Supporting Student Success in STEM: Innovations in Teaching and Learning

A special issue of Trends in Higher Education (ISSN 2813-4346).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 October 2026 | Viewed by 1669

Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Biology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA
Interests: critical thinking of undergraduates in the STEM classroom, including how instructors operationalize critical thinking in the STEM classroom; student success and retention in introductory STEM courses; develop appropriate pedagogical and inclusive interventions; learner-centeredness of STEM classrooms; how biology undergraduates learn in informal science settings

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA
Interests: developing innovative, evidence-based active learning practices within the plant sciences; developing systems thinking capacity; studying recall and transfer of core concepts in biology and plant science; evaluating first-year experience courses for impacts on student learning outcomes including student belonging

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

While retention rates of undergraduates and graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs have broadly improved over the last decade, we continue to see students from underserved and underrepresented backgrounds as well as first- and second-year students leave STEM programs at higher rates. How do we engage undergraduates and graduate students in STEM and foster a learning environment in which they can succeed?

Learner-centered and equitable teaching strategies in university STEM courses have been linked to improved student outcomes and learning, as well as students’ sense of belonging in the field (Akhmadkulovna, 2024; Smith et al., 2014; Tanner, 2013). We also know that learner-centered, evidence-based teaching practices in STEM can improve retention and learning and minimize achievement gaps for students (Freeman et al., 2014; Haak et al., 2011; Theobald et al., 2020).

The aim of this Special Issue is to examine and share current research about innovative teaching and learning in STEM across higher education and how to support undergraduate and graduate student success in STEM courses and programs. We welcome findings from both discipline-based education research (DBER) and scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) projects.

In this Special Issue, original research articles and reviews are welcome. Research areas may include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • Instructional strategies and innovative techniques used in university STEM courses;
  • Student retention and/or academic progress in STEM degree programs;
  • Student achievement and learning in STEM courses;
  • Fostering an inclusive classroom and using equitable teaching practices;
  • Encouraging critical thinking in STEM courses;
  • Interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary STEM learning models and theories;
  • Development of assessments for evaluating and improving student learning in STEM;
  • Supplemental supports for STEM students (e.g., tutoring, supplemental instruction);
  • Development of STEM identity, motivation, interest, and self-efficacy;
  • STEM workforce development;
  • Undergraduate and graduate STEM programs.

We look forward to receiving your contributions.

Akhmadkulovna, E. N. (2024). Enhancing biology education: The integral role of interactive teaching methods. International Journal of Advance Scientific Research, 4(2), 113–121.

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. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216.

Smith, M. K., Vinson, E. L., Smith, J. A., Lewin, J. D., & Stetzer, M. R. (2014). A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 624–635.

Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322–331.

Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., ... & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483.

Dr. Ash Heim
Dr. Katy Guthrie
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Trends in Higher Education is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1200 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • STEM
  • discipline-based education research (DBER)
  • scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL)
  • undergraduate education
  • graduate education
  • learner-centered
  • innovative teaching
  • evidence-based teaching
  • student retention in STEM
  • student success in STEM

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

25 pages, 1941 KB  
Article
The Intention–Implementation Gap: Micro-Cycles and Contextual Factors in First-Year STEM Students’ Self-Regulated Learning
by Mehri Azizi, Nicole Chlebek and Bryan Dewsbury
Trends High. Educ. 2026, 5(3), 82; https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu5030082 - 17 Aug 2026
Abstract
First-year students in STEM programs face significant academic and personal challenges that can undermine retention and success, particularly for those navigating new institutional environments without prior college experience. While self- regulated learning (SRL) theory offers a well-established framework for understanding how students plan [...] Read more.
First-year students in STEM programs face significant academic and personal challenges that can undermine retention and success, particularly for those navigating new institutional environments without prior college experience. While self- regulated learning (SRL) theory offers a well-established framework for understanding how students plan and reflect, less attention has been paid to the performance phase, the stage where students must translate plans into action amid real academic and social demands. This qualitative study examines the experiences of 15 first-year life science students across three institution types, a Hispanic-Serving Institution, a predominantly white institution, and a liberal arts college, to investigate what plans students formed at the end of their first semester and what factors facilitated or hindered implementation during their second semester. Using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews, three major plan themes emerged: help-seeking, internal academic adjustments, and managing social and emotional well-being. Facilitating factors for these plans included small class sizes, anonymized participation tools, approachable instructors, peer and family support, counseling services, and structured planning tools, while hindering factors included fear of judgment, high instructor-student ratios, scheduling conflicts, academic burnout, and unsupportive living environments. The findings reveal that plan implementation depended on the interplay of intersecting psychological, social, and structural factors, which created unique conditions that influenced whether students were able to enact their plans. Importantly, the findings reveal that plan implementation unfolded not as a linear process but through nested micro-cycles of forethought, performance, and reflection within the performance phase, triggered by specific events throughout the semester. These findings have implications for how institutions design learner-centered support for STEM students not only at key transition points, but also throughout the semester, to address the conditions that influence whether students are able to successfully implement, adapt, or abandon their regulatory efforts. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 6461 KB  
Article
Learning with Reflection: Implementing Weekly Reflection Journals to Support Conceptual Learning in Upper-Level Undergraduate Engineering Courses
by John Trimmer
Trends High. Educ. 2026, 5(3), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu5030071 - 3 Aug 2026
Viewed by 157
Abstract
Reflection can contribute to learning, helping students actively and constructively recall material and connect it with other aspects of their lives, as described by the interactive–constructive–active–passive (ICAP) framework. For engineering students in particular, reflection may support the lifelong learning required throughout one’s professional [...] Read more.
Reflection can contribute to learning, helping students actively and constructively recall material and connect it with other aspects of their lives, as described by the interactive–constructive–active–passive (ICAP) framework. For engineering students in particular, reflection may support the lifelong learning required throughout one’s professional career. This study focused on weekly reflection journals implemented in two junior-level and senior-level civil and environmental engineering courses, investigating (i) how engagement with this activity impacted student learning and (ii) students’ views on reflection. Students offered perspectives using optional pre- and post-surveys, while course grades and direct assessment of journal engagement provided insight into impacts on learning. In both courses, students who engaged more consistently with the journal activity saw a small but positive impact on their learning independent of previous academic performance, while those in the senior-level course whose entries exhibited more constructive levels of engagement also saw a positive impact. In post-surveys, students stated journals helped them to review, identify areas of confusion, and ask questions. Most survey respondents highly rated the journal’s impact on learning, although some found greater value in other, more structured activities. Accordingly, the reflection journal may function effectively as one of multiple options for conceptual engagement. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

20 pages, 299 KB  
Article
Metric Thinking: Contributions to Its Characterization from a Multilevel Perspective
by Jaider Albeiro Figueroa-Flórez, John Jairo Salazar-Buitrago and Cristian David Correa-Álvarez
Trends High. Educ. 2026, 5(3), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu5030062 - 9 Jul 2026
Viewed by 246
Abstract
This article develops a local theory for characterizing metric thinking in the measurement of spatial properties from a multilevel curricular perspective, understood as an analytic lens for scaling measurement processes across curricular complexity rather than as empirical evidence from all educational levels. The [...] Read more.
This article develops a local theory for characterizing metric thinking in the measurement of spatial properties from a multilevel curricular perspective, understood as an analytic lens for scaling measurement processes across curricular complexity rather than as empirical evidence from all educational levels. The study adopts a qualitative, explanatory approach and articulates grounded theory with educational design research. The methodological process was organized into four broad moments, operationalized in five phases: an initial literature-based characterization; the design of learning activities involving length, area, volume, center of mass, and angular measure; implementation with engineering students enrolled in integral calculus; analysis of projected and emergent abilities through grounded performance levels; and refinement of the characterization. The findings propose a robust characterization of metric thinking composed of five cognitive processes: perceiving, recognizing, and distinguishing measurable properties; selecting, using comprehensively, and refining measurement instruments; formulating, operationalizing, and optimizing measurement strategies; applying measurement; and developing a critical perspective on measurement. These processes are interpreted as cyclic and mutually connected rather than hierarchical or linear. Within the university engineering tasks analyzed, they also show how measurement can mediate connections between advanced mathematical domains and STEM-related problem contexts. The article concludes by offering a definition of metric thinking that may guide research, curriculum design, and instruction while requiring further validation beyond the university context examined in this study. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop