Fostering STEM identity through storytelling: links to belonging, self-efficacy, classroom climate, and lab performance

Abstract

This study explores how integrating an approach to storytelling, called contextualized storytelling, into the laboratory classroom may be related to students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, classroom climate, and lab performance. Contextualized storytelling is designed to help students connect academic content to their lived experiences through personalized narratives. Depending on the course learning outcomes, students shared their stories in written and multimodal formats. Using a mixed-methods case study design, data were collected from 105 first-year students enrolled in General Chemistry I and II through pre- and post-course surveys, storytelling artifacts, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative findings revealed that storytelling reflection, scientific accuracy, and effort were significantly associated with higher levels of self-efficacy, and all three dimensions positively correlated with both story-based and traditional lab grades. Storytelling creativity also showed a modest positive relationship with students’ perceived improvement in disciplinary belonging. A t-test revealed that women scored significantly higher than men in scientific accuracy and storytelling grades, suggesting gender-based differences in narrative engagement. In addition, while General Chemistry II students achieved higher academic outcomes overall, General Chemistry I students demonstrated stronger personal connections in their storytelling, pointing to distinct affective engagement across courses. Interview data identified effort, personal connection, and group sharing as the storytelling features students found most meaningful to their learning. Together, these results suggest that storytelling connects academic engagement, reflective thinking, and STEM identity development while contributing to inclusive and supportive learning environments. This research offers practical guidance for post-secondary instructors aiming to enhance assessment quality and student connection through narrative-based pedagogy.

---

Introduction

Efforts to support diverse learners in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) underscore the need to rethink traditional first-year laboratory courses (Sweeder et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024). Labs often rely on verification-based activities in which students follow prescribed steps—“what is to be done, observed, interpreted, and reported” (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004, p. 40). This model emphasizes standardization and rote procedures, leaving little room for interpretation, personal connection, or meaningful engagement. Such an approach fails to accommodate the varied backgrounds, identities, and learning needs of today's students (Pontigon and Talanquer, 2025). Moreover, traditional assessment, such as rigid lab reports, has been shown to favour dominant groups and unintentionally disadvantage women and other underrepresented students by privileging performance under pressure and decontextualized reasoning (Statistics Canada, 2021). These limitations point to the need for more inclusive and reflective forms of assessment that value diverse ways of knowing and learning (Nieminen, 2022).

In response, educators are exploring more inclusive and engaging pedagogies that invite students to connect personally with scientific learning. One such approach is storytelling, which has long been recognized as a powerful tool for teaching, identity formation, and cultural transmission (Egan, 1989; Bruner, 1990), yet remains underutilized in university STEM contexts (Williams and Bedi, 2007). When used, it is typically instructor-driven and anecdotal rather than student-centred (Ray and Seely, 2019). Storytelling, however, enables students to make sense of learning experiences and develop their academic and personal identities. When students construct their own contextualized narratives, learning becomes more relevant, engaging, and motivating (Zumbrunn et al., 2014). This approach enhances conceptual understanding, supports academic success, and affirms diverse lived experiences (Ollove and Lteif, 2017). In particular, this strategy can amplify underrepresented voices and foster a more inclusive, equity-focused environment.

Contextualized storytelling in STEM

Contextualized storytelling (Paley, 1981) is an instructional approach to storytelling in the classroom that incorporates personal, culturally responsive, and discipline-specific narratives, providing a student-centred way to connect academic content to lived experiences. Rooted in constructivist theory (Dewey, 1933), this strategy shifts the focus from passive content absorption to active meaning-making. Reflection is central to this process, helping students develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes through intentional engagement rather than routine thinking (Copeland et al., 1993; Ho, 2023). Contextualized storytelling strengthens memory, deepens conceptual understanding, and fosters critical thinking (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Ho et al., 2021; van Brederode, 2025).

In STEM classrooms, contextualized storytelling can take multiple formats, such as reflective journals and digital storytelling assignments. These tools help students articulate how science concepts intersect with their lived realities, making learning more accessible and relevant (Ho et al., 2024; 2025). By combining storytelling with reflection, students engage both cognitively and emotionally, building connections to course content and their academic identities. This inclusive, student-driven approach fosters deeper engagement, greater persistence, and improved academic outcomes (Walton and Cohen, 2011). One of the key outcomes supported by this storytelling approach is the development of psychosocial factors, such as belonging, self-efficacy, and engagement with the classroom environment, that are vital to student success in STEM learning environments.

Sense of belonging

Belonging is a foundational human need (Maslow, 1954). Over time, scholars such as Erikson (1968), Baumeister and Leary (1995), and Tinto (2000) expanded this concept to encompass a sense of belonging, defined as the perceived connection between an individual's identity and their integration into a community or environment. Strayhorn's (2012) multidimensional model further develops this idea by incorporating the roles of race, gender, class, and other intersecting identities, emphasizing the shifting and contextual nature of belonging in higher education. Within this context, school belonging refers to the extent to which students feel accepted, respected, included, and supported in their academic environment (Goodenow and Grady, 1993). This includes both social belonging—feeling accepted by peers and instructors—and disciplinary belonging—feeling part of the academic community within a specific field (Strayhorn, 2012). A strong sense of belonging has been linked to increased academic motivation, confidence, adjustment, and achievement (Freeman et al., 2007; Ostrove and Long, 2007; Pittman and Richmond, 2008; Murphy and Zirkel, 2015). It also fosters empathy, communication, and self-awareness (Nakamura, 2022). Given students’ diverse learning needs and cultural backgrounds, pedagogical designs must intentionally cultivate belonging through inclusive and responsive practices (Ralph et al., 2022; Lemma et al., 2025).

Self-efficacy

Closely tied to belonging is self-efficacy, another key psychological construct that shapes how students navigate academic challenges. Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs in their ability to achieve desired outcomes, even in the face of challenges (Bandura, 1997). It involves two components: outcome expectancies – beliefs that specific actions will lead to particular outcomes, and efficacy expectations – beliefs in one's ability to perform those actions (Bandura, 1997). Students with high self-efficacy are more likely to attempt difficult tasks, invest effort, and persist through setbacks (Ferrell et al., 2016).

