Abstract

Research shows that minority groups such as women, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities are not being fully represented within the scientific workforce. This has been shown to be related to their university experience and low levels of self-efficacy (Cohen & Kelly, 2019). To retain introductory chemistry students, the development of a new inclusive pedagogical tool to assist students in developing student success skills has been developed. In 2023, a study of past widening participation pathway students and first-year undergraduate students in a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) based chemistry course investigated the role of the university experience as students transition from a widening participation pathway course to a first-year undergraduate course (n=25). This paper seeks to report on student perceptions of their own experiences that lead to success within the two courses.

By implementing an active learning method drawn from Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), we developed an active teaching method known as the TEACH (Theory, Examples, All-together, Consolidation, Handling of skills) method. Results showed that introducing this inclusive pedagogical approach impacted positively on the student experience and was a key contributor to student retention in the STEM courses. It was also found that assessment and final examination grades increased in comparison to previous years and students had a more successful transition into first year. Student focus group findings highlighted differences in the teaching cultures of enabling and undergraduate courses. By examining the differences between the cohorts, recommendations are given to move towards a more inclusive teaching pedagogy, such as the TEACH method, across the two programmes. It is hoped that by gradually implementing active learning into the STEM courses, as in this chemistry-focussed study, an increase in self-efficacy, engagement, and ultimately student success and retention will be seen.

This paper makes a significant contribution to the less-researched area of the implementation of inclusive pedagogy and active learning in introductory chemistry courses. It highlights the importance of collaborations between undergraduate and pathways teaching staff to ensure students are experiencing active and student-centric teaching methods in the undergraduate teaching space.

Keywords

Active learning, self-efficacy, STEM, student insights, first year experience, transitions

Introduction

Australia and Australian university student cohorts exhibit significant diversity not only in cultural aspects but also across demographics, including variations in gender identity, sexual orientation, disability prevalence, and individuals with caregiving responsibilities. In higher education, these diverse demographics are often not reflected within Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) university departments and ultimately in the STEM workforce (Ramiah et al., 2022). Students coming from such backgrounds are underrepresented at an undergraduate level in STEM courses (Department of Industry, 2024; Frawley et al., 2017; Garriott et al., 2017) and are especially vulnerable to being lost from the STEM pipeline, leading to high levels of attrition from STEM courses (Cohen & Kelly, 2019).

Empirical evidence highlights low self-efficacy, defined as someone having the belief that they lack the ability to achieve something, as the prominent barrier encountered by women in non-traditional disciplines (Fisher et al., 2020), as well as by other equity-seeking groups within STEM university populations (Edwards & Gerberry, 2024).

Students are being lost within the system through disengagement due to poor quality course structures and are lacking the support they need to increase self-efficacy, develop required academic skills, and ultimately achieve student success (Theobald et al., 2020). Barriers are still faced by equity students in accessing STEM careers (Wanelik et al., 2020); to address this issue Australian educational authorities are advocating to universities to ensure that there are equal opportunities for academic success across all cohorts (Department of Education, 2021). Despite this advocacy, there is still slow progress regarding the pedagogical changes and necessary support for student success for students from an equity background in the disciplines of STEM. The uptake of active learning and a focus on the student are two areas which require attention (Theobald et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2024). For STEM courses to be successful and retention of underrepresented students increased, pedagogies of care and belonging need to be practised. This research explored the student experience to develop active learning strategies and create an innovative teaching method, leading to a more positive educational experience.^[1]

Enabling programmes and undergraduate frameworks

Throughout Australia, enabling programmes are equity initiatives that often attract the above mentioned under-represented cohorts by providing an alternative pathway to undergraduate degrees. While enabling programmes are crucial for preparing and transitioning students into undergraduate studies, there are limited studies evaluating student success and transition into the first year experience from widening participation programmes (Lomax-Smith, 2011). There have also been few studies of the implementation of active learning in Chemistry courses (Theobald et al., 2020) and this report aims to address both gaps.

In 2023, of the total number of domestic students entering first year undergraduate study, 16.9% were recognised as low socio-economic status (SES), 20.2% regional, 2.58% First Nations, and 10.9% with a disability; only 14.6% of these students were from the STEM student population (Department of Education, 2024). The small numbers of students from underrepresented demographic groups face challenges not only in undertaking STEM study but also in completing these studies (Ramiah et al., 2022). Research has found that poor quality teaching of STEM subjects is a major factor for students moving away from pursuing STEM degrees (Wang et al., 2024).

