material that is

provided through informal instructional settings. Blended learning methods utilize both formal

and informal learning to enhance student learning. Implementing blended learning methods can

improve student course performance, development of connections with material, and retention of

W
course concepts. This study investigated the impact of blended learning methods on course
IE
performance of students enrolled in college algebra courses and student perspectives on the

STEM Resource Center (SRC), an informal learning setting at a private, co-ed, historically Black
EV
4-year research university in the southeast United States. The study found that the informal

learning setting (SRC attendance) positively impacted the participants’ course pre to posttest
PR

performance. Of participants who attended the SRC, perspective data revealed services

contributed to feelings of a better course grade, increase in confidence, and perceptions of

effective services from the SRC supporting continued attendance of the SRC. Of the participants

who did not visit the SRC, perspective data revealed feelings that SRC attendance would have

helped increase course understanding and the desire to visit the SRC in the future. Past tutoring

experience influenced participant decisions to visit the SRC.

Keywords: STEM, blended instruction, mathematical enrichment, instructional methods,

college algebra

iv
 PR

v
EV
IE
W
 Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
STEM Programs...................................................................................................................1
Situated Learning .................................................................................................................2
Learning Environments ........................................................................................................3
Effectiveness of Blended Methods in STEM.......................................................................5
Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................6
History of College Algebra at the Site .................................................................................8
Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................................8
Research Question ...............................................................................................................8
Setting ..................................................................................................................................9
Methodology ........................................................................................................................9
Significance........................................................................................................................10
Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................11
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................11
Organization.......................................................................................................................13

W
Chapter 2: Literature Review .........................................................................................................15
Situated Learning Theory ..................................................................................................15
Learning Environments ......................................................................................................19
IE
STEM Programs in Higher Education ...............................................................................23
College Algebra .................................................................................................................27
Historically Black Colleges and Universities ....................................................................30
Learning Environments in STEM ......................................................................................32
EV
Effectiveness of Blended Learning Methods within STEM Programs ..............................34
Summary ............................................................................................................................35
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................................37
Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................................37
Research Design.................................................................................................................38
PR

Overview of Study .............................................................................................................41

Setting and Participants......................................................................................................44
Instruments .........................................................................................................................46
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................47
Organization.......................................................................................................................50
Chapter 4: Results ..........................................................................................................................51
Research Question 1 Results..............................................................................................52
Research Question 2 Results..............................................................................................67
Chapter 5: Discussion ...................................................................................................................96
Research Question 1 Summary of Findings.......................................................................96
Research Question 2 Summary of Findings ......................................................................98
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................102
Recommendations ............................................................................................................103
Limitations and Delimitations .........................................................................................105
Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................................105
References ....................................................................................................................................107

vi
Appendices
A STEM Resource Center Survey Beginning of Semester ................................................116
B STEM Resource Center Survey End of Semester ...........................................................118
C MTH-131 Pre & Posttest .................................................................................................124
Tables
1 Research Question Matrix..................................................................................................43
2 Participant Information ......................................................................................................46
3 Participant Demographics ..................................................................................................43
4 Research Question 1 Data Matrix ......................................................................................53
5 Overall Participant Pre & Posttest Score Summary ...........................................................54
6 Pre & Posttest Increased Scores Summary ........................................................................56
7 Pre & Posttest Decreased Scores Summary .......................................................................58
8 Pre & Posttest No Change Scores Summary .....................................................................59
9 Pre & Posttest Attended SRC Scores Summary ................................................................61
10 Pre & Posttest SRC Attendance Score Summary by Attendance .....................................63
11 Pre & Posttest: Students Who Did Not Attend SRC Score Summary ...............................65
12 RQ2 Data Matrix................................................................................................................67

W
13 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q1....................................................................................68
14 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q1a ..................................................................................69
15 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q1b..................................................................................70
IE
16 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q1c ..................................................................................71
17 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q2....................................................................................72
18 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q2a ..................................................................................73
19 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q3....................................................................................74
EV
20 Beginning of Semester Survey: Q3a ..................................................................................75
21 End of Semester Survey: Q1 ..............................................................................................76
22 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q2.......................................................................................77
23 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q3.......................................................................................78
24 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q3a .....................................................................................78
PR

