1887
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4372
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4380
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study develops an applied literariness study by exploring both the features, and the impact, of science fiction prototyping (SFP) on college students’ perceptions of disciplinary, or field-specific, writing. College students ( = 83), who were English ( = 35) or STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) majors ( = 48), composed micro-science fiction prototyping (SFP), a genre that blends creative and science writing. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2015) analysis demonstrated that, aside from a more positive average emotional tone, SFP written fell psycho-linguistically between personal and science writing. English and STEM majors’ SFP stories were similar in terms of analytical levels, clout, authenticity, emotional tone, and use of words. Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that, while English majors evaluated creative writing as significantly more relevant to their future career goals pre-intervention than did STEM majors ( = .04,  = .23), this difference vanished post-intervention. Additionally, while STEM majors evaluated science writing as significantly more worth their time to study ( = .042,  = .22) and relevant to their major ( = .01,  = .28) pre-intervention than did English majors, these differences disappeared post-intervention. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests indicated that, while English majors’ ownership and evaluation of science and creative writing did not change, STEM majors’ evaluations of creative writing as relevant to their majors and future careers were significantly higher post-intervention ( = .015,  = .35)

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.20002.nic
2020-12-09
2021-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alshreif, N., & Nicholes, J.
    (2017) Metacognition and creative writing: Implications for L1 and L2 college writing experiences. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 6(1), 73–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2017) The future of undergraduate education: The future of America. Retrieved fromhttps://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/CFUE_Final-Report/Future-of-Undergraduate-Education.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2018) The state of the humanities 2018: Graduates in the workforce & beyond. Retrieved fromhttps://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/HI_Workforce-2018.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, W. M.
    (2010) Outside the English Department: Oakland University’s writing program and the writing and rhetoric major. InG. A. Giberson & T. A. Moriarty (Eds.), What we are becoming: Developments in undergraduate writing majors (pp.67–80). Logan: Utah State University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt4cgppw.8
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt4cgppw.8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Atherton, E.
    (2016) Science fiction prototyping at work. Computer, 49(8), 109–111. doi:  10.1109/MC.2016.229
    https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2016.229 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baldick, C.
    (2001) The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Balzhiser, D., & McLeod, S. H.
    (2010) The undergraduate writing major: What is it? What should it be?College Composition and Communication, 61(3), 415–433.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J.
    (2010) Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Retrieved fromwac.colostate.edu/books/bawarshi_reiff/genre.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Becher, T.
    (1994) The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151. doi:  10.1080/03075079412331382007
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382007 [Google Scholar]
  10. The Belmont Report
    The Belmont Report (1979) U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved fromwww.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bishop, W.
    (1993) Writing is/and therapy?: Raising questions about writing classrooms and writing program administration. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(2), 503–516.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Burke, A.
    (2019) Student retention models in higher education: A literature review. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Retrieved fromhttps://www.aacrao.org/research-publications/quarterly-journals/college-university-journal/article/c-u-vol.-94-no.-2-spring/student-retention-models-in-higher-education-a-literature-review
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carpenter, J. M., Green, M. C., & Fitzgerald, K.
    (2018) Mind-reading motivation: Individual differences in desire to perspective-take influence narrative processing. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 211–238. doi:  10.1075/ssol.18011.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18011.car [Google Scholar]
  14. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E.
    (2013) Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. doi:  10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chamcharatsri, P. B.
    (2013) Poetry writing to express love in Thai and in English: A second language (L2) writing perspective. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 141–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. A changing major: The report of the 2016–17 ADE ad hoc committee on the English major
    A changing major: The report of the 2016–17 ADE ad hoc committee on the English major (2018) Retrieved fromhttps://www.ade.mla.org/content/download/98513/2276619/A-Changing-Major.pdf
  17. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L.
    (2016) Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?Psychological Bulletin. doi:  10.1037/bul0000052
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook, A.
    (2018) The roots of attrition. InStudent retention in higher education: Resources for faculty (pp.5–17). Retrieved fromhttps://www.crcpress.com/rsc/downloads/Student_Retention_in_HE_28062018.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. De Lepe, M., Olmstead, W., Russell, C., Cazarez, L., & Austin, L.
    (2015) Using science fiction prototyping to decrease the decline of interest in STEM topics at the high school level. InD. Preuveneers (Ed.), Workshop proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Environments. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. 10.4108/fiee.1.2.e5
    https://doi.org/10.4108/fiee.1.2.e5 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Mulder, H. N. M., Hakemulder, F., van den Berghe, R., Klaassen, F., & van Berkum, J. J. A.