Apart from the academic barriers faced, enabling-programme students can also bring with them lower self-efficacy, negative educational experiences, and low expectations regarding learning (Burton, 2009; Rickard et al., 2018). It has been postulated that many commencing enabling students enter with ill-informed preconceptions and are more likely to find the traditional academic rigour of study unfamiliar and as such a major barrier to learning is presented before study has even commenced (Priest, 2009). These preconceptions significantly hinder student success and are especially prevalent in those students coming from low socio-economic backgrounds, who make up the majority of the enabling cohort experiencing negative teaching experiences (McKay & Devlin, 2014). Effective communication and consideration regarding the student learning experience is crucial to bridging the socio-cultural gaps between higher educational institutions and equity students (Devlin, 2013). Closing this gap is essential for facilitating the success of students transitioning from enabling programmes so they can successfully complete the introductory undergraduate programmes.

Closing the gap: Facilitating success

With an increasing number of diverse students entering undergraduate studies, the connection between under-preparedness and first-year attrition has been noted (Devlin, 2013; Hinton, 2007; James, 2016; Schrader & Brown, 2008). Previous studies of the success and retention of enabling students in STEM underscore the importance of effective teaching methods and support services (Andrewartha & Harvey, 2014; Cocks & Stokes, 2013). In fact, poor learning experiences have been reported as a major reason why students are switching out and moving away from pursuing a STEM major (Wang et al., 2024). The retention of STEM majors such as Chemistry has also been closely linked to the student experience at an introductory level (Cohen & Kelly, 2019; Lou & Jaeggi, 2020). As such, how enabling students relate to both their enabling and undergraduate educational experiences must also be considered to avoid potentially high attrition rates (Cocks & Stokes, 2013). Academic staff play a critical role in creating supportive learning environments and addressing potential marginalisation in academic discourse. Recent research also indicates that many undergraduate STEM courses are still using the traditional instructor-focussed lecturing style and are reluctant to move into a more student-centric learning environment (Theobald et al., 2020) and variations in the student learning experience between programmes suggest the need for a commitment to collaborative pedagogies (Bennett et al., 2016).

To improve the students’ experiences, one must understand and listen to learners (Jones et al., 2016; Lisciandro et al., 2018). Pedagogies of care and careful practices are central to effective student learning experiences (Bennett et al., 2016), including familiarity with undergraduate course formats and broad institutional relationships. Whilst the first-year experience (FYE) has been well documented (Kift et al., 2010), research on transitions into undergraduate studies, particularly from the student perspective, remains limited (James, 2016). Such gaps have led to suggestions that the student FYE may be more disjointed when transitioning from enabling programmes into undergraduate first year programmes (Kuh, 2007). It is our view that addressing these gaps can lead to more tailored pedagogies that foster student success and belonging.

Whilst extensive research exists on FYE, enabling education, and student success, there remains a significant gap in understanding smooth transitions and cross-institutional relationships from the student perspective. This study aims to address this gap, through the development of a student-centric pedagogy which contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the student experience and supports effective transitions and success into undergraduate studies

The ‘TEACH’ing culture of STEM: Devising a new pedagogy of care through active learning

Historically, the teaching culture in STEM has been characterised by certain common features, such as lecture-based instruction. This ‘sage on the stage’ approach of delivering knowledge to passive learners leads to limited student participation, with the focus primarily on the instructor as the source of information and an emphasis on memorising facts, formulas, and theories (Handelsman et al., 2004; Tomkin et al., 2019). Students are often assessed based on their ability to recall and reproduce information rather than on their understanding and application of concepts. Traditional STEM education also tends to be more individual-focussed, with students working independently on assessments. Collaboration is not always a central component of the learning experience, which can lead to feelings of isolation in some students, particularly those who suffer social anxiety or find it difficult to interact with others (Hinton, 2007). In fact, some students can attend very large lectures but not meet anyone, exacerbating feelings of isolation and low self-efficacy. Encouraging educators to adopt an active learning approach into their courses can be an effective way of enhancing diversity and retention in the STEM disciplines and ultimately the workforce (Lorenzo et al., 2006; Theobald et al., 2020).