25 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q4.......................................................................................79

26 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q5.......................................................................................80
27 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q5a .....................................................................................81
28 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q6.......................................................................................82
29 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q6a .....................................................................................82
30 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q7.......................................................................................83
31 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q8.......................................................................................84
32 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q8a .....................................................................................84
33 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q9.......................................................................................85
34 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q9a .....................................................................................86
35 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q10.....................................................................................86
36 End of Semester Survey: Yes Q11.....................................................................................87
37 End of Semester Survey: No Q2 ........................................................................................87
38 End of Semester Survey: No Q3 ........................................................................................88
39 End of Semester Survey: No Q3a ......................................................................................89
40 End of Semester Survey: No Q4 ........................................................................................90
41 End of Semester Survey: No Q4a ......................................................................................90

vii
42 End of Semester Survey: No Q5 ........................................................................................91
43 End of Semester Survey: No Q5a ......................................................................................92
44 End of Semester Survey: No Q6 ........................................................................................93
45 End of Semester Survey: No Q6a ......................................................................................94
46 End of Semester Survey: No Q7 ........................................................................................95
Figures
1 Illustration of action research spiral ...................................................................................42
2 Situated Learning Theory Graphic ..................................................................................102

W
IE
EV
PR

viii
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses are typically

associated with increased course workload, demanding hours of daily assignments, and elevated

rigor that can cause confusion for students who lack the fundamental skills of these courses due

to inadequate preparation from previous educational experiences. Courses that provide a variety

of opportunities and environments for students to grasp necessary concepts can avoid such

discouraging norms. Some programs provide a unique opportunity, such as STEM Resource

Centers (SRCs), centers designed to assist students with further understanding and application of

concepts in STEM courses. SRCs are considered informal learning environments that can

W
provide students an opportunity to receive assistance on homework and assignments to further
IE
support the mastery of concepts taught in the classrooms (Franco & Patel, 2017). These informal

learning centers are intended to promote and support learning among students interested in
EV
STEM subjects and to encourage various populations to pursue careers in professional STEM

fields. Many universities offer campus SRCs including, but not limited to, the University of

California at Merced, Southern Utah University, and Southern Illinois University at

PR

Edwardsville. Traditionally, formal learning environments found in typical classrooms can leave

students with weak foundations in STEM and students with different learning styles lagging

behind others (Denson, Hailey, Stallworth, & Householder, 2015).

STEM Programs

STEM programs, either academic or extracurricular, are focused in science, technology,

engineering, and math content areas and can provide formal and informal learning environments

to assist students by nurturing and appealing to various forms of learning. Aiming to encourage

students to pursue careers in STEM fields, STEM programs attempt to address learning concerns
 2

associated with the understanding and application of course content. It is important that “STEM

background and training … start early in education systems in preparation for college-level

study” (An, 2013, p. 3). STEM programs can assist in the development and understanding of

foundational concepts for students early in academic endeavors and encourage continuation of

support in STEM academic pursuits, leading to hopeful successes in future STEM career paths.

Harper (2018) reported that Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) lacked

academic support for students within STEM fields. Through a government-funded program,

Title III Activity 5, many HBCUs were funded to develop SRCs in an effort to provide support

for students in need of initial development and further growth in STEM concepts (U.S.

W
Department of Education, 2017). SRCs deliver diverse and individualized approaches in
IE
learning to ensure students are able to meet and maintain course expectations while engaging

fully in course concepts.

EV
STEM courses are often perceived by students as lacking proper instruction, supported by

reports where professors seemed more concerned with personal research agendas than student

performance (Denson, Austin, & Hailey, 2013). This student perspective is reinforced when
PR

courses are taught with one-way lectures and little independence to accommodate various

learning styles, leaving students feeling frustrated with STEM courses (Whalen & Shelley,

2010).

