Exploring Lived Experience: A Phenomenological Inquiry into the Perspectives of Marginalized Students and Their Instructors with Hybrid Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in STEM Education through a Critical Digital Pedagogy Lens
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite the potential of hybrid Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to enhance accessibility and engagement in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, few studies have specifically investigated its effectiveness in promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) for marginalized students. This phenomenological study explores how its blended learning format shapes the experiences and perceptions of both underrepresented minority students and their instructors. Grounded in critical digital pedagogy, the study examined 40 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions with 29 STEM students and 11 STEM instructors at a large Canadian university. Through thematic analysis, the data yielded ten key themes that highlight the various complexities of implementing and experiencing hybrid PBL. On the one hand, there is the increased flexibility that goes along with hybrid PBL in so many ways; on the other, there is another digital divide that limits full participation from students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds cohesively. These barriers make them entirely dependent on school resources, while others struggle to keep up with coursework. The critical but complex role of the teacher in creating an inclusive atmosphere in hybrid PBL is also pointed out in the research. On one hand, the teachers are valued as “Cultural Guide” responsible for breaking biases and facilitating inclusion for diverse learners, but on the other hand, the integration of technology adds many layers of complexity to EDI. Technology acts as a “double-edged sword”: both empowerment and marginalization of students entrench socio-economic polarities. Further on the complexity, the socioeconomic inequalities persist in hybrid PBL and influence the problem-solving approaches of students, the access to resources, and even their sense of belonging. What the difference shows is that instructors really have to be aware of these socioeconomic factors as they design PBL activities and work in groups. The study also shows that, even in the context of hybrid PBL, the gender stereotype persists: female students report that they are being pushed to non-technical roles and experiencing microaggressions. While students enjoy hybrid learning for its flexibility and accessibility, especially those with very diverse commitments, the level of digital literacy among both instructors and students is still very important to fully maximize its potential and avoid creating a situation of digital exclusion. These findings therefore suggest that while hybrid PBL has the potential to advance EDI within STEM education, its success involves a holistic approach that includes several key factors, from digital equity and culturally responsive training of instructors to support of individual students and critical consideration of technology use as part of power dynamics. The recent pandemic has further shown its applicability beyond emergency remote teaching, indicating that PBL could still remain a useful method in physical classrooms post-pandemic. By recognizing the interplay among pedagogy, technology, instructor awareness, and socioeconomic dynamics, educators can take meaningful steps toward fostering inclusive and equitable learning opportunities in STEM for all students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,018 | 0,034 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».