In STEM, where content is often perceived as difficult and exclusive, building self-efficacy is vital. Storytelling and structured reflection can play a critical role in this process. By narrating their academic learning journeys, students recognize personal growth, make meaning of obstacles, and see connections between their identity and scientific content (Ferrell et al., 2016). These narratives promote mastery, model resilience through peer stories, and offer emotional regulation strategies, all of which enhance confidence and persistence in STEM learning.

Classroom climate and peer interaction

Just as individual self-beliefs influence student success, the broader social and emotional environment, particularly classroom climate and peer interaction, also plays a crucial role in shaping academic outcomes. Classroom climate refers to students’ shared perceptions of the learning environment and how it affects motivation, engagement, and achievement (McAlpin et al., 2023). While students individually interpret the classroom atmosphere, a collective sense emerges through shared interactions and relationships (McAlpin et al., 2023). Peer-shared stories contribute meaningfully to this environment by fostering empathy, mutual understanding, and collaboration. When students share narratives tied to their academic experiences, they co-construct a more inclusive and trusting classroom culture. In this way, storytelling supports both emotional and cognitive engagement, reinforcing a positive classroom climate where students feel seen and supported. These social and emotional dimensions of the learning environment are closely tied to tangible academic outcomes, such as student performance in laboratory settings (Aladejana and Aderibigbe, 2007).

Student performance in laboratory settings is often used as an indicator of both conceptual understanding and practical skill development (Pontigon and Talanquer, 2025). Research has shown that affective factors such as self-efficacy and a sense of belonging significantly influence academic outcomes in STEM disciplines (Walton and Cohen, 2007; Chemers et al., 2011). Furthermore, recent studies have begun to explore how pedagogical innovations, such as storytelling or narrative reflection, can enhance student engagement and lead to improved performance (Martin et al., 2019). Including lab performance as an outcome in this study allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how storytelling may support both the emotional and academic dimensions of learning.

Gaps in the literature

Although recent studies have explored student-generated stories in STEM, empirical research linking storytelling to multiple psychosocial outcomes remains limited. For instance, Metzger and Taggart (2020) examined how storytelling influenced nursing students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and satisfaction in clinical learning environments. Similarly, Nation and Kang (2024) found that self-authored science stories helped high school students develop stronger science identities. These findings suggest that reflective and narrative-based learning can support the development of critical psychosocial constructs central to academic success and retention in STEM fields. However, these studies do not specifically address the approach of contextualized storytelling or the specific context of laboratory classrooms, which are distinct learning environments where students apply theoretical knowledge through hands-on, often high-pressure, and collaborative tasks. Laboratory settings offer rich opportunities for contextualized storytelling, enabling students to link procedural learning with personal experiences and evolving disciplinary identities. Thus, further investigation is needed to explore how contextualized storytelling in lab courses may be related to students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, classroom climate, and academic performance, particularly among diverse learners in early undergraduate education. Examining how students construct, reflect on, and share science-related stories in response to their laboratory experiences may illuminate new pathways for fostering identity formation, emotional engagement, and learner confidence. Such research is especially critical for informing inclusive pedagogical strategies that seek to humanize laboratory learning and make science more accessible, relevant, and personally meaningful.

Research goals

This multi-phase study aims to support student learning in inclusive and equitable ways. Our previous research explored storytelling assignment design and student experiences in General Chemistry I and II laboratories (Ho et al., 2024, 2025). Building on that foundation, this phase investigates how storytelling relates to student engagement, sense of belonging, self-efficacy, classroom climate, and lab performance. Specifically, the research questions are the following:

1. How did students engage with the storytelling assignment in terms of their selected media formats and performance across five evaluation dimensions: creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort?

2. To what extent do students’ storytelling artifacts correlate with their levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and perceptions of classroom climate? How do these relationships differ or manifest between genders?

3. How do students’ storytelling artifacts relate to their lab performance?

4. What storytelling elements contribute most to a student's learning?

Methodology and methods

This research used a mixed-method case study design, combining quantitative and qualitative data to understand the findings comprehensively (Creswell and Creswell, 2017; Yin, 2018). In this approach, data from both methods are collected simultaneously using a convergent core design, where each data type is independently analyzed before being integrated. Integrating the findings from both data sources allows for a more nuanced interpretation, enabling a deeper exploration of the research questions and offering a richer perspective on the case being examined.

Participants

This study employed a purposeful sampling strategy to recruit first-year students enrolled in General Chemistry I and II during the Winter 2025 semester at a mid-sized university. Of the 354 students registered, 233 (65.8%) self-identified as women and 121 (34.2%) as men. A total of 105 students participated in the survey component, and 24 of those volunteered for follow-up interviews. Ethical approval was granted by the institutional Human Research Ethics Board (Clearance #104027). Prior to participation, students were informed of the study's purpose and the voluntary nature of their involvement, and written informed consent was obtained. To incentivize participation, 1% extra credit toward the final course grade was allocated (and non-participants had an alternative means of earning the 1% extra credit). Each participant was assigned a unique alphanumeric code to ensure confidentiality.

Researcher positionality

The study team consisted of three members: KH, the chemistry laboratory coordinator for the courses in which data were collected; AC, an undergraduate chemistry student researcher; and DC, a faculty member. KH and AC, drawing on their backgrounds in chemistry learning, played key roles in participant recruitment and data collection. KH led the data analysis, leveraging her expertise in chemistry education and qualitative research, while DC and AC also contributed to the analysis and provided feedback and collaborative input to ensure consistency, rigor, and multiple interpretive perspectives. Both KH and DC were actively involved in drafting and revising this manuscript.

Data collection

Survey. The survey, which included multiple motivational constructs, was administered to students who expressed interest in participating. This analysis focuses on students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and classroom climate, measured using the Course Affective Outcome Questionnaire (Wolters and Pintrich, 1998) and the adapted Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991). Specifically, self-efficacy was measured using six items adapted from the MSLQ, which focused on students’ confidence in applying chemistry concepts, solving problems, and completing lab-related tasks. In the original validation study, the self-efficacy subscale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.65 to 0.78 (Pintrich et al., 1991). These established values support the reliability of the instrument, even when adapted or shortened, as in the current study.

Surveys were conducted twice—once at the beginning of the semester and again near the end—and consisted primarily of multiple-choice items. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with 4 (neither agree nor disagree) representing more neutral responses. Gender data were also collected to better understand the diversity of students and support equity-focused analyses.