By building on the principles of Lent’s Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 1994) which emphasises self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals as key career developments, we have developed an innovative and inclusive teaching pedagogy for the enabling introductory course. This pedagogy, coined as the ‘TEACH’ method, begins with a focus on active learning environments and includes teaching approaches that have a positive impact on the student learning experience. The traditional lecture delivery format often used in the sciences can be seen to create a barrier between the lecturer and the student, generating a passive learning experience shown to be disadvantageous to underrepresented groups (Theobald et al., 2020).

The TEACH method encourages active, supportive, and engaged learning approaches through an active learning model shown in Figure 4.1. In this model, the majority of the elements in TEACH are active-learning-based with peer-to-peer learning rather than delivered dialogically. The first two elements of the method are Theory and Example. Theory is an integral part of a science-based course, and the Theory element takes into consideration the experience of a student learning a new skill or concept. The introduction of theory is followed by concept checks with the element Example, where the lecturer will apply the theoretical knowledge in particular examples. ‘All together’ describes the process where the lecturer and student work together on one or two problems before students are given the opportunity for active peer-to-peer learning. The ‘All together’ element of the TEACH method looks to maximise peer and lecturer feedback by enabling programme student voices to be heard and encourages effective engagement in a safe space. ‘Consolidating of skills’ forms the basis of group work (or individual, if a student so wishes) where extra concept check questions are given in class and students work together to apply their newly acquired knowledge to higher order questions. Handling of skills is the final step where students have gained the confidence and ability to apply their knowledge independently. This teaching intervention thus leads to students been able to competently complete tutorial worksheets for the following week, confidently attempt formative assessments, culminating into an increase in successful attempts at the final exam across the cohort.

In this study, the TEACH method was trialled in the enabling chemistry course, and students were asked through surveys and focus groups to reflect on how the TEACH method impacted them as they transitioned to undergraduate study. Currently, the first-year introductory chemistry course (CHEM1010) at the University of Newcastle is a core course for many STEM degree programmes. It has been shown that students who fail the required general chemistry courses typically leave the STEM degree programme altogether, making introductory chemistry achievement one of the critical hurdles for advancement and retention in STEM education (Cohen & Kelly, 2019; Lou & Jaeggi, 2020). It is crucial then that students have a positive learning experience, enabling them not only to be successful in the course but also to lean towards successful career prospects.

The study

This study focussed on enabling students that completed at least one of the two enabling chemistry courses (EPCHEM137 and EPCHEM237) who then entered and completed the core first-year undergraduate chemistry course (CHEM1010). Within the enabling programme at the University of Newcastle, there are two chemistry courses offered. An introductory course (EPCHEM137) and a second semester follow-on course (EPCHEM237). Some students however will only do the first semester course EPCHEM137 for a variety of reasons. In examining student performance within the two enabling courses and the first-year introductory chemistry course, it was found that overall academic achievements in CHEM1010 for enabling students who completed both EPCHEM137 and EPCHEM237 were higher than for those that completed only EPCHEM137.

A total of 25 students were recruited through an email invitation sent to all identified students who had completed both an enabling and the introductory undergraduate chemistry courses. A small monetary incentive in the form of a gift card was provided. Of the 25 participants, 14 had also completed the secondary enabling chemistry course (EPCHEM237).^[2]

Focus groups were conducted face-to-face or online to explore students’ perceptions of their academic experiences in both enabling and undergraduate chemistry courses. Participants were questioned about their perspectives on factors that facilitated or impeded their university studies, including course structure, support services, and teaching strategies. Moreover, they were invited to draw on their experiences in both enabling and undergraduate courses to suggest ways to enhance student success and self-efficacy. Recordings of focus groups were transcribed, pseudonyms were given for anonymity, and data were subject to thematic analysis, following the framework developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). This paper reports on the sub-themes that were generated under the broader themes of student success and pedagogical methods.

Thematic analysis and discussion

Our analysis of participant responses revealed the significance of the TEACH model in study skill development, fostering feelings of social connectedness and belonging within the programme as the main factors for successful transition from enabling courses to the FYE. The majority of participants also felt their learning experiences in first year undergraduate studies were more disconnected than enabling as they moved from an active learning space into a more traditional didactic educational setting. Other sub-themes emerged, including a disconnect between workload levels, the approachability of the teaching staff, self-confidence, and constructive alignment between the lecture and assessment content.

