Despite the rapid expansion of higher education, many young adults still enter the labor market without a college education. However, little research has focused on racial/ethnic earnings disadvantages faced by non-college-educated youth. We analyze the restricted-use data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 to examine racial/ethnic earnings disparities among non-college-educated young men and women in their early 20s as of 2016, accounting for differences in premarket factors and occupation with an extensive set of controls. Results suggest striking earnings disadvantages for Black men relative to white, Latinx, and Asian men. Compared to white men, Latinx and Asian men do not earn significantly less, yet their earnings likely differ substantially by ethnic origin. While racial/ethnic earnings gaps are less prominent among women than men, women of all racial/ethnic groups have earnings disadvantages compared to white men. The results call for future studies into the heterogeneity within racial/ethnic groups and the intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender among non-college-educated young adults.

This study examines how feminist academic administrators engender solidarity and practice feminist principles as leaders in United States higher education institutions. We draw from qualitative interview data with 27 self-identified feminist academic leaders about how they carry out this work, what obstacles they face, and the ways that their work disrupts—and is disrupted by—the intensifying neoliberal, managerial tendencies in higher education. Respondents shared experiences of promoting solidarity through their leadership and strove to create inclusive and equitable environments to benefit students, staff, and faculty, and especially minoritized individuals within these groups. Our analysis reveals how these feminist administrators applied a feminist ethic, engendered solidarity in their work, and were often keenly aware of—and willing to contest—the neoliberal context of their institutions and higher education more broadly. Our findings contribute to the sociological and cross-disciplinary literature on feminist leaders in academic institutions and the resistance against neoliberalism and managerialism practices from within academia.

In introductory programming courses, automated repair tools (ARTs) are used to provide feedback to students struggling with debugging. Most successful ARTs take advantage of context-specific educational data to construct repairs to students’ buggy codes. Recent work in student program repair using large language models (LLMs) has also started to utilize such data. An underexplored area in this field is the use of ARTs in combination with LLMs. In this paper, we propose to transfer the repairing capabilities of existing ARTs to open large language models by finetuning LLMs on ART corrections to buggy codes. We experiment with this approach using three large datasets of Python programs written by novices. Our results suggest that a finetuned LLM provides more reliable and higher-quality repairs than the repair tool used for finetuning the model. This opens venues for further deploying and using educational LLM-based repair techniques. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

As early as age six, girls report higher math anxiety than boys, and children of both genders begin to endorse the stereotype that males are better at math than females. However, very few studies have examined the emergence of math attitudes in childhood, or the role parents may play in their transmission. The present study is the first to investigate the concordance of multiple implicit and explicit math attitudes and beliefs between 6- and 10-year-old children and their parents. Data from implicit association tasks (IATs) reveal that both parents and their children have implicit associations between math and difficulty, but only parents significantly associated math with males. Notably, males (fathers and sons) were more likely than females (mothers and daughters) to identify as someone who likes math (instead of reading), suggesting gender differences in academic preferences emerge early and remain consistent throughout adulthood. Critically, we provide the first evidence that both mothers' and fathers' attitudes about math relate to a range of math attitudes and beliefs held by their children, particularly their daughters. Results suggest that girls may be especially sensitive to parental math attitudes and beliefs. Together, data indicate that children entering formal school already show some negative math attitudes and beliefs and that parents' math attitudes may have a disproportionate impact on young girls.

The ability to engage in counterfactual thinking (reason about what else could have happened) is critical to learning, agency, and social evaluation. However, not much is known about how individual differences in counterfactual reasoning may play a role in children's social evaluations. In the current study, we investigate how prompting children to engage in counterfactual thinking about positive moral actions impacts children's social evaluations. Eighty-seven 4-8-year-olds were introduced to a character who engaged in a positive moral action (shared a sticker with a friend) and asked about what else the character could have done with the sticker (counterfactual simulation). Children were asked to generate either a high number of counterfactuals (five alternative actions) or a low number of counterfactuals (one alternative action). Children were then asked a series of social evaluation questions contrasting that character with one who did not have a choice and had no alternatives (was told to give away the sticker to his friend). Results show that children who generated selfish counterfactuals were more likely to positively evaluate the character with choice than children who did not generate selfish counterfactuals, suggesting that generating counterfactuals most distant from the chosen action (prosociality) leads children to view prosocial actions more positively. We also found age-related changes: as children got older, regardless of the type of counterfactuals generated, they were more likely to evaluate the character with choice more positively. These results highlight the importance of counterfactual reasoning in the development of moral evaluations. Research HighlightsOlder children were more likely to endorse agents who choose to share over those who do not have a choice.Children who were prompted to generate more counterfactuals were more likely to allocate resources to characters with choice.Children who generated selfish counterfactuals more positively evaluated agents with choice.Comparable to theories suggesting children punish willful transgressors more than accidental transgressors, we propose children also consider free will when making positive moral evaluations.