Students’ contextualized stories. The storytelling assignments were integrated into the regular assessment structure of General Chemistry I and II laboratory courses and contributed 10% of the students’ overall lab grade. These assignments were designed to support the development of all students’ STEM identities, as well as their sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and the classroom climate. Students submitted a series of written or multimodal narratives that invited them to reflect on personal experiences – such as cultural backgrounds, work, or everyday observations – and connect these to chemistry concepts covered in lab coordinator-selected pairs of lessons.

These lab pairs were chosen to ensure conceptual continuity and opportunities for progressive learning (e.g., pairing kinetics with equilibrium or stoichiometry with titration), and were aligned with the course's core learning outcomes: demonstrating chemistry understanding, applying concepts to real-life contexts, using accessible scientific communication, and engaging in reflective learning.

Students received explicit assignment guidelines (see Appendix A), including storytelling prompts and expectations, and were encouraged to use accessible, non-technical language to make meaningful connections between course content and lived experiences. Depending on their course enrolment, students completed four or more contextualized stories over the semester.

These assignments were assessed using a grading rubric provided to students in advance, which evaluated five criteria: scientific accuracy and clarity, creativity and originality, connection to personal or cultural context, communication style, and overall narrative coherence. This rubric was used for course grading purposes and was distinct from the research coding rubric developed for analysis in this study, which focused on analytical dimensions such as depth of reflection, strength of personal connection, and the coherence of conceptual linking (see Appendix B).

Interview. Students’ contextualized stories served as artifacts that informed the development of the interview protocol and provided meaningful insight into the study's research questions by allowing participants to generate data from their own narratives (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2018). To support validation of the survey findings, one-on-one interviews were conducted with 24 participants after the final storytelling assignment was submitted. Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes and followed a semi-structured format.

To minimize the potential for bias or undue influence, a trained undergraduate research assistant was responsible for scheduling and leading all interviews. The research assistant underwent training provided by the lead researcher, which included a review of the semi-structured interview guide, mock interview practice sessions, and feedback on interview technique. The assistant was also trained in maintaining confidentiality, obtaining informed consent, and adhering to ethical research protocols outlined in the TCPS 2 (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans). All interviews were audio-recorded using Otter.ai, and data analysis began only after final course grades had been submitted and the appeal period had ended.

Interview participants were asked four open-ended questions, introduced orally to ensure clarity and consistency. To support shared understanding, participants were also provided with brief, working definitions of key terms to help them interpret the questions fully. The four guiding interview questions were:

• Does the storytelling assignment help make learning visible? If so, how?

• Do you feel the storytelling assignment positively or negatively influenced your sense of belonging? If so, how?

• Which elements of the storytelling assignment contribute most to your sense of belonging?

• In what ways, if any, did the storytelling assignment shape your sense of identity?

Data analysis

Quantitative data. Storytelling artifacts were analyzed using a research coding rubric that was distinct from the course grading rubric provided to students. While the two rubrics shared overlapping themes, the research rubric was specially designed to align with the study's analytical framework. The medium used was recorded as a categorical variable (e.g., visual, poem, comic, etc.), while the remaining five dimensions – creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort – were coded on a 4-point scale using standardized descriptors. Each of these five dimensions was rated from 1 (minimal demonstration) to 4 (strong, consistent representation). Numerical values were assigned based on the presence and relevance of these elements. Coding was conducted iteratively, and the resulting data were used to examine correlations with survey responses and lab performance. In addition, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to examine the frequency and percentage of the types of media students selected for their storytelling artifacts. Survey responses were collected at the beginning and near the end of the course using multiple-choice items on a 7-point Likert scale to assess students’ perceptions of sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and classroom climate. Students with incomplete or invalid responses were excluded to maintain data integrity.

Quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS. We considered two key assumptions for Pearson correlations: the observations are independent and that the variables follow a bivariate normal distribution within the population. In terms of the first, each case was collected for a different student based on work and surveys completed individually by that student. The second assumption regarding bivariate normal distribution in the population is satisfied if the sample size is greater than approximately 25, which is the case for the current study. In addition, we screened histograms for each variable to check for outliers and examined scatterplots for each pair of variables to check for linearity. Pearson correlation coefficients were then calculated to explore relationships between storytelling components and students’ psychosocial outcomes. Analyses were also conducted to examine whether the effects of storytelling on psychosocial outcomes varied by student gender and lab performance levels.

Qualitative data. Saldana's (2021) two-cycle coding approach guided the analysis of qualitative data. As Creswell (2012) explains, “coding is the process of segmenting and labelling text to form descriptions and broad themes in data” (p. 243), helping to condense material and identify patterns relevant to the research questions (Miles et al., 2018). Miles et al. (2018) further describe how “codes are first assigned to data chunks to detect recurring patterns. From these patterns, similar codes are clustered together to create a smaller number of categories or pattern codes” (p. 73).

To ensure trustworthiness, the study employed multiple methods of data collection, including surveys, contextualized stories, and interviews. This triangulation offered a comprehensive understanding of the research problem and helped corroborate findings. Consistent with Lincoln and Guba's (1985) framework for trustworthiness in case study research, a single researcher conducted all coding using an intrarater approach. While multiple coders are commonly used in some qualitative designs, the decision to use a single coder in this study was intentional to maintain analytical consistency and depth across diverse data sources. This approach allowed for a more holistic interpretation as the researcher developed deep familiarity with the narratives and context over multiple rounds of coding.

To enhance reliability, data were coded and re-coded iteratively, and intrarater reliability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), yielding a value of 0.96 (with +1 indicating perfect agreement and −1 perfect disagreement). Ongoing comparisons across data sources refined categories and ensured coherence. A sample interview coding table is included in Appendix C, and coding criteria for the storytelling artifacts are presented in Appendix D.

Results

The results are organized and presented by research question.

RQ 1. How did students engage with the storytelling assignment in terms of their selected media formats and performance across five evaluation dimensions: creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort?

Students drew on a range of narrative strategies and representational forms to construct their storytelling artifacts, informed by their personal experiences and the learning environment. As shown in Table 1, the majority of students chose to present their artifacts in visual (59%) or written form (23.8%), while formats such as song (1.9%) were selected less frequently.

Table 1 Frequencies and percentages of different media formats submitted by students for their storytelling artifacts (N = 105)

Medium	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Writing	25	23.8
Poem	10	9.5
Comic	3	2.9
Video	2	1.9
Visual	62	59.0
Song	2	1.9
No artifact	1	1.5

---

Students’ artifacts were analyzed and coded according to five key dimensions: creativity, reflection, personal connection, science accuracy, and effort, each rated on a 4-point scale. For example, Student 11 demonstrates high performance across all five dimensions (Fig. 1). Their artifact, a poem titled, An Ode to Titration, is highly creative, using extended metaphor and poetic form to reframe titration as a peace negotiation between acid and base. The poem reflects deep personal insight, particularly in lines such as “I no longer think, or ponder, I know,” which signal an epistemological shift and growing confidence in their disciplinary understanding. The student expresses a strong personal connection by contrasting abstract instruction with embodied lab experience, portraying chemistry as something felt, lived, and internalized. Scientific accuracy is also maintained, with clear references to neutralization, indicators, and equilibrium. Most notably, the poem fosters a sense of belonging by positioning the student within the discipline – not merely an observer, but as someone who participates meaningfully in the practice of chemistry. Through metaphors that humanize laboratory procedures and transform them into emotionally resonant experiences, the student claims ownership over the scientific process. The lab is described as “sacred” and theatrical space where “there is a show”, suggesting that the student feels seen, valued, and included in the chemistry learning environment. Ultimately, the artifact invites the reader to view chemistry not as distant or sterile, but as a discipline one can emotionally inhabit – a key indicator of belonging.

Fig. 1 Student 11's use of storytelling through poetry fosters a sense of belonging within the Chemistry discipline.

Another example that demonstrates high degrees of reflection and personal connection is Student 8's work in Fig. 2. The student shows strong creativity by integrating 3D modelling and printing of the school logo using UV-curable resin, effectively linking a personal hobby with course content. The explanation reflects deep conceptual understanding and reflection, particularly in recognizing how the principles of chemical kinetics, such as reaction rate and light exposure, are embodied in the printing process. There is a clear personal connection, as the student articulates how their engagement with hands-on technology enhanced their ability to visualize and grasp abstract concepts that were previously challenging. The scientific content is accurate and well-applied, and the inclusion of visuals and process explanation demonstrates a high level of engagement, making this a compelling and insightful example of learning through contextualized storytelling.

Fig. 2 Student 8's artifact: 3D-printed school logo demonstrating principles of chemical kinetics using UV-curable resin.

In contrast, Student 25 presents an artifact that demonstrates a more structured and academic tone with limited evidence of affective engagement or personal reflection (Fig. 3). The student summarizes the lab procedures and outcomes, such as standardizing NaOH solutions and interpreting pH curves, demonstrating conceptual understanding of titration. While the discussion of color change reflects accurate scientific knowledge and procedural insight, the artifact does not explore how these experiences shaped the students’ broader thinking, interests, or learning process. There is no mention of personal background, motivation, or emotions, and the tone remains general and report-like. Although this format may reflect the students’ preferred or familiar communication style, and does show disciplinary understanding, it is less evidence of individualized meaning-making or identity development, dimensions we coded as personal connection and reflection. This comparison highlights how students may demonstrate learning in diverse ways, and underscores the importance of recognizing both cognitive and affective forms of engagement in inclusive assessment practices.

Fig. 3 Student 25 low reflection artifact: descriptive account of titration skills with limited personal insight.

Another example of an artifact that shows less reflection and personal connection is Student 26 (Fig. 4). Student 26's response demonstrates low reflection and personal connection because it primarily focuses on describing factual information and basic learning outcomes without delving into personal insights or emotional engagement. The student summarizes what they learned about chemical kinetics in general terms, such as analyzing reaction rates and recognizing the effect of varying concentrations, but does not explain how this experience impacted their thinking, interests, or future goals. There is little evidence of introspection or meaningful connection to the parody video or the practical skill lab, and the academic growth described is surface-level rather than reflective of deeper learning or personal relevance.

Fig. 4 Student 26's reflection on the concentration over time during the practical skill 3 lab demonstrates a low personal connection and reflection.

In summary, students demonstrated a consistent pattern of mid-to-high performance across their storytelling artifacts based on the five evaluation metrics: creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort (Fig. 5). Very few students scored at the lowest level (1) across any metric. Most ratings clustered at levels 2 and 3, with particularly high frequencies at level 3 for Reflection and Personal Connection, suggesting that students were generally able to thoughtfully engage with the assignment and relate the content to their lived experiences. Scientific Accuracy stood out with the highest number of level 2 ratings, indicating that while students demonstrated some understanding of scientific concepts, there was room for deeper content integration. Creativity and Effort were also concentrated in the mid-range, though Creativity showed a slightly stronger presence at level 4 compared to Personal Connection. Overall, fewer students achieved the highest rating (4) across the metrics, with Personal Connection especially underrepresented at that level, possibly reflecting the challenge of making explicit and meaningful personal links to scientific material. These patterns suggest that while students engaged meaningfully with the storytelling assignment, further instructional support could enhance deeper reflection, personal relevance, and disciplinary integration.

Fig. 5 Distribution of student scores across five storytelling evaluation metrics: creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort. Scores range from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest).

RQ 2. To what extent do students’ storytelling artifacts correlate with their levels of self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and perceptions of classroom climate? How do these relationships differ or manifest between genders?

Correlation analysis revealed several significant relationships between storytelling components and students’ psychosocial outcomes in a first-year general chemistry context. As shown in Fig. 6, all reported numerical values represent Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), which measures the strength and direction of linear relationships between variables. A coefficient between 0.2 and 0.3 is generally interpreted as a small effect, while values above 0.3 reflect a moderate relationship (Cohen, 1988).

Fig. 6 Pearson correlation matrix showing relationships between five storytelling dimensions (creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort) and three psychosocial outcomes (self-efficacy, disciplinary belonging, and classroom climate). All values represent Pearson's r coefficients.

Storytelling reflection (r = 0.346, p < 0.05) and scientific accuracy (r = 0.272, p < 0.05) show statistically significant, positive correlations with gains in self-efficacy, suggesting that students who engaged in more contextualized storytelling or included accurate scientific content tended to experience greater increases in academic confidence over the term. The moderate strength of reflection correlation suggests that metacognitive engagement, thinking about one's learning and expressing how it evolved, may be particularly impactful in promoting students’ belief in their ability to succeed in chemistry.