‘Here for the students’: Application of pedagogies of care

Participant responses underscored preparedness as crucial for their perceived success when transitioning into undergraduate studies. It is important also to note that the ‘traditional student’ is becoming rarer; the previous educational experiences of students need to be considered and acknowledged. Enabling students encounter various challenges at the start of higher education, including academic and digital literacies, navigating university systems, managing expectations, and adjusting to study, work, family, and financial pressures (Bennett et al., 2016). As such, enabling students need to be given the tools and knowledge to be able to enhance their learning efficiency. Educators need to connect with and listen to students’ educational needs, not only to help them master specific subjects but also to aid them in developing skills in ‘learning how to learn.’

Students entering both enabling and undergraduate studies have described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed on the impact of such transitions (Bennett et al., 2016). Our findings of participants reporting initial emotions of feeling overwhelmed and anxious support previous findings (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008; Leese, 2010; Sanders et al., 2016). However, less has been documented on how students can overcome these feelings as they progress through the tertiary system.

The implementation of the TEACH method as a pedagogical approach serves to alleviate some of the negative emotions associated with entering university. Focus group participants who described positive feelings about their transition from enabling to undergraduate study stated that they felt prepared to deal with effective time management as they “felt I knew what would be expected of me in undergraduate [studies] because of my enabling experience(s)” (Jamie,^[3] who completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010). For Bec, completing enabling taught them “how to study” and that: “this was very helpful as it got me ready for undergrad and sharpened my problem-solving abilities” (Bec completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

Students felt learning how to overcome poor time management skills “helped a lot in learning how to deal with the pressure of the study load in undergraduate because I felt prepared” (Axel, completed EPCHEM137 and CHEM1010). For Tara, who had experienced negative educational experiences in the past, completing enabling helped lower levels of anxiety when transitioning into undergraduate study because:

enabling helped me work out how to actually study effectively and it was extremely valuable to be able to go into undergraduate with these skills; saved me a lot of time while other students were figuring it out in their first/second undergraduate semesters. (Tara, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010)

 Knowing what was expected of them also aided in the transition from enabling to undergraduate study: “benefits [of enabling] were preparedness not only with academic knowledge but academic skills. We learnt what is expected, the layout and the knowledge” (Bec, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010). For participants like Bree, learning how university worked was a benefit for the transition into undergraduate: “it really helped to get set up for undergraduate with what is expected in chemistry, layout, preparation and what they expect at a university level. Also, preparing my knowledge too so I had that prior knowledge” (Bree, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

One of the tools that adopted this pedagogy of care and has been shown to help alleviate some of the anxiousness felt by students was the offering of supplementary instruction programmes such as drop-ins and Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS). These sessions can be taught by either the course coordinator or lecturer (drop-ins) or a graduate student (drop-ins/PASS) and have been seen to give immense benefit to underrepresented students (Theobald et al., 2020). Those offered in the enabling chemistry programmes were positively reviewed by participants, who felt that they learnt invaluable time management and academic literacy skills in these sessions. For Angela, a single mother who was working full time, these informal study sessions were extremely helpful because “as an older student, trying to juggle work to support myself and full time study was and is incredibly difficult” (Angela, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

The informal nature of these sessions allowed students not only to ask subject-specific questions but also seek guidance on navigating university life. Drop-in sessions, mainly led by course coordinators, provided a platform for students to address academic content in an informal setting, which led to an increase in social connectedness amongst teacher and peers, aiding in a sense of belonging for the student: “Drop-ins were great because personal access to lecturer in a casual setting so we could ask any/all questions we had” (Bec, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010). Additionally, these sessions gave an insight into recognising students’ added pressures outside of studies, informing careful pedagogical teaching approaches.

Fostering a caring framework and connecting to the students’ needs led to significant positive outcomes. Academic staff who work together to foster a pedagogy of care in the classroom can lead to an increase in retention, a social connectedness that can lead to a sense of belonging in students. Care is essential in dismantling barriers to student success and demonstrating empathy towards the pressures faced by students today. It is important that students feel that they have a voice and confidence to ask for flexibility with regard to coursework, rather than falling behind in workload and ultimately withdrawing from the course. It is also imperative that students feel that they can seek assistance and receive explicit guidance without fear of retribution:

In enabling, there is more leniency with regard to the transition from normal life to uni life. The lecturers I had were more empathetic and down to earth compared to undergrad, where most of those lecturers take it incredibly seriously and treat you like a child or a failure when you mess something up. There’s no second chances or guidance the same was as there is in enabling. (Tara, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010)

Creating inclusive and safe teaching environments that challenge traditional hierarchies helps to foster a sense of belonging and initiates the development of self-efficacy. By challenging the traditional hierarchy of teacher over student and providing safe inclusive teaching spaces students develop a sense of belonging and thus an increase in self-efficacy. Participants noted that such caring pedagogies positively influenced their self-efficacy and perceived success, commenting: “the teachers are everything. The teachers make all the difference to how easy your success will be” (Bree, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010). Such feedback supports the literature that the role of teaching is integral to the attrition of STEM students (Hinton, 2007).