Fostering creative minds has always been a premise to ensure adaptation to new challenges of human civilization. While some alternative educational settings (i.e., Montessori) were shown to nurture creative skills, it is unknown how they impact underlying brain mechanisms across the school years. This study assessed creative thinking and resting-state functional connectivity via fMRI in 75 children (4-18 y.o.) enrolled either in Montessori or traditional schools. We found that pedagogy significantly influenced creative performance and underlying brain networks. Replicating past work, Montessori-schooled children showed higher scores on creative thinking tests. Using static functional connectivity analysis, we found that Montessori-schooled children showed decreased within-network functional connectivity of the salience network. Moreover, using dynamic functional connectivity, we found that traditionally-schooled children spent more time in a brain state characterized by high intra-default mode network connectivity. These findings suggest that pedagogy may influence brain networks relevant to creative thinking-particularly the default and salience networks. Further research is needed, like a longitudinal study, to verify these results given the implications for educational practitioners. Research HighlightsMost executive jobs are prospected to be obsolete within several decades, so creative skills are seen as essential for the near future.School experience has been shown to play a role in creativity development, however, the underlying brain mechanisms remained under-investigated yet.Seventy-five 4-18 years-old children, from Montessori or traditional schools, performed a creativity task at the behavioral level, and a 6-min resting-state MR scan.We uniquely report preliminary evidence for the impact of pedagogy on functional brain networks.

Initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in predominantly White contexts, including STEM fields, have primarily relied on approaches to increase the representation of minoritized individuals. However, an increase in the representation of minoritized individuals is only one step of the process, as the present study suggests that explicit beliefs about particular racial groups' abilities also matter. The present article examined whether classroom racial stereotype endorsement about science and math disadvantaged Black American adolescents relative to their White American peers. Across two longitudinal studies with 533 and 1,189 adolescents (N-adolescents = 1722; N-classrooms = 86; 45% Black American, 55% White American; 51% females; M-age = 13-14), classroom pro-White/anti-Black stereotype endorsement in the fall term predicted better science and math achievement scores for White American adolescents and lower science and math achievement scores for Black American adolescents at the end of the academic year. Student- and teacher-reported student engagement in science and math classrooms mediated the longitudinal relations between classroom pro-White/anti-Black stereotype endorsement and students' achievement scores. Results suggest that classrooms may be important conduits for communicating racial stereotypes that create racially hostile STEM learning environments.

Despite some gains, women continue to be underrepresented in many science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Using a national longitudinal dataset of 690 participants born in 1991, we tested whether spatial skills, measured in middle childhood, would help explain this gender gap. We modeled the relation between 4th-grade spatial skills and STEM majors while simultaneously accounting for competing cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Strong spatial skills in 4th grade directly increased the likelihood of choosing STEM college majors, above and beyond math achievement and motivation, verbal achievement and motivation, and family background. Additionally, 4th-grade spatial skills indirectly predicted STEM major choice via math achievement and motivation in the intervening years. Further, our findings suggest that gender differences in 4th-grade spatial skills contribute to women's underrepresentation in STEM majors. Research Highlights Using a national longitudinal dataset, we found 4th-grade spatial skills directly predicted STEM college major choice after accounting for multiple cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Strong spatial skills in 4th grade also elevated STEM major choice via enhanced math achievement and motivation in the intervening years. Gender differences in 4th-grade spatial skills contributed to women's underrepresentation in STEM college majors.

We have been learning about the learning of children and youth, teachers, and visitors over the course of 7 years as we developed and deepened a research agenda in education in our natural history museum. In 2016 in this journal, we detailed how we began this effort and the development and initial steps of an educational research agenda. Focusing on our work since then, our team of educational researchers describes how our research has revealed the considerable impact of out‐of‐school learning with youth, educators, and visitors and how we incorporate a focus upon equity across all areas of inquiry. We share main findings emerging from our research, early roadblocks and current challenges, and lessons about engaging in research on learning in a cultural institution with implications for both large and small settings.

Feedback-based iterative refinement is important in the development of any human-computer interface. The present work aims to evaluate and iteratively refine an immersive learning environment called Scale Worlds (SW), delivered via a head-mounted display (HMD). SW is a virtual learning environment encompassing scientific entities of a wide range of sizes that enables students an embodied experience while learning size and scale. Five usability experts performed think aloud while carrying out four interactive tasks in SW and compared three different design options during A/B testing. Improvement features based on the feedback from an earlier SW usability evaluation as well as HMD-specific features were examined. Usability experts completed the post-study system usability questionnaire, the NASA task load index, and a bipolar laddering survey that collected subjective perception of specific SW features. Results show that the progress panel (an improvement feature) was informative while the instructions (another improvement feature) caused clutter. The experts indicated clear usability preferences during A/B testing, which helped resolve three sets of theory-usability conflicts. The overall assessment of SW paved a path for theory-usability balance and provided valuable insights for designing and evaluating usability in immersive virtual learning environments.