Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Course Technology & First-year Undergraduates at an HBCU: Technostress, Role Stress, & Productivity

Elizabeth Deimeke 1 2 * ,
Therese Pigott 2,
Reneé Schwartz 2
1 Clark Atlanta University2 Georgia State University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Online-First Articles, pp. 41-61
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 46 DOWNLOADS: 22 Publication date: 15 Jun 2025
ABSTRACT
Equitably meeting the demands of an uncertain future requires diversity in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Historically Black colleges and universities are more successful in producing graduates of color compared to predominately White institutions, but STEM retention is a universal problem in higher education. This study expands the retention discussion by exploring differences in STEM and non-STEM students regarding course technology requirements, technostress, role stress, and productivity among first-year undergraduates at a historically Black university in southeastern United States. Although variable among participants, technostress and productivity did not differ between STEM and non-STEM students. However, STEM students use fewer technological tools and experience greater role stress relative to non-STEM students. While role stress is dependent upon major and levels of technostress, use of a new digital tool did not impact student perception of role stress. This study has implications for recommendations to improve student retention and success in STEM. In addition to interactive student-centered instruction, introductory STEM courses may demonstrate greater student success with diverse digital applications.
KEYWORDS
retention, course technology, technostress, role stress, productivity
CITATION (APA)
Deimeke, E., Pigott, T., & Schwartz, R. (2025). Course Technology & First-year Undergraduates at an HBCU: Technostress, Role Stress, & Productivity. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.823
REFERENCES
  1. Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.004
  2. Al-Tammemi, A. B., Nheili, R., Jibuaku, C. H., Al Tamimi, D., Aljaberi, M. A., Khatatbeh, M., Barakat, M., Al-Maqableh, H. O., & Fakhouri, H. N. (2022). A qualitative exploration of university students’ perspectives on distance education in Jordan: An application of Moore’s theory of transactional distance. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.960660
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
  4. Amoeba Sisters (Director). (2018, February 27). Inside the cell membrane [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCVVszQQNs
  5. Belser, C. T., Prescod, D. J., Daire, A. P., Dagley, M. A., & Young, C. Y. (2017). Predicting undergraduate student retention in STEM majors based on career development factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 65(1), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12082
  6. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution (1st edition). Basic Books.
  7. Brooks, S., & Davis, T. (2018). Engaging digital natives in an educational setting. 3761–3764. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/209961/
  8. Byars-Winston, A., & Dahlberg, M. L. (Eds.) (with Committee on Effective Mentoring in STEMM, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). (2019). The science of effective mentorship in STEMM. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25568
  9. Davies, G. (2015). Online MCQ assessment anxiety amongst first year undergraduate psychology students: A case study. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(1), 84–89.
  10. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success: Vol. 1st ed. Random House.
  11. Fittes, E. K. (2022, March 1). How much time are students spending with Ed Tech? Marketbrief. https://marketbrief.edweek.org/meeting-district-needs/how-much-time-are-students-spending-using-ed-tech/2022/03
  12. Foertsch, J. (2019). Impacts of undergraduate research programs focused on underrepresented minorities: Twenty years of gradual progress and practices that contributed to it. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 3(2), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/3/2/2
  13. Fox, J. R., & Martin, H. E. (2017). Academic advising and the first college year. National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition and NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising.
  14. Francom, G. M. (2023). Instructional technology outcome expectations of K-12 teachers likely declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in the Schools, 1(41), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2229324
  15. Galanek, J., Gierdowski, D., & Brooks, D. C. (2018, October 25). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2018. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/ecar-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology/2018/a-day-in-the-online-life-of-a-student
  16. Gansemer-Topf, A. M., Kollasch, A., & Sun, J. (2017). A house divided? Examining persistence for on-campus STEM and non-STEM students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(2), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115611671
  17. Gierdowski, D., Brooks, D. C., & Galanek, J. (2020, October 21). EDUCAUSE 2020 student technology report: Supporting the whole student. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/student-technology-report-supporting-the-whole-student/2020/technology-use-and-environmental-preferences
  18. Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N., & Beach, A. (2010). Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 18–25.
  19. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
  20. Hurtado, S., Newman, C. B., Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010). Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.357
  21. Johnston, A. P. R., Rae, J., Ariotti, N., Bailey, B., Lilja, A., Webb, R., Ferguson, C., Maher, S., Davis, T. P., Webb, R. I., McGhee, J., & Parton, R. G. (2018). Journey to the centre of the cell: Virtual reality immersion into scientific data. Traffic, 19(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/tra.12538
  22. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442.