Storytelling effort was also significantly correlated with post self-efficacy scores (r = 0.233, p < 0.05), though not with self-efficacy gain scores, indicating that students who invested greater effort in storytelling tended to feel more confident at the end of the course, even if that confidence did not significantly change from baseline. This suggests that effort alone may be related to stable or existing confidence rather than improvement.

Storytelling creativity was also modestly associated with perceived improvement in disciplinary belonging (r = 0.254, p < 0.05), suggesting that students who approached storytelling in imaginative or original ways may have felt a deeper connection to the field of chemistry. This supports the idea that creative expression can enhance disciplinary identity by allowing students to see themselves as active participants in knowledge-making.

Interestingly, personal connection showed a low and nonsignificant correlation with perceived improvement in belonging, suggesting that while personal or cultural relevance is often viewed as a key to inclusive pedagogy, it may not be the only, or even the most effective, pathway to fostering a sense of disciplinary belonging. These results underscore the importance of recognizing multiple avenues of engagement, including cognitive effort, scientific accuracy, and creativity, in supporting the development of confidence and identity in STEM.

Intercorrelations among storytelling dimensions, such as creativity, reflection, personal connection, scientific accuracy, and effort, were consistently strong, reinforcing the multifaceted nature of high-quality narratives. This suggests that students who engage deeply in one area (e.g. reflection) often demonstrate strength across other dimensions, pointing to a holistic engagement with the task. It is important to note that Pearson's correlation does not imply causation; rather, these findings highlight meaningful associations that may inform future pedagogical design and research.

A t-test comparing mean course outcomes by gender revealed that women performed significantly higher than men in both scientific accuracy and overall storytelling grades (Fig. 7). Gender labels (“woman” and “man”) were self-reported on the survey. Responses such as “non-binary person,” “not listed,” “prefer not to answer,” and missing data were all coded as not reported to protect anonymity; as a result, these responses were excluded from the analysis. These gender-based differences were stronger than those observed in a separate t-test comparing non-story grades, which trended higher for women but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). This suggests that storytelling activities may offer a more inclusive form of assessment, one that supports women's learning and achievement beyond what is captured by traditional, non-narrative coursework.

Fig. 7 Gender differences in engagement and performance.

RQ 3. How do students’ storytelling artifacts relate to their lab performance?

Several storytelling dimensions were significantly associated with students’ academic performance in both story-based and non-story assessments (Fig. 8). Scientific accuracy showed the strongest correlation with non-story grades (r = 0.522, p < 0.01) and also correlated significantly with story grades (r = 0.421, p < 0.01). Similarly, storytelling reflection was significantly related to non-story grades (r = 0.414, p < 0.01) and story grades (r = 0.313, p < 0.05), while effort correlated with story-based grades (r = 0.404, p < 0.01), non-story grades (r = 0.375, p < 0.01), and the difference between them (r = 0.284, p < 0.01). Creativity was also strongly correlated with performance, showing significant correlations with non-story grades (r = 0.351, p < 0.01) and story grades (r = 0.293). These findings suggest that students who demonstrated greater engagement across storytelling dimensions, particularly in scientific accuracy, reflection, effort, and creativity, tended to perform better in both narrative and traditional lab assessments.

Fig. 8 Correlations between storytelling dimensions and academic performance.

An analysis comparing General Chemistry I and II revealed notable differences in how students engaged with the storytelling activity (Fig. 9). While students in General Chemistry II achieved significantly higher story (90.20%) and non-story (87.93%) grades, students in General Chemistry I demonstrated stronger personal connections in their narratives (mean personal connection score of 2.96). This finding suggests that the nature of engagement may vary by course context. For instance, students in General Chemistry I, often newer to university-level science, may have found storytelling to be a more emotionally resonant tool for meaning-making and identity development. In contrast, students in General Chemistry II may have had greater prior exposure to lab-based assessment, contributing to higher overall performance but less expression of personal relevance. These results highlight how disciplinary learning and psychosocial engagement can unfold differently depending on students’ stage in the curriculum, underscoring the importance of context when designing reflective and inclusive assessment practices.

Fig. 9 Contrasting academic and personal connections across 1201 (General Chemistry I) and 1202 (General Chemistry II).

RQ 4. What storytelling elements contribute most to a student's learning?

To investigate which storytelling elements most meaningfully contributed to student learning, twenty-four students participated in follow-up interviews after completing the survey. Three core elements emerged: effort, personal connection, and group sharing. Effort in narrative form was identified by 16.67% of students (4 out of 24) as a catalyst for deeper engagement with scientific content. For example, Student 11 described how using poetry, specifically, free verse structure, helped align their expression with the chemistry concepts they were exploring, making the assignment feel more intellectually and emotionally engaging.

Student 11: “Narrative structure… The use of a free verse rhyme scheme aligned with the scientific concepts I was exploring.”

Personal connection was emphasized by 33.33% of students (8 out of 24), who reflected on how linking storytelling to lived experiences supported conceptual understanding and integration of chemistry with identity. As Student 01 noted, reframing personal memories into story form helped them “think more about how everything connects,” deepening their comprehension of course material.

Student 01: “Thinking back, it was a lot about personal stuff, like, remembering my own experiences and then kinda reframing [connecting] them with the [storytelling] assignments. It made me think more about how everything connects.”

The most frequently cited element was group sharing, reported by 50% of students (12 out of 24), who described how storytelling assignments facilitated dialogue with peers and instructors. Student 03 highlighted how peer storytelling discussions promoted collaborative learning by linking theoretical concepts to real-world lab experiences. Student 15 shared that storytelling also enhanced their instructor relationship, allowing them to convey their academic growth in a more personalized, meaningful way.

Student 03: “It started a discussion because we were sharing complex theoretical concepts alongside our real classroom and lab experiences. Having a storytelling assignment made it way easier [for us] to connect.”

Student 15: “Engaging in storytelling assignments has significantly enhanced my connection with my instructor. By applying the knowledge gained in class to these assignments, I can demonstrate how his teachings have impacted me personally. This process allows him to understand me better as an individual.”

These findings suggest that storytelling fosters learning through emotional resonance, identity integration, and social interaction, ultimately helping students construct richer, more connected understandings of chemistry concepts.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, it focuses solely on students' personal experiences and does not account for the experiences or preparation of instructors. Instructors with less experience in facilitating storytelling assignments may find it challenging to guide students effectively throughout the learning process. They might need help providing structured frameworks that help students connect their experiences to course content or foster a classroom environment that encourages open, critical thinking. Second, the study findings may not be generalizable because the specific aspects of the institution (e.g., campus climate and diversity initiatives) may differ from other universities. Third, since storytelling is a relatively new approach for STEM students, it may influence how deeply they engage with the assignment despite its potential learning benefits. Finally, the study examines correlations between students’ storytelling artifacts and variables such as lab performance and gender. As such, the results indicate relationships rather than causal effects.

Discussion and conclusion

Students’ narratives serve as powerful tools for connecting personal experiences with disciplinary learning (Collins et al., 2023). This study found that reflection and scientific accuracy were strongly associated with gains in self-efficacy. This suggests that students' meaningful engagement with content and accurate representation of scientific ideas is connected with their confidence in their academic abilities. Storytelling effort was linked to post-course confidence, highlighting how sustained, creative engagement may foster a stronger sense of ownership and personal growth. Together, reflection, scientific accuracy, and effort were strongly related to stronger lab performance, underscoring their connection to both psychosocial and academic outcomes. Gender-based analysis revealed that women outperformed men in both scientific accuracy and storytelling grades, suggesting that they may engage more deeply or effectively in expressive, narrative-based tasks. While classroom climate correlations were modest, students who demonstrated stronger scientific accuracy also tended to perceive the learning environment more positively, implying that epistemic alignment may support inclusion. Interview findings reinforced these results, with students identifying effort, personal connection, and group sharing as key elements that enhanced their learning. Overall, by centring students’ lived experiences, contextualized storytelling appears to validate identities and promote transformative engagement with science learning (Lewis and Lewis, 2008; Rowland et al., 2016; Reyes and Villanueva, 2024).

Future research should examine how stories can help students critically reflect on, observe, and react to the interconnected challenges of our world. Particular emphasis could be placed on how stories in STEM education stimulate interest in and care for today's pressing global issues, such as climate change, food insecurity, and technological advancement (Maspul, 2024). By doing this, contextualized storytelling can serve as a bridge between technological expertise and civic obligation, empowering students with the ability to contextualize issues comprehensively and compassionately. Examining the role that students’ narratives play in connecting academic studies to societal issues might be a key to new approaches for fostering critical thinking, civic participation, and cross-disciplinary problem-solving.

Overall, while the majority of students responded positively to contextualized storytelling, some storytelling artifacts revealed challenges, particularly in demonstrating deep reflection and personal connection. These limitations underscore the importance of careful scaffolding, mentorship, and ongoing support. Keeping student voices and experiences at the forefront is central to the development of more inclusive and engaging university classrooms. Not only is this imperative vital to enhanced academic engagement, but also to preparing students to live in and contribute to an increasingly complex and dynamic world. Through embracing authentic storytelling as a pedagogy, educators can impart intellectual independence and establish the basis for lifelong learning.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the project. KH contributed to the conceptualization and design, while KH and AC were involved in data collection. KH, AC, and DC contributed to the data analysis. The manuscript was primarily written by KH in collaboration with DC. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Data availability

The data supporting this study—including survey responses, storytelling artifacts, and interview transcripts—are not publicly available, as participants did not consent to public data sharing and ethics approval for this study did not include permission to make the data publicly available. Sharing the data could potentially compromise participant privacy.

Appendices

A. Assignment instruction

Overview. In this assignment, you will write a short narrative that connects your personal, cultural, or everyday experiences to a core chemistry concept from recent lab lessons. Your story should demonstrate understanding of the concept while showing how it applies meaningfully to your life or world. You are encouraged to write in clear, non-technical language, as if explaining the idea to someone outside the course.

Course learning outcome. These outcomes include: (1) applying fundamental chemistry concepts to real-world or personal contexts, (2) communicating scientific ideas clearly and effectively to diverse audiences, and (3) demonstrating reflective thinking and metacognitive awareness in laboratory-based learning.

Each story must include:

• A brief context that sets the scene (e.g., a work situation, family tradition, hobby, or everyday experience)

• Two chemistry concepts or ideas drawn from the relevant lab content

• An explanation of how you understand the concept in your own words

• A clear connection between your context and the chemistry content

• A short reflection on what you learned or how your understanding changed

Length: Less than 500 words (written), or multimodal equivalent

Number of stories: 4 required throughout the term, each connected to a specific pair of lab sessions.

B. Grading rubric

Criteria	Mark	Description
Scientific accuracy & clarity	Excellent (5)	Chemistry concept is clearly and accurately explained
	Proficient (4)	Concept is mostly accurate, minor errors
	Acceptable (3)	Basic explanation, some confusion
	Insufficient (1–2)	Major in accuracies or unclear concept
Personal/cultural connection	Excellent (5)	Deep, meaningful connection to lived experienced
	Proficient (4)	Clear, relevant connection
	Acceptable (3)	Some attempt at connection
	Insufficient (1–2)	Minimal or unclear connection
Creativity & originality	Excellent (5)	Highly engaging, original narrative approach
	Proficient (4)	Some creativity shown
	Acceptable (3)	Story is basic or conventional
	Insufficient (1–2)	Lacks originality or engagement
Communication & accessibility	Excellent (5)	Clear, non-technical language, highly understandable to general audience
	Proficient (4)	Mostly clear language, with some jargon
	Acceptable (3)	Some unclear sections or technical phrasing
	Insufficient (1–2)	Difficult to follow, overly technical
Overall effort & coherence	Excellent (5)	Well-structured, thoughtful, and logically organized
	Proficient (4)	Mostly well-organized with major gaps
	Acceptable (3)	Basic organization, limited depth
	Insufficient (1–2)	Disorganized or lacks coherence