    (2017) Effects of exposure to literary narrative fiction: From book smart to street smart?Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 129–169. doi:  10.1075/ssol.7.1.06dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.7.1.06dem [Google Scholar]
  22. Draudt, A., Hadley, J., Hogan, R., Murray, L., Stock, G., & West, J. R.
    (2015) Six insights about science fiction prototyping. Computer, 48(5), 69–71. Retrieved fromnavigator-iup.passhe.edu/login?url=search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgic&AN=edsgcl.428827464&site=eds-live
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Emerson, L.
    (2016) The forgotten tribe: Scientists as writers. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse. 10.37514/PER‑B.2016.0759
    https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2016.0759 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2019) “I’m not a writer”: Shaping the literacy-related attitudes and beliefs of students and teachers in STEM disciplines. InV. Prain & B. M. Hand (Eds.), Theorizing the future of science education research: Contemporary trends and issues in science education (pp.169–187). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑24013‑4_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24013-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  25. Eodice, M., Geller, A. E., & Lerner, N.
    (2017) The meaningful writing project: Learning, teaching, and writing in higher education. Logan: Utah State University Press. 10.7330/9781607325802
    https://doi.org/10.7330/9781607325802 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2019) The power of personal connection for undergraduate student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(4), 320–339.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Espinosa, L. L.
    (2011) Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209–241. doi:  10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u
    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u [Google Scholar]
  28. Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., … Zavala, M.
    (2016) Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(3), 1–10. doi:  10.1187/cbe.16‑01‑0038
    https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fakayode, S. O., Yakubu, M., Adeyeye, O. M., Pollard, D. A., & Mohammed, A. K.
    (2014) Promoting undergraduate STEM education at a historically black college and university through research experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(5), 662–665. doi:  10.1021/ed400482b
    https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400482b [Google Scholar]
  30. Falk, N. A., Rottinghaus, P. J., Casanova, T. N., Borgen, F. H., & Betz, N. E.
    (2016) Expanding women’s participation in STEM: Insights from parallel measures of self-efficacy and interests. Journal of Career Assessment. doi:  10.1177/1069072716665822
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716665822 [Google Scholar]
  31. Frick, T., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P.
    (2009) College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 705–720. doi:  10.1007/s11423‑007‑9079‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9079-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Garraway, J.
    (2016) Future-orientated approaches to curriculum development: Fictive scripting. Higher Education Research & Development. doi:  10.1080/07294360.2016.1170765
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1170765 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gavaler, C., & Johnson, D.
    (2017) The genre effect: A science fiction (vs. realism) manipulation decreases inference effort, reading comprehension, and perceptions of literary merit. Scientific Study of Literature, 7(1), 79–108. doi:  10.1075/ssol.7.1.04gav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.7.1.04gav [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019) The literary genre effect: A one-word science fiction (vs. realism) manipulation reveals intrinsic text properties outweigh extrinsic expectations of literary quality. Scientific Study of Literature, 9(1), 34–52. 10.1075/ssol.19010.joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.19010.joh [Google Scholar]
  35. Graf, N., Fry, R., & Funk, C.
    (2018) 7 facts about the STEM workforce. Pew Research Center. Retrieved fromhttps://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/09/7-facts-about-the-stem-workforce/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Griffith, A. L.
    (2010) Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?Economics of Education Review, 29, 911–922. doi:  10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hadzigeorgiou, Y.
    (2016) Imaginative science education: The central role of imagination in science education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑29526‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29526-8 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hakemulder, F.
    (2000) The moral laboratory: Experiments examining the effects of reading literature on social perception and moral self-concept. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/upal.34
    https://doi.org/10.1075/upal.34 [Google Scholar]
  39. The Hamilton Project
    The Hamilton Project (2014) College earnings by college major. Retrieved fromwww.hamiltonproject.org/charts/career_earnings_by_college_major/
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hanauer, D. I.
    (2010) Poetry as research: Exploring second language poetry writing: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.9 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2011) The scientific study of poetry writing. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 79–87. doi:  10.1075/ssol.1.1.08han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.1.1.08han [Google Scholar]
  42. (2012) Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 45(1), 105–115. doi:  10.1017/S0261444810000522
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000522 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2018a) Intermediate states of literariness: Poetic lining, sociological positioning, and the activation of literariness. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(1), 14–34. doi:  10.1075/ssol.18001.han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18001.han [Google Scholar]
  44. (2018b) Reader characteristics, narrative transportation, persuasion and foregrounding. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 209–210. doi:  10.1075/ssol.00008.edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.00008.edi [Google Scholar]
  45. (2020) Mourning writing: A poetic autoethnography on the passing of my father. Qualitative Inquiry, 1–8. doi:  10.1177/1077800419898500
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419898500 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hanauer, D. I., & Bauerle, C.