  23. Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity? Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00076-1
  24. Li Huang, Garrett, L., Carter, V., Qazi, M., & Aji, C. (2021). Factors that influence African American students’ retention and success in STEM fields at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): A mixed methods approach. Journal of Negro Education, 90(3), 398–410.
  25. Li, L., & Wang, X. (2021). Technostress inhibitors and creators and their impacts on university teachers’ work performance in higher education. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00625-0
  26. Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008
  27. Lucas, S. R., & Berends, M. (2007). Race and track location in U.S. public schools. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 25(3), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2006.12.002
  28. Maresky, H. S., Oikonomou, A., Ali, I., Ditkofsky, N., Pakkal, M., & Ballyk, B. (2019). Virtual reality and cardiac anatomy: Exploring immersive three-dimensional cardiac imaging, a pilot study in undergraduate medical anatomy education. Clinical Anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 32(2), 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23292
  29. Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J. J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. MIT Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gsu/detail.action?docID=3338925
  30. Maton, K. I., Hrabowski III, F. A., & Schmitt, C. L. (2000). African American college students excelling in the sciences: College and postcollege outcomes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<629::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-8
  31. Mim, S. A. (2019). Women missing in STEM careers: A critical review through the gender lens. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.221
  32. Moro, C., Štromberga, Z., Raikos, A., & Stirling, A. (2017). The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(6), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1696
  33. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/
  34. National Science Board, N. S. F. (2022). The STEM labor force of today: Scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212
  35. Office of the US Department of Education. (n.d.). Federal Pell Grants. Federal Student Aid. Retrieved February 1, 2025, from https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell
  36. Oladosu, K. K., Alasan, N. J., bironke, E. S., Ajani, H. A., & Jimoh, T. A. (2020). Learning with smart devices: Influence of technostress on undergraduate students’ learning at University of Ilorin, Nigeria. International Journal of Education & Development Using Information & Communication Technology, 16(2), 40–47.
  37. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. MCB University Press, 9(5), 6.
  38. Qi, C. (2019). A double-edged sword? Exploring the impact of students’ academic usage of mobile devices on technostress and academic performance. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(12), 1337–1354. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1585476
  39. Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165
  40. Reigeluth, C. M., Watson, W. R., Watson, S. (Sunnie) L., Dutta, P., Chen, Z. (Clare), & Powell, N. D. P. (2008). Roles for technology in the information-age paradigm of education: Learning management systems. Educational Technology, 48(6), 32–39.
  41. Roberts, J. A., Petnji Yaya, L. H., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015
  42. Rothman, D. (2014). A tsunami of learners called generation Z. 1(1). http://mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf
  43. Salazar-Concha, C., Ficapal-Cusí, P., Boada-Grau, J., & Camacho, L. J. (2021). Analyzing the evolution of technostress: A science mapping approach. Heliyon, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06726
  44. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~glarose/dept/teaching/resources/talkingAboutLeavingSeymourHewittOverview.pdf
  45. Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J. (2017). Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46–59.
  46. Spaulding, D. T., Kennedy, J. A., Rózsavölgyi, A., & Colón, W. (2022). First tear STEM students’ satisfaction with peer mentoring: A predictor for student retention. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2022.104
  47. Summers, M. F., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2006). Preparing minority scientists and engineers. Science, 311(5769), 1870–1871. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125257
  48. Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J.-F. (2019). The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169
  49. Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2015). Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. INFORMATION SYSTEMS JOURNAL, 25(2), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12042
  50. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109
  51. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403
  52. Torales, J., Torres-Romero, A. D., Di Giuseppe, M. F., Rolón-Méndez, E. R., Martínez-López, P. L., Heinichen-Mansfeld, K. V., Barrios, I., O’Higgins, M., Almirón-Santacruz, J., Melgarejo, O., Ruiz Díaz, N., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., & Ventriglio, A. (2022). Technostress, anxiety, and depression among university students: A report from Paraguay. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 68(5), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640221099416
  53. Tyson, W. (2011). Modeling engineering degree attainment using high school and college physics and calculus coursetaking and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 760–777. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00035.x
  54. United Negro College Fund. (2019, February 4). The impact of HBCUs on diversity in STEM fields. The Impact of HBCUs on Diversity in STEM Fields. https://uncf.org/the-latest/the-impact-of-hbcus-on-diversity-in-stem-fields
  55. Upadhyaya, P. & Vrinda. (2021). Impact of technostress on academic productivity of university students. Education & Information Technologies, 26(2), 1647–1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10319-9
  56. Vega, Y., & Meaders, C. L. (2023). Have you heard about this? An exploration of instructor communication about campus resources to students in biology courses. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.621
  57. Weems-Landingham, V. (2021). Embracing technostress to overcome online teaching challenges. AURCO Journal, 27, 30–40.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.