‘Mind the Gap’

The pace of the enabling content taught across the two chemistry enabling courses was a common theme raised by participants. The extended content and pace of the two chemistry enabling courses were found to be instrumental in the student success and transition process into the first year undergraduate programme. The enabling courses focus heavily on scaffolded learning which draws on the TEACH method. Students are provided guidance and support in learning new skills and then in small increments challenged to encourage skill building and confidence in the task. The scaffolded learning of the introductory course (EPCHEM137) was deemed to be useful for first time chemistry students. Students found that starting out slowly was helpful in grasping the major concepts and not getting left behind. The slightly faster-paced advanced chemistry course (EPCHEM237) was also found to be manageable by implementing scaffolded learning. All participants from the focus group of students who had completed EPCHEM237 agreed on how well this course prepared them. One commented that “without EPCHEM237, undergraduate chem would have been very difficult to keep pace and understand” (Jamie, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

Students with prior chemistry knowledge reported that the pace of EPCHEM137 felt slightly too slow, with one participant specifically noting:

EPCHEM137 covered many foundational concepts and did assess our understanding but there was minimal skill building [for those already with a basic understanding of chemistry]. The delivery was quite slow, especially in comparison to EPCHEM237 which mainly focused on that which was incredibly helpful in CHEM1010. The skills built in EPCHEM237 were useful throughout CHEM1010. (Bec, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010)

In the introductory undergraduate chemistry course CHEM1010, workshops rather than tutorials are offered. Workshops differ from tutorials as the worksheets were given during the class rather than before, so students could not adequately prepare and consolidate their skills. Students were also expected to work in groups and complete the questions with little guidance. Participants reported that they felt that the workshops in the undergraduate chemistry course (CHEM1010) were not beneficial in learning the content and felt the work was ‘dropped’ on them making it harder to prepare and comprehend the content. This was especially true if they felt uncomfortable in asking their tutor for assistance. The lack of opportunities to be able to work together through problems during lectures and seek clarification caused angst amongst students. When asked to compare teaching approaches of the enabling and undergraduate chemistry courses one participant commented that:

the main thing that stood out was delivery speed of content and limited opportunities for feedback in undergraduate compared to enabling. In enabling there were weekly tutorials and lectures [that] covered mathematical problems. In CHEM1010 the delivery of content was significantly faster and there seemed to be less resources available for learning. (Jamie, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010)

Thus, the elements of ‘Example’ and ‘All together’ appear to be crucial not only for the students’ learning experience but for the exposure to difficult chemical concepts. This lack of preparation time for students to review course content beforehand in the CHEM1010 course also made the ‘Consolidation’ element harder to achieve and impacted negatively on student self-efficacy and interest to pursue chemistry as a major.

‘There were no surprises’

There was a clear sense that, due to having constructive alignment between content and assessments in the enabling courses, students felt that they could understand meaning and relevance when facing assessments: “the enabling programs were less stressful as I knew exactly what was expected of me. There were no surprise questions in the exams” (Axel, completed EPCHEM137 and CHEM1010). Assessments in enabling courses were scaffolded, with low stakes assessments such as online quizzes and lab sessions building up to a mid-semester exam and a final exam. This format is closely linked to that of the first year undergraduate course apart from the first year undergraduate course not offering a mid-semester exam. It should be also recognised that the end of block quizzes are worth more in undergraduate (30%) compared to enabling courses (10%).