Situated Learning

Situated learning proposes that knowledge acquisition depends on the function, context,

and culture of the activity (Stein, 1998). Situated learning emphasizes the great importance of

social interactions on the student and the learning process. Knowledge must be presented in an

authentic context where normal application would occur, and learning necessitates social
 3

interaction and collaboration. These principles of situated learning guide educators to provide

students with more meaningful experiences, thus enhancing student meaning of the material.

The ability to apply such principles can be quite challenging for many educators due to the

nature of situated learning. Situated learning tends to occur unintentionally rather than

deliberately (Allen, 2005). Due to the adaptability of situated learning, environments that

provide additional informal learning experiences can encourage mastery of course concepts.

Learning Environments

Formal learning. Folkestad (2006) defined formal learning as “sequenced beforehand”

(p. 141) and previously prepared by the course developer. Formal learning traditionally occurs

W
in the classroom, with instructor facilitated learning. Berg and Chyung (2008) compared formal
IE
learning to riding a bus: “The route is preplanned and the same for everyone” (p. 230). Formal

learning can be easily identified through predetermined assessments resulting in course grades
EV
throughout the semester. The formal learning structure is a necessity for students to understand

course expectations and affords students the opportunity to reach instructor determined learning

goals (Folkestad, 2006).

PR

Mapped curriculum. A formal learning environment that guides students through

introductory course material understanding and provides consistent and structured activities is

considered mapped curriculum. Mapped curriculums provide students a sense of ease and

confidence in communication of content to be taught and deliver a consistent learning structure

(Folkestad, 2006). In formal learning structures, mapped curriculum provides an environment

focused on knowledge, oriented on tasks, and aligned to student learning goals. This curriculum

undergoes a “process of indexing or diagraming … to identify and address academic gaps,

redundancies, and misalignments for purposes of improving the overall coherence of a course of
 4

study” (Great Schools Partnership, 2013, p. 1). The learning environment created by mapped

curriculums allows “traditional hierarchies to become prevalent and tiered systems of

relationships to arise” (Jopp, 2005, p. 1).

Informal learning. Informal learning is a continuation of previously occurred formal

learning and includes not only taught material but also the interaction of participants (Folkestad,

2006). Unlike formal learning, informal learning is not sequenced beforehand and there is no

formal instructor. Informal learning is the result of an individual’s desire to voluntarily advance

personal knowledge through assistance of others outside of the traditional classroom (Folkestad,

2006). Students who participate in informal learning are often internally motivated and excel in

W
courses due to the ability to excel in informal settings. Song and Bonk (2016) stated many
IE
factors contribute to self-motivated learning, for example, “freedom and choice; control; and

interest and engagement” (p. 1). STEM informal learning settings must “encourage awareness of
EV
STEM, offer academic enrichment, have trained and efficient instructors, and support the

academic careers of the participating students” (Denson et al., 2015 p. 11).

If formal learning is similar to riding a bus, as described by Berg and Chyung (2008),
PR

then informal learning is like riding a bike, “the individual determines the route, pace, etc.” (p.

230). Informal learning environments, especially in online settings, allow students to self-

determine when and what to study. Allowing choice supports students in retaining more

information and making connections throughout the learned content (Abdeljabbar, 2015).

Informal learning provides a chance to meet a greater range of student needs than formal

learning; such as the needs of friendship, information, and trust (Jopp, 2005). Informal learning

is an opportunity for students to be freed from formal learning and fully grasp the concepts

through personal connections and engagement.

 5

Blended learning methods. Formal and informal learning environments are not

adversaries, but rather allies complementing one another. Formal and informal learning maintain

a “symbiotic relationship” (Jopp, 2005 p. 3). The blended method is considered to be a

combination of the concepts from both formal and informal learning. In order to maximize

learning, instructors should support the use of formal and informal learning concurrently.