    (2012) Facilitating innovation in science education through assessment reform. Liberal Education, 98(3), 34–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hanauer, D. I., & Dolan, E. L.
    (2014) The project ownership survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 149–158. doi:  10.1187/cbe.13‑06‑0123
    https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hanauer, D. I., Frederick, J., Fotinakes, B., & Strobel, S. A.
    (2012) Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11, 378–385. doi:  10.1187/cbe.12‑04‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0043 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., & Hatfull, G. F.
    (2016) A measure of college student persistence in the sciences (PITS). CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–10. 10.1187/cbe.15‑09‑0185
    https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-09-0185 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., SEA-PHAGES, Betancur, L., Bobrownicki, A., Cresawn, S. G., … Hatfull, G. F.
    (2017) An inclusive research education community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. PNAS Early Edition, 1–6. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1718188115
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718188115 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hanauer, D. I., Hatfull, G. F., & Jacobs-Sera, D.
    (2009) Active assessment: Assessing scientific inquiry. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑89649‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89649-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hanauer, D. I., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M. L., Cresawn, S. G., Hendrix, R. W., & Hatfull, G. F.
    (2006) Teaching scientific inquiry. Science, 314, 1880–1881. 10.1126/science.1136796
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136796 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hanauer, D. I., Nicholes, J., Liao, F. -Y., Beasley, A., & Henter, H.
    (2018) Short-term research experience (SRE) in the traditional lab: Qualitative and quantitative data on outcomes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17, 1–14. doi:  10.1187/cbe.18‑03‑0046
    https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-03-0046 [Google Scholar]
  54. Henary, M., Owens, E. A., & Tawney, J. G.
    (2015) Creative report writing in undergraduate organic chemistry laboratory inspires nonmajors. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 90–95. doi:  10.1021/ed5002619
    https://doi.org/10.1021/ed5002619 [Google Scholar]
  55. Iida, A.
    (2012) The value of poetry writing: Cross-genre literacy development in a second language. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(1), 60–82. doi:  10.1075/ssol.2.1.04iid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.2.1.04iid [Google Scholar]
  56. Johnson, B. D.
    (2011) Science fiction prototyping: Designing the future with science fiction. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E.
    (2013) Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377. doi:  10.1126/science.1239918
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918 [Google Scholar]
  58. Killingbeck, K.
    (2006) Field botany and creative writing: Where the science of writing meets the writing of science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(7), 26–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. King, B.
    (2016) Does postsecondary persistence in STEM vary by gender?AERA Open, 2(4), 1–10. doi:  10.1177/2332858416669709
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416669709 [Google Scholar]
  60. Komori, M.
    (2018) What if two involving stories contradict each other?: Transportation and robustness of narrative persuasion. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 239–260. doi:  10.1075/ssol.18013.kom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.18013.kom [Google Scholar]
  61. Kymalainen, T., Perala, P., Hakulinen, J., Heimonen, T., James, J., & Pera, J.
    (2015) Evaluating a future remote control environment with an experience-driven science fiction prototype. 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), 81–88. doi:  10.1109/IE.2015.19
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2015.19 [Google Scholar]
  62. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M.
    (2011) Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. ESA Issue Brief #04–11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., Julian, T., Lehrman, R., & Doms, M.
    (2011) Education supports racial and ethnic equality in STEM. ESA Issue Brief #05–11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Leverenz, C., Lucas, B., George, A., Hogg, C., & Murray, J.
    (2015) They could be our students: The writing major at Texas Christian University. InG. A. Giberson, J. Nugent, & L. Ostergaard (Eds.), Writing majors: Eighteen program profiles (pp.137–149). Logan: Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lewis Ellison, T., Robinson, B., & Qiu, T.
    (2019) Examining African American girls’ literate intersectional identities through journal entries and discussions about STEM. Written Communication. doi:  10.1177/0741088319880511
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319880511 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K.
    (2008) The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192. doi:  10.1111/j.1745‑6924.2008.00073.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Mestan, K.
