A quantitative analysis examining differences between US humanities and STEM students’ propensity toward innovation

References

• Aalestad, P. 2006. Thematic Report: The Humanities as a Source of Creativity and Innovation. Dublin, Ireland: Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA).
   Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. 2002. “Perceived Behavioral Control, Self- Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 32 (4): 665–683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). 2014. Humanities Indicators. https://HumanitiesIndicators.org
   Google Scholar
• Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2013. It Takes More than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Success. Survey conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the AAC&U.
   Google Scholar
• Astin, A. W. 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Baer, J., and J. C. Kaufman. 2008. “Gender Differences in Creativity.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 42 (2): 75–105. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher, T. 1994. “The Significance of Disciplinary Differences.” Studies in Higher Education 19 (2): 151–161. 10.1080/03075079412331382007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher, T., and P. R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. 2nd ed. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. 1988. “Approaches to Learning and to Essay Writing.” In Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, edited by R. Schmeck, 185–228. New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. 1989. “Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching.” Higher Education Research and Development 8: 7–25. 10.1080/0729436890080102
   Google Scholar
• Biglan, A. 1973a. “The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Scientific Areas.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 195–203. 10.1037/h0034701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biglan, A. 1973b. “Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57: 1204–1213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braxton, J. M., and L. L. Hargens. 1996. “Variation among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research.” In The Handbook of Theory and Research in Education, edited by J. C. Smart, 1–46. New York: Agathon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braxton, J., J. Milem, and A. Sullivan. 2000. “The Influence of Active Learning on College Student Departure Process: Toward a Revision of Tinto’s Theory.” The Journal of Higher Education 71 (5): 569–590. 10.2307/2649260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinkley, A. 2009. “The Landscape of Humanities Research and Funding.” Humanities Indicators Prototype. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. http://archive201406.humanitiesindicators.org/essays/brinkley.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brint, S. 2002. “The Rise of the Practical Arts.” In The Future of the City of Intellect: The Changing American University, edited by S. Brint, 231–259. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brint, S., M. Riddle, L. Turk-Bicakci, and C. S. Levy. 2005. “From the Liberal to the Practical Arts in American Colleges and Universities: Organizational Analysis and Curricular Change.” The Journal of Higher Education 76 (2): 151–180. 10.1353/jhe.2005.0011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canaan, J. E., and W. Shumar. 2008. “Higher Education in the Era of Globalization and Neoliberalism.” In Structure and Agency in the Neoliberal University, edited by J. E. Canaan and W. Shumar, 3–30. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Collini, S. 1993. “Introduction.” In The Two Cultures, edited by C. P. Snow, vii–lxxiii. London: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on STEM Education, National Science and Technology Council (CoSTEM). 2013. Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Council on Competitiveness (CoC). 2005. Innovate America. National Innovation Initiative Summit and Report. www.compete.org.
   Google Scholar
• Council on Competitiveness (CoC). 2014. Reforming the American Innovation System for a New Century of Leadership. Technology Leadership and Strategy Initiative. www.compete.org.
   Google Scholar
• Dutson, A., R. Todd, P. Magleby, and C. Sorensen. 1997. “A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses.” The Research Journal for Engineering Education 86 (1): 17–28. 10.1002/jee.1997.86.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Edelstein, D. 2010. How is Innovation Taught? On the Humanities and the Knowledge Economy. Liberal Education 96 (1): 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• Entwistle, N., and P. Ramsden. 1983. Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Fallon, N. 2014. Innovation in the Workplace: How to Harness It. Business News Daily. Jun 14. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6535-workplace-innovation.html
   Google Scholar
• Faust, J., and D. Paulson. 1998. “Active Learning in the College Classroom.” The Journal for Excellence in College Teaching 9 (2): 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoraofor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academic of Science of the USA (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
   Google Scholar
• Innovation Management. 2013. How Do You Measure Innovation Results and Outcomes? 111 (23): 8410–8415. https://www.innovationmanagement.se/imtool-articles/how-do-you-measure-innovation-results-and-outcomes/
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, N. 2006. “Imagining a Different World.” In Developing Creativity in Higher Education, edited by N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, and J. Wisdom, 1–9. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, L. D. 2012. “History Lesson: Understanding the Decline in Manufacturing.” Minnesota Post. Feb 22. https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C., C. Reichard, and K. Mokhtari. 2003. “Are Students’ Learning Styles Discipline Specific?” Community College Journal of Research and Practice 27 (5): 363–375. 10.1080/713838162