When discussing what factors stood out when comparing undergraduate and enabling study, one participant noted that “The undergraduate courses had exam questions that seemed beyond what was in the learning outcomes, and the wording was very different to what was taught which caught me off guard and made me panic a little” (Jamie, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

Tutorials or workshops are offered in all courses. In enabling courses these do not contribute to the final grade but aid in scaffolding the students’ learning and developing the ‘Consolidation’ and ‘Handling of skills’ given in the TEACH method. Support is given to the students in a more informal environment where students feel more at ease to ask questions and work through concepts and skills that were introduced in the lectures. In the first-year course, workshops are offered and contribute to 20% of the student’s final mark. Some participants reported that they felt there was a misalignment between the material covered in the lectures and the assessed weekly quizzes/workshops in undergraduate chemistry, so they were given a false sense of confidence in the topics. “In CHEM1010, the lecture content seemed relatively straight forward [sic] and it was not until the weekly quizzes or the workshop where mathematical problems showed up which was somewhat unexpected because no example was mentioned in the lectures,” whereas “there were no surprise questions” in the enabling courses (Jamie, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

Participants reported feeling that the structure of the TEACH method in enabling courses did help when it came to completing the workshops in CHEM1010, with one participant noting that one of the main things that aided in their success in undergraduate chemistry was practising:

the mathematical problems and balancing equations covered in lectures and tutorials in enabling. In CHEM1010 there was no real opportunity to practice any of that until the workshops which were always a few weeks later than the weekly quizzes which also contained that content which was often seen for the first time in those quizzes. (Bree, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010)

Not having the elements of Example, All-together, and Consolidation in the undergraduate course led students to lose confidence in their learning. Students also felt that the teaching environment was not inclusive, finding it uncomfortable to ask for assistance: “The lecturers I had [in enabling] were more empathetic and down to earth compared to undergrad, where most of those lecturers take it incredibly seriously and treat you like a child or a failure when you mess something up” (Tara, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

Participants praised the TEACH method and its careful pedagogy as highly beneficial for learning new academic concepts and problem solving in real time: “one of the benefits with enabling learning was the interactive teaching methods used. Going around the classroom, using examples, going through the questions and then having us do the questions in groups” (Emma, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

This lack of constructive alignment between taught material and assessments in the first-year undergraduate courses highlight its importance for consistent teaching and scaffolding. An imbalance can occur when there is more focus on the traditional didactic method of teaching STEM courses and less on scaffolding and developing academic skills such as lab and problem-solving skills. This imbalance can have a negative effect on student success and retention, thus losing students through the STEM pipeline. Studies have shown that adopting an active learning approach utilising innovative teaching methods leads to higher examination scores and lower failure rates compared to courses that use the more traditional lecture-based learning (Theobald et al., 2020).

Empowering the student voice

Following the completion of both the enabling chemistry courses and the first-year undergraduate chemistry courses all respondents agreed that the enabling programmes which implemented the TEACH method effectively prepared students by exposing them to the academic rigor of university, recognising the expectations placed on university students, and familiarising them with the digital platforms employed. However, disparities between the learning experiences in enabling and undergraduate courses emerged. Students felt that in the undergraduate chemistry course the workload intensity increased significantly and that there was a misalignment in lecture content and assessable materials. Students also felt that it was harder to seek help from the faculty, impacting on their levels of confidence.

Participants commented on the lack of availability of the first-year lecturers and the perceived lack of assistance when entering undergraduate study. For participants like Bec, the approachability and care of lecturers was an important key to success: “The course coordinators for enabling were also easier to contact with questions and they seemed more invested in the course than some of the undergrad lecturers.” Another discussed their experience of moving into first year chemistry: “it was harder than expected because of the chat distraction [on ZOOM lectures], and the unapproachable lecturers (didn’t feel comfortable to ask questions, but did feel comfortable in open foundation)” (Tara, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010).

The following comment from Bree exemplifies the positive student experience from pathway programmes to undergraduate classes:

I felt good about it! It was great getting to know and navigate blackboard/canvas and how to work my timetable before starting my undergraduate and it was one less thing I had to stress about. It made me feel more confident and like I was able to start this degree which I was a little bit intimidated by at first. (Bree, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010)

Participants highlighted a noticeable contrast in support between enabling and undergraduate programmes. One participant noted that enabling course coordinators were easier to contact and seemed more invested: “The course coordinators for enabling were also easier to contact with questions and they seemed more invested in the course than some of the undergrad lecturers” (Hal, completed EPCHEM137, EPCHEM237, and CHEM1010). Despite these challenges, students also acknowledged the value of pathway programmes in easing the transition, with one stating that learning to navigate systems like Blackboard and managing a timetable beforehand reduced stress and boosted their confidence when entering undergraduate study.