    (2016) Why students drop out of the Bachelor of Arts. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 983–996. doi:  10.1080/07294360.2016.1139548
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1139548 [Google Scholar]
  68. Michelmore, K., & Sassler, S.
    (2016) Explaining the gender wage gap in STEM: Does field sex composition matter?RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 194–215. 10.7758/rsf.2016.2.4.07
    https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.4.07 [Google Scholar]
  69. Micro-SFPs
  70. Miller, T. P., & Jackson, B.
    (2007) What are English majors for?College Composition and Communication, 58(4), 682–708.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Necka, E. A., Cacioppo, S., Norman, G. J., & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (2016) Measuring the prevalence of problematic respondent behaviors among MTurk, campus, and community participants. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0157732. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0157732
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157732 [Google Scholar]
  72. Nicholes, J.
    (2017) Measuring ownership of creative versus academic writing: Implications for interdisciplinary praxis. Writing in Practice, 3. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nawe.co.uk/DB/current-wip-edition-2/articles/measuring-ownership-of-creative-versus-academic-writing-implications-for-interdisciplinary-praxis.html
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2018) Developing STEM interest and genre knowledge through science fiction prototyping. The STEAM Journal, 3(2), 1–13. 10.5642/steam.20180302.14
    https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20180302.14 [Google Scholar]
  74. (in press-a). Engaging English majors with video games: Implications for English-major identity formation. Journal of Teaching Writing.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. (in press-b). Lab reports and horror stories: Exploring chemistry majors’ evaluations of scientific and creative writing. Journal for Learning Through the Arts.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Nichols, R., Lynn, J., & Purzycki, B. G.
    (2014) Toward a science of science fiction: Applying quantitative methods to genre individuation. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(1), 25–45. doi:  10.1075/ssol.4.1.02nic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.1.02nic [Google Scholar]
  77. Olckers, C.
    (2013) Psychological ownership: Development of an instrument. SAJIP: South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1–13. doi:  10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1105
    https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1105 [Google Scholar]
  78. Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., & Winner, E.
    (2017) No support for the claim that literary fiction uniquely and immediately improves theory of mind: A reply to Kidd and Castano’s commentary on Panero et al. (2016) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), e5–e8. doi:  10.1037/pspa0000079
    https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000079 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E.
    (2015) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015: Operator’s Manual. Retrieved fromhttps://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/31333/LIWC2015_LanguageManual.pdf
  80. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Francis, M. E.
    (2007) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007: Operator’s Manual. Retrieved fromhttps://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/18109
  81. Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K.
    (2015) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T.
    (2003) The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. doi:  10.1037/1089‑2680.7.1.84
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 [Google Scholar]
  83. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2012) Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fact_sheet_final.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Reinholz, D. L., Matz, R. L., Cole, R., & Apkarian, N.
    (2019) STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 18(4). doi:  10.1187/cbe.19‑02‑0038
    https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0038 [Google Scholar]
  85. Sharpe Wessling, K., Huber, J., & Netzer, O.
    (2017) MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 211–230. doi:  10.1093/jcr/ucx053
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx053 [Google Scholar]
  86. Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S.
    (2016) A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3139–3148. doi:  10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  87. Strikwerda, C. J.
    (2019) Faculty members are the key to solving the retention callenge. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/09/04/faculty-must-play-bigger-role-student-retention-and-success-opinion
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Summerby-Murray, R.
    (2010) Writing for immediacy: Narrative writing as a teaching technique in undergraduate cultural geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(2), 231–245. doi:  10.1080/03098260903274378
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260903274378 [Google Scholar]
  89. Suvin, D.
    (1978) On what is and is not an SF narration: With a list of 101 Victorian books that should be excluded from SF bibliographies. Science Fiction Studies, 5(1), 45–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W.
    (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. doi:  10.1177/0261927X09351676
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676 [Google Scholar]
  91. Tessema, M. T., Ready, K., & Yu, W. -C.
    (2012) Factors affecting college students’ satisfaction with major curriculum: Evidence from nine years of data. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(2), 34–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Tinto, V.
    (2015) Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 1–16. doi:  10.1177/1521025115621917
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917 [Google Scholar]
  93. Turner, R., & Felisberti, F. M.
    (2018) Relationships between fiction media, genre, and empathic abilities. Scientific Study of Literature, 8(2), 261–292. doi:  10.1075/ssol.19003.tur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.19003.tur [Google Scholar]
  94. Undergraduate retention and graduation rates
    Undergraduate retention and graduation rates (2019) Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.20002.nic
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ssol.20002.nic
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error