Globally, there are more professors utilizing blended methods that combine both formal and

informal learning throughout the semester (Lebenicnik, Pitt, & Starcic, 2015). The concurrent

use of both environments allows students to learn material (formal learning) and become

“intrinsically motivated to learn” (Bowker, 2010, p. 1) more outside of the classroom (informal

W
learning). Reed (2016) discovered students appreciated and preferred blended methods of
IE
teaching over traditional face-to-face courses. Through conducting studies on blended learning,

Reed discovered this method of teaching “allowed instructors to maximize learning opportunities
EV
by taking advantage of face-to-face time in terms of interacting with students during activity and

lab times by minimally lecturing” (p. 82); allowing students opportunities to engage in self-

guided learning outside of the classroom. Blended learning is both efficient and beneficial for
PR

both instructors and students.

Effectiveness of Blended Methods in STEM

Abdeljabbar (2015) postulated, courses using blended methods “are the most effective in

improving success and retention rates” (p. 101). Courses utilizing blended methods tend to

experience higher rates of student success and knowledge retention. Success rate and increased

knowledge retention may be due to the ability of blended methods to provide various learning

styles, offering opportunities to learn through more comfortable and individualized environments

that enable information to settle deep within student understanding (Abdeljabbar, 2015).
 6

Blended methods can be particularly effective in STEM courses by allowing teachers to use

“informal ways of knowing and argumentation in the classroom and use them as starting points

into more traditional mathematics concepts and principles” (Baker, 2011 p. 5). Student ability to

connect with learning material is increased, leading to initial interest in the content, before

moving on to continued formal learning led by the instructor. Blended methods allow instructors

to embed concepts taught in the classrooms, permitting an increased understanding of course

material resulting in increased success and performance.

Problem Statement

Denson et al. (2015) stated, “it is estimated that during their schooling years 86.7% of the

W
students’ time will be spent outside the classroom” (p. 11). As college students become
IE
increasingly occupied with additional responsibilities such as parenting, jobs, and extracurricular

activities, less time is available for academics, particularly in structured formal learning
EV
environments. Currently, four of every five college students work part time, with most

averaging around 19 hours of work per week (Kingkade, 2017). Increased numbers of students

work to help pay for college tuition and other expenses of higher education (Kingkade, 2017).
PR

Besides employment, numerous students are parents as well; over 4.8 million students are raising

at least one child while pursuing a college degree (Gault, Cruze, Reynolds, & Froehner, 2014),

highlighting about a quarter of undergraduate students are parents. Raising children is no simple

feat and requires a great deal of time and money (Gault et al., 2014). With decreasing time

available for academic pursuits, students could benefit from blended learning methods due to the

flexible schedule offered by most informal learning environments, ensuring increased

accessibility to students and offering a chance to grasp and understand course material outside of

the classroom while accommodating busy schedules. With the rise of busy college students,
 7

STEM programs need educational reform to “attract a diverse workforce” (Denson et al., 2015,

p. 11). Studies demonstrated, through the implementation of informal learning opportunities in

courses, students from underrepresented backgrounds improved in academic performance and

recruitment into STEM programs (Denson et al., 2015). Some students have expressed

displeasure with STEM courses taught through one-way lectures, allowing for less time for

different learning styles to be accommodated (Denson et al., 2015). Many students reported

experiencing frustration or disappointment, often dropping courses and withdrawing from STEM

majors (Whalen & Shelley, 2010). As STEM continues to be a necessity in developing societies,

the need to efficiently instruct content and ensure students connect with the subject is vitally

W
important for future employers.
IE
Minority performance in STEM programs. The National Center for Educational

Statistics (2009) conducted a study that revealed “of the 73% of students who declared a STEM
EV
major at the beginning of their postsecondary education, 36% did not remain enrolled in, or

graduate from a STEM field” (pp. 10-11). This startling statistic revealed many students within

STEM programs do not matriculate within the degree and therefore do not pursue employment in
PR

STEM fields. Krueger (2008) found, at a site similar to the study site, “50% of students enrolled

in developmental mathematics courses were from minority groups and that after two years, 72%

either dropped out of college or had not completed developmental mathematics” (p. 1). Minority

students appear to struggle in STEM courses due to a variety of factors. Low success rates in the

field of STEM for minorities may be due to the nearly exclusive use of traditional formal

learning without the blended inclusion of informal learning (Blair, 2011). Conversely, Blair

(2011) stated major factors of successful minority passage rates in STEM are possession of

sound content foundation, self-determination and time management, informal learning

 8

opportunities, and support from peers and staff.