Engaging with students leads to a greater insight in the way that students think and learn. In listening to the student voice of those that participated in the study, it is clear that the TEACH method has had a dramatically positive effect upon the students, building up their self-efficacy and skills at handling the content and instilling an interest in studying chemistry. Involving the students in curriculum design and development has already been shown to have a positive effect on academic performance (Peters et al., 2019).

Recommendations

Taking into the account the student experience and their transition into first year undergraduate study, we have several recommendations. One recommendation is that within the enabling courses the speed of delivery and level of content is revisited. Students also felt that they would have benefited from having the opportunity to attend more laboratory sessions to develop hands-on skills that they could have carried into first year, where laboratories are compulsory for passing the course. Currently there is only one lab offered in the semester in EPCHEM137 and three for EPCHEM237. We recommend at least one additional lab session in the EPCHEM137 course.

Participants recommended that first year courses provide more opportunities for positive and active teaching experiences. We suggest the implementation of a pedagogy of care and the TEACH method would be beneficial in undergraduate STEM courses. A shift away from the traditional lecture to active learning is recommended. Developing a connection by listening to the students is a way forward in implementing a pedagogy of care. Using the TEACH method gives students the space and time to grasp the concepts taught in the course. Introducing a regular weekly drop-in session on campus with teaching staff for added active teaching is also encouraged. Addressing the academic discourse and giving students exposure to and skills to navigate the workings of a university is also welcomed. Introducing a pedagogy of care, we can as educators alleviate the feelings of not being worthy enough and increase the self-efficacy and thus the feeling of belonging within the students. This in turn could lead to ‘fixing’ the leaky pipeline and seeing an increase in the number of students becoming empowered to pursue a career in STEM.

Limitations of the study and future research

The findings of a small pilot study are not generalisable to a large cohort but can inform approaches at the local level to the enabling chemistry courses and the transition into first year chemistry. The results of this research demonstrate that by introducing active and safe learning experiences an increase in self-efficacy is observed, leading to more successful transitions into the FYE. In listening to the reflective student voice, students’ own personal journey from enabling to undergraduate courses, interventions can be implemented to improve student outcomes and success.

This study lays the groundwork for possible wider interventions in both the enabling and undergraduate chemistry courses which would elucidate the effectiveness of the TEACH method and its broader applicability. Added interventions would include the introduction of more practical laboratory sessions in the enabling courses and increasing the pace and including more academic concepts to the enabling courses to aid with the transition into first year. The addition of drop-ins and/or more exposure to the first-year lecturers using the TEACH method as an intervention in teaching practice is also advised. It is hoped that the recommendations made in this study are implemented and further research on the viability of these approaches undertaken.

Conclusion

This paper uses the student voice to investigate the lived student experience of transitioning from an enabling chemistry course to first year undergraduate study. We argue that by changing pedagogical approaches and implementing active teaching methods such as the TEACH method we can have a significant impact on successful transitions into undergraduate study. It is hoped that this active teaching and pedagogy of care is adopted into first year introductory chemistry courses to increase the learning experience of students and ultimately stem the leaky pipeline of STEM majors.

This project will contribute to both the theoretical and practical landscapes of critical pedagogy in the enabling sphere, particularly when applied to Chemistry-based courses in pathways programmes. Furthermore, data gathered in this project will be utilised in the development of teaching resources and pedagogical approaches, to enhance successful and positive transitions for enabling students in the science-based courses.

References

Andrewartha, L., & Harvey, A. (2014). Willing and enabled : The academic outcomes of a tertiary enabling program in regional Australia. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(1), 50–68.

Bennett, A., Motta, S. C., Hamiton, E., Burgess, C., Relf, B., Gray, K., Leroy-Dyer, S., & Albright, J. (2016). Enabling pedagogies: A participatory conceptual mapping of practices at the University of Newcastle, Australia (version 1). Open Research Newcastle. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1389907

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burton, L. J., Taylor J. A., Dowling, D. G. & Lawrence, J. (2009). Learning approaches, personality and concepts of knowledge of first-year students: Mature-age versus school leaver. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development (SLEID), 6(1), 65–81.