C. Coding table: narrative structure, personal connection, group sharing

Quote	Narrative structure (organization, flow, story elements)	Personal connection (relating academic to personal life, emotions, identity)	Group sharing (peer interaction, collaboration, co-creation)	Notes
“To interact with my peers, to come up with things that I could explore and look into.”			Peer collaboration	Strong group sharing
“I felt more connected to the topic because I could see it in my daily life.”		Relating theory to life		Deep personal connection
“The use of a free verse rhyme aligned with the scientific concepts I was exploring.”	Clear organization around storytelling and structure			Strong narrative structure; blends creativity with academic concepts

D. Coding for evaluating creative chemistry storytelling artifacts

Category	Category	Description	Level
	WRIT	Written narrative/quote	—
	POEM	Poem	—
	COMIC	Comic	—
	VIDEO	Video recording	—
	VISUAL	Visual artwork/photo/craft/3D model/word cloud	—
	SONG	Song lyric	—
Creativity		Highly original, imaginative approach	4	Unique format or storyline; expressive language or metaphor
Creativity		Some creative elements	3	Slightly adapted format, creative framing of content
Creativity		Limited creativity	2	Straightforward or literal retelling
Creativity		No creative elements	1	Formulaic, minimal engagement
Reflection		Deep insight into chemistry and self	4	Discusses struggles, 'aha' moments, shifts in understanding
Reflection		Some reflection	3	Basic personal reaction or lesson
Reflection		Surface-level	2	Mentions chemistry but not personally reflective
Reflection		None	1	Purely descriptive, no reflection
Personal connection		Strong personal tie	4	Family story, cultural relevance, lived experience
Personal connection		Some personal relevance	3	General life experience (e.g., high school memory)
Personal connection		Weak tie	2	Generic or impersonal context
Personal connection		No personal connection	1	Academic or abstract only
Scientific accuracy		Accurate and well-integrated chemistry	4	Concepts clearly explained in context
Scientific accuracy		Mostly accurate	3	Minor conceptual errors, but explained in context
Scientific accuracy		Some inaccuracies	2	Misunderstood or poorly explained
Scientific accuracy		Incorrect or missing	1	No connection to chemistry or incorrect
Effort		Above and beyond	4	Detailed, polished, clearly invested
Effort		Solid effort	3	Complete and thoughtful
Effort		Minimal effort	2	Rushed, incomplete in parts
Effort		Bare minimum	1	Token submission, no revision or care

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the students from General Chemistry I and II, Winter 2024–25 semester, for participating in this research project. We would also like to thank volunteer Harman Kaur for their assistance in recruiting student participants. Additionally, we thank the Canadian Consortium of Science Equity Scholars (CCSES) for preparing and collecting the survey data.

References

1. Aladejana F. and Aderibigbe O., (2007), Science laboratory environment and academic performance, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16(6), 500–506 DOI:10.1007/s10956-007-9072-4.
2. Anderson L. W. and Krathwohl D. R., (2001), A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, Longman.
3. Bandura A., (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W. H. Freeman.
4. Baumeister R. F. and Leary M. R., (1995), The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Psychol. Bull., 117(3), 497–529 DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
5. Bloomberg L. and Volpe M., (2018), Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Roadmap from Beginning to End, 4th edn, SAGE Publications Inc.
6. Bruner J., (1990), Acts of Meaning: Four Lectures on Mind and Culture, Harvard University Press.
7. Chemers M. M., Zurbriggen E. L., Syed M., Goza B. K. and Bearman S., (2011), The Role of Efficacy and Identity in Science Career Commitment Among Underrepresented Minority Students, J. Soc. Issues., 67(3), 469–491 DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x.
8. Cohen J., (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn, Routledge.
9. Collins S., Steele T. and Nelson M., (2023), Storytelling as Pedagogy: The Power of Chemistry Stories as a Tool for Classroom Engagement, J. Chem. Educ., 100(7), 2664–2672 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00008.
10. Copeland W. D., Birmingham C., De La Cruz E. and Lewin B., (1993), The reflective practitioner in teaching: toward a research agenda, Teach. Teach. Educ., 9(4), 347–359 DOI:10.1016/0742-051X(93)90002-X.
11. Creswell J. W., (2012), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th edn, Pearson Education Inc.
12. Creswell J. W. and Creswell J. D., (2017), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th edn, SAGE Publications Inc.
13. Dewey J., (1933), in Boydston J. A., (ed.) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Southern Illinois Up, vol. 8.
14. Egan K., (1989), Teaching as Story Telling: An Alternative Approach to Teaching and Curriculum in the Elementary School, University of Chicago Press.
15. Erikson E. H., (1968), Identity Youth and Crisis, W. W. Norton.
16. Ferrell B., Phillips M. M. and Barbera J., (2016), Connecting achievement motivation to performance in general chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(4), 1054–1066 10.1039/C6RP00148C.
17. Freeman T. M., Anderman L. H. and Jensen J. M., (2007), Sense of Belonging in College Freshmen at the Classroom and Campus Levels, J. Exp. Educ., 75(3), 203–220 DOI:10.3200/JEXE.75.3.203-220.
18. Goodenow C. and Grady K. E., (1993), The Relationship of School Belonging and Friends’ Values to Academic Motivation Among Urban Adolescent Students, J. Exp. Educ., 62(1), 60–71 DOI:10.1080/00220973.1993.9943831.
19. Ho K., (2023), The Integration of Community Service Learning and Reflection in a Post-Secondary Chemistry Lab, Doctoral Thesis, University of Calgary, Available at: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/d6cfab39-4f53-4660-a3ef-5ea20779c512 (Accessed: June 24, 2025).
20. Ho K., De Los Santos M. J., Luong Y. and Clark D. B., (2025), Implementing diverse continuous reflective strategies in a multi-section General Chemistry II lab, Can. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn., in press.
21. Ho K., Luong Y., Sherwood C. and Clark D. B., (2024), Widening university participation in learning using students’ contextualised storytelling in general chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 25(3), 908–919 10.1039/D4RP00084F.
22. Ho K., Smith S. R., Venter C. and Clark D. B., (2021), Case study analysis of reflective essays by chemistry post-secondary students within a lab-based community service learning water project, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(4), 973–984 10.1039/D1RP00123J.
23. Hofstein A. and Lunetta V. N., (2004), The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century, Sci. Educ., 88(1), 28–54 DOI:10.1002/sce.10106.
24. Lemma A., Muller K., Torres Z., Senespleda C. and Legron-Rodriguez T., (2025), Sense of belonging in a large enrollment general chemistry course: change over a semester, gender and ethnic group differences, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 26(3), 748–760 10.1039/D5RP00031A.
25. Lewis S. E. and Lewis J. E., (2008), Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: an HLM investigation of Peer-Led Guided Inquiry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45(7), 794–811 DOI:10.1002/tea.20254.
26. Lincoln Y. S. and Guba E. G., (1985), Naturalistic inquiry, 1st edn, SAGE Publications Inc.
27. Martin K., Davis L. and Sandretto S., (2019), Students as storytellers: mobile-filmmaking to improve student engagement in school science, JCOM., 18(05), A04 DOI:10.22323/2.18050204.
28. Maslow A., (1954), Motivation and personality, Harper & Brothers.
29. Maspul K. A., (2024), Exploring STEM Education for Real-World Climate Change Concerns to Empower Students as Change Agents, J. Phys. Educ. Sci., 1(2), 12 DOI:10.47134/physics.v1i2.249.
30. McAlpin J. D., Kulatunga U. and Lewis J. E., (2023), Using social influence models to characterize student interest in a general chemistry peer-led team learning setting, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(3), 1003–1024 10.1039/D2RP00296E.
31. Metzger M. and Taggart J., (2020), A longitudinal mixed methods study describing 4th year baccalaureate nursing students’ perceptions of inclusive pedagogical strategies, J. Prof. Nurs., 36(4), 229–235 DOI:10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.12.006.
32. Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. and Saldana J., (2018), Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 4th edn, SAGE Publications Inc.
33. Murphy M. C. and Zirkel S., (2015), Race and Belonging in School: How Anticipated and Experienced Belonging Affect Choice, Persistence, and Performance, Teach. Coll. Rec., 117(12), 1–40 DOI:10.1177/016146811511701204.
34. Nakamura A., (2022), Fostering Diversity and Inclusion and Understanding Implicit Bias in Undergraduate Chemical Education, J. Chem. Educ., 99(1), 331–337 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00422.
35. Nation J. and Kang H., (2024), “We need to step it up—We are basically the future”: Latinx young women co-construct science storylines in high school chemistry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 61(4), 873–904 DOI:10.1002/tea.21921.
36. Nieminen J. H., (2022), Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education, Teach. High. Educ., 29(4), 841–859 DOI:10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395.
37. Ollove M. and Lteif D., (2017), Integrating Systems Thinking and Storytelling, FormAkademisk, 10(1), 1–15 DOI:10.7577/formakademisk.874.
38. Ostrove J. M. and Long S. M., (2007), Social Class and Belonging: Implications for College Adjustment, Rev. High. Educ., 30(4), 363–389 DOI:10.1353/rhe.2007.0028.
39. Paley V. G., (1981) Wally's Stories: Conversations in the Kindergarten, Harvard University Press.
40. Pintrich P. R., Smith D. A. F., Garcia T. and McKeachie W. J., (1991), A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
41. Pittman L. D. and Richmond A., (2008), University Belonging, Friendship Quality, and Psychological Adjustment During the Transition to College, J. Exp. Educ., 76(4), 343–362 DOI:10.3200/JEXE.76.4.343-362.
42. Pontigon D. and Talanquer V., (2025), Examining student engagement in the organic chemistry laboratory, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 26(3), 780–793 10.1039/D5RP00063G.
43. Ralph V. R., Scharlott L. J., Schafer A. G. L., Deshaye M. Y., Becker N. M. and Stowe R. L., (2022), Advancing Equity in STEM: The Impact Assessment Design Has on Who Succeeds in Undergraduate Introductory Chemistry, JACS Au, 2(8), 1869–1880 DOI:10.1021/jacsau.2c00221.
44. Ray B. and Seely C., (2019), Fluency through TPR storytelling: Achieving real language acquisition in school, 8th edn, Command Performance Language Institute.
45. Reyes R. L. and Villanueva J. A., (2024), Narrative-Based Concept Representations: Fostering Visual Cognition in the Introductory Chemistry Classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 101(3), 1106–1119 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01151.
46. Rowland S., Pedwell R., Lawrie G., Lovie-Toon J. and Hung Y., (2016), Do We Need to Design Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences for Authenticity? CBE Life Sci. Educ., 15(4), ar79 DOI:10.1187/cbe.16-02-0102.
47. Saldana J., (2021), The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 4th edn, SAGE Publications Inc.
48. Statistics Canada, (2021), Gender differences in STEM enrolment and graduation: What are the roles of academic performance and preparation? Statistics Canada, vol. 1, no. 10.
49. Strayhorn T. L., (2012), College students’ sense of belonging: a key to educational success for all students, SAGE Publications Inc.
50. Sweeder R., Kursav M. N. and Valles S., (2021), A Cohort Scholarship Program that Reduces Inequities in STEM retention, J. STEM. Educ., 22(1), 5–13. Available at: https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2456.
51. Tinto V., (2000), Learning Better Together: The Impact of Learning Communities on Student Success, J. Inst. Res., 9 (1), 48–53.
52. van Brederode, M. E., (2025), Teaching chemistry as a creative subject, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 26(3), 594–602 10.1039/D5RP00068H.
53. Walton G. M. and Cohen G. L., (2007). A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 92(1), 82–96 DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.
54. Walton G. M. and Cohen G. L., (2011), A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students, Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451 DOI:10.1126/science.1198364.
55. Wang K. D., McCool J. and Wieman C., (2024), Exploring the learning experiences of neurodivergent college students in STEM courses, J. Res. Spec. Educ., 24(3), 505–518 DOI:10.1111/1471-3802.12650.
56. Williams J. B. and Bedi K., (2007), Using digital storytelling as an assessment instrument: preliminary findings at an online university, 11th CAA Int. Conf. Comput. Assess., Loughborough University, pp. 433–450.
57. Wolters C. A. and Pintrich P. R., (1998), Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instr. Sci., 26(1–2), 27–47 DOI:10.1023/A:1003035929216.
58. Yin R., (2018), Case study research: Design and methods and applications, 6th edn, SAGE Publications Inc.
59. Zumbrunn S., McKim C., Buhs E. and Hawley L. R., (2014), Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: a mixed method study, Instr. Sci., 42(5), 661–684 DOI:10.1007/s11251-014-9310-0.

---