History of College Algebra at the Site

College algebra courses were previously a part of, and taught within, the STEM College

at the study site. A change occurred where college algebra courses were realigned under the

University College instead of the STEM College. The University College focused on guiding

freshmen students towards academic success rather than on career preparedness, which was the

focus of the STEM College. With the transition of college algebra to the University College, the

curriculum was redesigned as a foundational course to support students with weak mathematics

skills. This redesign in curriculum reduced the emphasis on critical thinking and higher level

W
problem-solving skills of the course, previously present when part of the STEM College.

Purpose of Study
IE
The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of blended learning methods on
EV
student performance in college algebra courses. Understanding the impact of the utilization of

blended methods of formal and informal learning can contribute to improving student

understanding and performance in mathematics courses. The results of the study will inform the
PR

teaching methods of mathematics instructors along with improving resources provided by STEM

support centers on college campuses.

Research Question

The overarching research question the researcher investigated was, “What is the impact

of blended methods of learning on student performance in college algebra courses at a private

Historically Black College and University in the southeast United States?” Specifically,

1. What is the impact of blended instructional methods on student performance in

college algebra courses?

 9

2. What are the perceptions of students enrolled in college algebra on the STEM

Resource Center?

Setting

The study was conducted at a private, co-ed, historically Black 4-year research university

in the southeast United States. The university was affiliated with the Presbyterian Church and

was accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The university was labeled

as an HBCU, with the majority of students identifying as African American or of African

descent. The SRC was available for students to receive help on homework, supplemental

instruction, peer tutoring, and workshops in STEM subjects. The SRC had been open since fall

W
2017, and its predecessor, the Math Resource Center, had been open from 2012 until the creation
IE
of the SRC in 2017. The SRC allowed student walk-in appointments and the use of peer tutors

from the STEM College. The SRC’s availability to all students, regardless of major, was
EV
introduced and invitation was extended in all introductory STEM courses, such as college

algebra.

Methodology
PR

The researcher used a mixed methods convergent parallel approach for the study to

examine both quantitative and qualitative data on the impact and perception of the SRC on

student performance in college algebra courses offered at the university. The quantitative data

consisted of participant performance on the course pre and posttest and frequency of visits to the

SRC during the spring 2019 semester. The qualitative data consisted of participant perception

surveys completed by participants enrolled in the college algebra courses used during the study

and involved both participants who did and did not utilize the SRC. The quantitative data on

student performance and qualitative data on student perceptions were compared between
 10

participants who visited the SRC and those who did not. Through data collection, the researcher

analyzed the impact of blended learning methods (use of the SRC while enrolled in STEM

courses) to provide areas of improvement for effectiveness of the SRC, provide

recommendations for implementation of the use of the SRC in other mathematics courses, and to

support offering and continued supplementation of resources of STEM centers in higher

education in order to fulfill the need to support diverse populations in STEM careers.

Significance

In higher education, instructors often encounter difficulties in accommodating the needs

of students by differentiating instruction, even with the plethora of supportive literature of

W
differentiation’s contribution to the improvement of student learning in math courses (Sun, Xie,
IE
& Anderman, 2018). Math is vital in most majors as a general education requirement; therefore,

as unavoidable as mathematics courses are, an emphasis should be placed on developing avenues

EV
to produce students competent in STEM subjects, rather than allowing students to avoid difficult

courses. Students express displeasure with mathematics courses due to the rigorous amounts of

work and what can be deemed to be difficult lectures (Sun et al., 2018). It was envisioned that
PR

by providing a blended method of learning, students would experience an improved “self-esteem

and confidence which in turn leads to better academic knowledge and understanding” (Bowker,

2010, p. 2). By exploring the impact of the SRC alongside formal learning, the researcher

intended to improve the experiences of students in STEM courses and gain further insight into

the SRC and offerings in higher education STEM programs.

As the impact of blended learning methods continues to be investigated, STEM colleges

and/or math departments are better prepared to make decisions concerning utilization of a

learning model most beneficial to HBCU students. The research findings were intended to
 11

provide support for increased funding for blended and informal learning programs such as the

SRC and data supporting blended learning and implementation of informal learning with

traditional methods of instruction. Data collected provided insight into the impact of blended

learning methods on students with various learning styles and abilities to thrive in STEM

courses.

Definition of Key Terms

Blended learning methods. Learning environments where students take an active role

by co-constructing knowledge with mentors, promoting a seamless connection between informal

and formal learning (James & Marrett, 2011, p. 61).

W
Formal learning. Previously sequenced by the course instructor leading and organizing
IE
activities; focused on working towards accomplishing instructor determined learning objectives

(Folkestad, 2006, p. 141).

EV
Informal learning. Predominantly unstructured, experimental, and noninstitutionalized

opportunities of learning arising without the presence of a formal instructor (Schürmann &

Beausaert, 2016, p. 131).

PR

STEM education. Teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics; typically including educational activities across all grade levels—

from preschool to postdoctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and informal (e.g.,

afterschool programs) environments (Hallinen, 2017).

Student performance. Student performance will be gathered through pre and posttests

in the MTH 131 courses.

Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations. Limitations are factors or influences over which the researcher lacks
 12

control during the research process (PhDStudent, 2019). Such influences can restrict the selected

methodology and conclusions of the study. The limitations of the study included

generalizability, demographics of the participant population at the targeted site, and

responsibilities of the researcher at the target site. Generalizability is a limitation. The research

was conducted within a small private HBCU; and due to this constraint, most of the participants’

demographics such as race and economic status lacked variance. The majority of the population

was African American students who came from low to middle-class families.

The SRC was an example of an auditing environment within the university. An auditing

environment is an environment where the results of certain activities will be evaluated and

W
measured. “The auditing environment includes three subgroups that are a part of the process: the
IE
external regulator, audit firm partners, and audit firm internal reviewers” (Johnson & Higgs,

2014, p. 10). The researcher was the internal reviewer of the SRC, and such a role was a
EV
limitation of the study. The role of an internal reviewer can “influence an expert’s judgment”

(Johnson & Higgs, 2014, p. 2) as well as impact data collection. The researcher was the SRC

coordinator and therefore responsible for planning, organizing, and observing the activities of the
PR

center. Ordinarily, peer tutors were hired and performed the majority of the duties of the SRC,

though there could have been instances where the SRC was understaffed; and during these times,

the researcher would have been required to act as an SRC tutor. This role had the potential to

influence the research and data collection. Due to this required responsibility, the researcher

worked to avoid incorporating personal biases into the data collected based on personal

experience in order to circumvent unduly influencing the results of the research. To counter this

interference, the researcher did not act as an instructor of the college algebra courses during the

course of the study. Researching the courses taught by colleagues of the researcher allowed
 13

further avoidance of interference and application of bias in the data collection and analyzation

process. If the researcher were to act as the instructor of the courses, there could have been a

direct influence on the participants and such circumstance could have proposed ethical concerns.

The researcher limited any influence on the population being analyzed.

Delimitations. Delimitations are defined as choices of the researcher (PhDStudent,

2019). A delimitation of the study was informal learning. Informal learning was determined not

to be the sole learning method of the study due to the prevalence and inability to avoid formal

learning in mathematics courses in higher education. There were no exclusive opportunities for

informal learning in mathematics resulting in college credit for the course. This exclusion

W
required the examination of blended methods, a mixture of both formal and informal learning.
IE
An additional delimitation was only one mathematics course was selected for the study.