Cocks, T., & Stokes, J. (2013). Policy into practice: A case study of widening participation in Australian higher education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 15(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.15.1.22

Cohen, R., & Kelly, A. M. (2019). Community college chemistry coursetaking and STEM academic persistence. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00586

Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2021, December 9) Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00488

Department of Education. (2024, September 26). Trends in higher education student enrolment. Australian Government. https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/student-data/selected-higher-education-statistics-2023-student-data/key-findings-2023-student-data

Department of Industry, Science and Resources. (2024, July 26). STEM equity monitor: Explore Australia’s data on women and girls in STEM. Australian Government. https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/stem-equity-monitor

Devlin, M. (2013). Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: Conceptualising the success of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds in Australian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 939–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.613991

Edwards, L.A., & Gerberry, C. (2024). STEM major’s decision to teach: Examining teaching experiences in high-needs communities. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(26). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00112-w

Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.1.46-50

Fisher, C. R., Thompson, C. D., & Brookes, R. H. (2020). Gender differences in the Australian undergraduate STEM student experience: A systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(6), 1155–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1721441

Frawley, J., Ober, R., Olcay, M., & Smith, J. (2017). Indigenous student achievement in higher education: The influence of cultural factors on self-efficacy. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 20(2), 17–30. https://go.exlibris.link/K3rBr245

Garriott, P. O., Navarro, R. L., & Flores, L. Y. (2017). First-generation college students’ persistence intentions in engineering majors. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716657533

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096022

Hinton, L. (2007). Causes of attrition in first year students in science foundation courses and recommendations for intervention. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 42(2), 13–26.

James, T. (2016). The juxtaposition of STEPS to the undergraduate arena: The lived experience of transitioning into undergraduate study. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 56(2), 250–267.

Jones, A., Olds, A., & Lisciandro, J. (2016). Understanding the learner: Effective course design in the changing higher education space (version 1). Open Research Newcastle. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1433992

Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy : A third generation approach to FYE : A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13

Kuh, G. (2007, July 4–6). What matters to student success in the first year of university. [Keynote address]. 10th Pacific Rim, First Year Experience in Higher Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Leese, M. (2010). Bridging the gap: Supporting student transitions into higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098771003695494

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

Lisciandro, J. G., Jones, A., & Geerlings, P. (2018). Enabling learners starts with knowing them : Student attitudes, aspiration and anxiety towards science and maths learning in an Australian pre-university enabling program. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 58(1), 13–40. https://go.exlibris.link/f4gLRrkr

Lomax-Smith, J., Watson, L. & Webster, B. (2011). Higher education base funding review: Final report.

Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2162549

Lou, A. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2020). Reducing the prior‐knowledge achievement gap by using technology‐assisted guided learning in an undergraduate chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21596

McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2014). ‘Uni has a different language … to the real world’: Demystifying academic culture and discourse for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(5), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890570

Peters, H., Zdravkovic, M., João Costa, M., Celenza, A., Ghias, K., Klamen, D., Mossop, L., Rieder, M., Devi Nadarajah, V., Wangsaturaka, D., Wohlin, M., & Weggemans, M. (2019). Twelve tips for enhancing student engagement. Medical Teacher, 41(6), 632–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1459530

Priest, A.-M. (2009). “I have understanding as well as you”: Supporting the language and learning needs of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 3(2), A70–A81.

Ramiah, R., Godinho, L., & Wilson, C. (2022). Tertiary STEM for all: Enabling student success through teaching for equity, diversity and inclusion in STEM. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.30.03.003

Rickard, G., Bramble, M., Maxwell, H., Einboden, R., Farrington, S., Say, R., Beh, C.-L., Stankiewicz, G., Campbell, C., & Yeh, C. (2018). Exploring the first-year experience in a diverse population : Using participatory action research to explore strategies to support student transition into fast-track undergraduate degree programs. Student Success, 9(4), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v9i4.653

Sanders, L. D., Mair, C., & James, R. (2016). Detecting uncertainty, predicting outcome for first year students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(3), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-10-2015-0076

Schrader, P. G., & Brown, S. W. (2008). Evaluating the first year experience: Students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(2), 310–343. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-775

Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … 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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117

Tomkin, J. H., Beilstein, S. O., Morphew, J. W., & Herman, G. L. (2019). Evidence that communities of practice are associated with active learning in large STEM lectures. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0154-z

Wanelik, K. M., Griffin, J. S., Head, M. L., Ingleby, F. C., & Lewis, Z. (2020). Breaking barriers? Ethnicity and socioeconomic background impact on early career progression in the fields of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution, 10(14), 6870–6880. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6423

Wang, Y., Apkarian, N., Dancy, M. H., Henderson, C., Johnson, E., Raker, J. R., & Stains, M. (2024). A national snapshot of introductory chemistry instructors and their instructional practices. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(4), 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00040