Code vs. Context: STEM Students' Resistance to Non-STEM Coursework

TL;DR

This study investigates why STEM students resist non-technical coursework, finding that role ambiguity related to professional identity is the main factor, and suggests curriculum changes to reduce resistance and improve engagement.

Contribution

It identifies role ambiguity as the primary driver of resistance to non-STEM courses among STEM students, highlighting the importance of contextualizing content within engineering.

Findings

Role ambiguity strongly predicts resistance (beta 0.47).

Resistance reduces willingness to engage (beta -0.25).

Engagement predicts long-term skill adoption (beta 0.55).

Abstract

Many STEM programs now require students to take non-technical courses to develop the soft skills necessary for professional practice, yet engineering students frequently resist this requirement. While prior research often attributes this resistance to heavy workloads, little is known about its cognitive and identity-related mechanisms. This study fills this knowledge gap by examining the effects of Cognitive Switching Costs, Work Overload, and Role Ambiguity on students' Affective Resistance to non-STEM coursework, as well as the subsequent impact on their Willingness to Engage and Long-Term Adoption of skills. We collected survey data from 212 undergraduate Computer Science and Engineering students and tested directional relationships using sequential OLS regression. Role Ambiguity emerged as the strongest predictor of Affective Resistance (beta of 0.47, p less than 0.001), exceeding the effects of Work Overload (beta of 0.20, p equals 0.007) and Cognitive Switching Cost (beta of 0.14, p equals 0.038). In turn, Affective Resistance significantly reduced Willingness to Engage (beta of -0.25, p less than 0.001), while Willingness to Engage served as a strong predictor of Long-Term Adoption (beta of 0.55, p less than 0.001). These results indicate that student resistance is driven primarily by the incongruence between non-technical content and students' emergent professional identities, rather than by cognitive effort or workload alone. To improve outcomes, curricula should focus on reducing role ambiguity by placing humanities and social science material in clear engineering contexts.