The course, MTH 131-College Algebra, was offered during the semester of the study and had
EV
multiple sections, allowing feasibility for comparison of formal and blended methods. MTH 131

was an introductory mathematics course, meaning many students were mostly freshmen,

allowing investigation of a more homogenous population. The SRC was historically utilized
PR

most often by freshmen during introductory STEM courses. These delimitations guided the

researcher during data collection and analysis.

Organization

Chapter 1 included an introduction and background on formal, informal, and blended

methods of learning. Background information on student passage rates in STEM, the

effectiveness of blended methods, and the setting of the study were described in order to clarify

the selection of analysis of blended methods in STEM courses. The statement of the problem,

purpose of the study, and the research questions were stated in order to support conducting the
 14

research. The methodology of the study and supportive literature were provided. Definitions of

key terms, limitations, delimitations, and significance of the study were provided to ensure

contextual understanding.

Chapter 2 includes a review of relevant literature, theoretical frameworks utilized to

guide the study, and research recommendations. Further explanations of STEM and blended

learning methods, specifically with minority populations, are provided. The SRC and its role as

an informal learning setting are further explored.

W
IE
EV
PR
 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Educational environments, climate, curriculum, and teaching methods have been

historically dynamic subjects, especially involving STEM programs. STEM learning sites

possessed a unique climate where “academic optimism and organizational citizenship behavior

indicated positive relationships with student engagement and student achievement” (Franco &

Patel, 2017, p. 12). With innovative teaching methods, STEM programs were envisioned to

promote academic success and social support for all STEM major students. STEM programs

have encountered difficulties, limiting the effectiveness of achievement of student learning goals.

Such difficulties include gender, race, and general student interest in the subjects

W
taught. Women and minorities are often unaware of the resources available to provide support in
IE
pursuing STEM careers, and this lack of information can influence the selection of an academic

major not involving STEM-focused programs (Wang, Lee, & Prevost, 2017). Numerous
EV
programs and surveys have been developed to assist researchers in developing a greater

understanding of the effectiveness of STEM learning and identifying specific instructional

methods with proven success among the intended student population. The literature review
PR

defines and illustrates how STEM learning environments differ from general learning

environments and how STEM programs have impacted higher education.

Situated Learning Theory

Stein (1998) defined situated learning theory to encompass “learning as a sociocultural

phenomenon rather than the action of individual acquiring general information from a

decontextualized body of knowledge” (para. 1). Situated learning theory generally refers to

individuals furthering knowledge through activities and practice in authentic contexts, usually

unintentionally rather than deliberately. This learning theory assists student understanding of
 16

material

by embedding subject matter in the ongoing experiences of the learners and by creating

opportunities for learners to live subject matter in the context of real-world challenges,

knowledge is acquired and learning transfers from the classroom to the realm of practice.

(Stein, 1998, para. 2)

Further, this idea allows students to practice expected levels of understanding and promote

participation within activities and groups to be more meaningful. Leaping from learning in the

classroom to practicing material engages student conception beyond rote memorization, allowing

for creation of deep connections with course material. The resulting profound connection allows

W
the material to resonate with students, enhancing understanding and retention (Stein, 1998).
IE
Allen (2005) stated, situated learning has at minimum two requirements: “forge person

who now identifies with the community of practice” (p. 8) and “create an environment ‘where
EV
knowing is inherent in the growth and transformation of identities and it is located in relations

among practitioners, their practice, the artifacts of that practice, and the social organization … of

the community of practice’” (Lave & Wagner, 1991, p. 122). Situated learning theory supports
PR

learning from the environment and not only the classroom. This idea postulates learning is not

solely affected by the instructor and coinciding lecture but by the environment(s) in which the

students learn as well, underlying the effectiveness of blended methods. Blended methods utilize

both formal and informal learning environments to provide students a plethora of encouragement

through various avenues. Situated learning goes past the traditional learning taught in most

classrooms and considers the effects of learning from practice and various learning environments

(Allen, 2005).

Key features of situated learning. Many researchers of situated learning have agreed

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.