   Google Scholar
• Kent, E. F. 2012. “What Are You Going to Do with a Degree in That? Arguing for the Humanities in an Era of Efficiency.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11: 273–283. 10.1177/1474022212441769
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. 1981. “Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences.” In The Modern American College, edited by A. Chickering, 232–255. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, T. F. N., R. Shoup, and G. D. Kuh. 2005 May. Measuring Deep Approaches to Learning Using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, T. F. N., R. Shoup, G. Kuh, and M. Schwarz. 2008. “The Effects of Discipline on Deep Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes.” Research in Higher Education 49: 469–494. 10.1007/s11162-008-9088-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird, T. F. N., T. Seifert, E. Pascarella, M. Mayhew, and C. Blaich. 2014. “Deeply Affecting First-Year Students’ Thinking: Deep Approaches to Learning and Three Dimensions of Cognitive Development.” The Journal of Higher Education 85 (3): 402–432. 10.1353/jhe.2014.0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H., and A. Martin. 2011. “Academic Self Concept and Academic Achievement: Relations and Causal Ordering.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 59–77. 10.1348/000709910X503501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marton, F., and R. Saljo. 1976a. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: Outcome and Process.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1): 4–11. 10.1111/bjep.1976.46.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marton, F., and J. Saljo. 1984. “Approaches to Learning.” In The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education, edited by F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Marton, F., and R. Saljo. 1976b. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: Outcome as a Function of the Learner’s Conception of the Task.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (2): 115–127. 10.1111/bjep.1976.46.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew, M. J., J. S. Simonoff, W. J. Baumol, B. M. Wiesenfeld, and M. W. Klein. 2012. “Exploring Innovative Entrepreneurship and Its Ties to Higher Education Experiences.” Research in Higher Education 53: 831–859. 10.1007/s11162-012-9258-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWilliam, E. 2008. The Creative Workforce: How to Launch Young People into High-Flying Futures. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (NSF). 2016. NSF Scholarships in STEM Program. Division of Undergraduate Education. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5257
   Google Scholar
• Neumann, R., S. Parry, and T. Becher. 2002. “Teaching and Learning in Their Disciplinary Contexts.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (4): 405–417. 10.1080/0307507022000011525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedhazur, E. J. 1997. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. 3rd ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
   Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). 2012. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Report to the President. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Purwal, T., C. Bennett, & F. Maier. 2007. “Embracing the Social Relevance: Computing, Ethics, and Community.” SIGCSE ‘07 Proceedings of the 38th SIGCE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 38: 556–560.
   Google Scholar
• Pyle, R. 2014. Innovation the NASA Way: Harnessing the Power of Your Organization for Breakthrough Success. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Ramsden, P. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider-Bateman, G. J. 2012. “Innovation and Discourse: Integrating the Liberal Arts into Engineering Entrepreneurship Education.” Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship 3 (1): 23–34.
   Google Scholar
• Short, D. 2011. “Charting the Incredible Shift from Manufacturing to Services in America.” Business Insider. Sep 5. https://www.businessinsider.com/charting-the-incredible-shift-from-manufacturing-to-services-in-america-2011-9.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, S. R., N. R. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber. 2012. Discipline-Based Education Research: Undersatnding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Report of the National Research Council of the National Academicies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. P. 1959. The Two Cultures. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tagg, J. 2003. The Learning Paradigm College. Boston, MA: Anker.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B., B. Cantwell, and S. Slaughter. 2013. “Quasi-Markets in U.S. Higher Education: The Humanities and Institutional Revenues.” The Journal of Higher Education 84 (5): 675–707. 10.1353/jhe.2013.0030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The White House. 2009. Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting. Apr 27. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national-academy-sciences-annual-meeting
   Google Scholar
• Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 1991. “Improving the Quality of Student Learning: The Influence of Learning Context and Student Approaches to Learning on Learning Outcomes.” Higher Education 22: 251–266. 10.1007/BF00132290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. 2012, Mar 11. “Cutbacks in Enrollment Redefine Graduate Education and Faculty Jobs.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-Programs-in/131123/
   Google Scholar
• Zuckerman, H., and R. Ehrenberg. 2009. Recent Trends in Funding for the Academic Humanities and Their Implications. Daedalus 138 (1): 124–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar