Learning Styles: Passion for Science & Passing Exams

  • Thread starter EdTheHead
  • Start date
In summary: I practice them then when I take the test its a joke. Got 100% on my last physics test that way. Do you think its better to keep learning and college separate meaning for college you just learn how to pass the tests but for actual learning you do your own thing?In summary, the speaker has a passion for scientific subjects and spends all day learning about them, but still struggles with exams in university. They approach concepts from different angles and spend time thinking about them at night. They find that practicing old exam papers is the key to success, but question if this is the best approach for true learning.
  • #1
EdTheHead
25
0
I have a passion for pretty much all scientific subjects and I gladly spend all day accumulating knowledge relating to it but I still find the exams in university pretty hard. I wonder how people that don't have a passion for these subjects manage to pass tests. I can't just go to lectures and read notes if I do that I don't understand anything what I have to do is approach the concepts from all different angles until I truly understand it, and this requires learning all sorts of stuff not covered by the course and I like doing this but it takes time. At night I usually spend 1 or 2 hours thinking before I fall asleep so I like to contemplate the concepts I've learned and I always uncover new information this way and you'd think some that does all this would find exams easy in college but that's not the case at all.

The trick I've found is I just get a load of past exam papers and I practice them then when I take the test its a joke. Got 100% on my last physics test that way. Do you think its better to keep learning and college separate meaning for college you just learn how to pass the tests but for actual learning you do your own thing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
http://www.sfjohnson.com/acad/studying/studying.htm

I posted this on another thread, but I think you will find the link useful. Practice is how you learn. "You don't know physics unless you can do the problems." (Freedman) This concept is true, so keep practicing from old exams and try do do as many exercises as you can. You learn by doing, it helped me in algebra 1 and still helps in calculus 2. It helped me in physics as well. I'm currently self studying physics; doing the problems, *learning from your mistakes* is where the true learning comes from.
 
  • #3
xxsteelxx said:
http://www.sfjohnson.com/acad/studying/studying.htm

I posted this on another thread, but I think you will find the link useful. Practice is how you learn. "You don't know physics unless you can do the problems." (Freedman) This concept is true, so keep practicing from old exams and try do do as many exercises as you can. You learn by doing, it helped me in algebra 1 and still helps in calculus 2. It helped me in physics as well. I'm currently self studying physics; doing the problems, *learning from your mistakes* is where the true learning comes from.

Dead true. I've been learning magnetism lately and since its hard to visualize I find it pretty hard but using the equations to solve problems I started gaining a mathematical understanding too which reinforced the hazy understanding I had of the concepts. Practicing also seems to permanently integrate knowledge into your memory banks pretty fast.
 
  • #4
EdTheHead said:
I have a passion for pretty much all scientific subjects and I gladly spend all day accumulating knowledge relating to it but I still find the exams in university pretty hard. I wonder how people that don't have a passion for these subjects manage to pass tests. I can't just go to lectures and read notes if I do that I don't understand anything what I have to do is approach the concepts from all different angles until I truly understand it, and this requires learning all sorts of stuff not covered by the course and I like doing this but it takes time. At night I usually spend 1 or 2 hours thinking before I fall asleep so I like to contemplate the concepts I've learned and I always uncover new information this way and you'd think some that does all this would find exams easy in college but that's not the case at all.

The trick I've found is I just get a load of past exam papers and I practice them then when I take the test its a joke. Got 100% on my last physics test that way. Do you think its better to keep learning and college separate meaning for college you just learn how to pass the tests but for actual learning you do your own thing?

IT ALMOST SEEM LIKE YOU SHARE ALMOST THE SOME THOUGHTS AS ME ,ABOUT THE SYSTEM AND THE EDUCATION . YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SOLVE OLD PAPERS , THAT'S ACTUALLY THE VERY FAULTY PART OF THIS SYSTEM( its like hacking it)....

TRY TO GO FOR "THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT " AND "THE VENUS PROJECT" ON NET . I THINK YOU WILL LIKE IT.IF YOU DO LET ME know , am there too...
 
  • #5
xxsteelxx said:
"You don't know physics unless you can do the problems." (Freedman)
But being able to do the problems do not mean that you know the physics. As above poster said if you focus a bit too much on just doing old tests you are not learning for life, just for the course.

The deal is that once the understanding is there the problems gets trivial, in my opinion doing problems should just be used as a way to see if you understand the material.
 
  • #6
EdTheHead said:
I have a passion for pretty much all scientific subjects and I gladly spend all day accumulating knowledge relating to it but I still find the exams in university pretty hard. I wonder how people that don't have a passion for these subjects manage to pass tests. I can't just go to lectures and read notes if I do that I don't understand anything what I have to do is approach the concepts from all different angles until I truly understand it, and this requires learning all sorts of stuff not covered by the course and I like doing this but it takes time. At night I usually spend 1 or 2 hours thinking before I fall asleep so I like to contemplate the concepts I've learned and I always uncover new information this way and you'd think some that does all this would find exams easy in college but that's not the case at all.

The trick I've found is I just get a load of past exam papers and I practice them then when I take the test its a joke. Got 100% on my last physics test that way. Do you think its better to keep learning and college separate meaning for college you just learn how to pass the tests but for actual learning you do your own thing?

What I find striking in your post is the lack of other people. Do you not have 'study buddies'? Have you gone for tutoring? Have you taken advantage of office hours?
 
  • #7
Klockan3 said:
But being able to do the problems do not mean that you know the physics. As above poster said if you focus a bit too much on just doing old tests you are not learning for life, just for the course.

The deal is that once the understanding is there the problems gets trivial, in my opinion doing problems should just be used as a way to see if you understand the material.

being able to do the problems is the bulk of knowing the physics.

for all intents and purposes, physics is a discipline of math. You could understand conceptually how something works, but if you can't work it out yourself mathematically, what good is it?

This is the reason I have gone into physics. I read so many lay persons' physics books, and understood concepts.. but then I had a big "now what?" moment. Without knowing the math well... how could I build anything off of that.

I'm not sure how anyone could think that understanding and doing the problems out is not important..
 
  • #8
I didn't say that the maths wasn't important, I'd say that you don't fully understand the physics if you don't understand the maths. But what do this have to do with practicing problems?
 
  • #9
Klockan3 said:
I didn't say that the maths wasn't important, I'd say that you don't fully understand the physics if you don't understand the maths. But what do this have to do with practicing problems?

practicing problems leads to understanding the math(s)?
 
  • #10
Jake4 said:
practicing problems leads to understanding the math(s)?
It depends, partly it leads to understanding the maths but mostly it leads to memorizing the maths which is a bad alternative in my opinion. I think that this is the biggest problem with peoples approach to maths and physics, the tests should be seen as tests to see if you have understood the concepts, not tests to see if you have done this kind of exercises before.

As a simple example take matrix multiplication, tests in linear algebra often asks you to multiply matrices. Now, do they do this to gauge how well you have trained your ability to multiply matrices together or is it to see if you have understood what matrix multiplication is? It is obviously the later since being good at multiplying matrices is a useless skill to have outside of that course. If you understand the process there is no need to do any exercises on this.
 
  • #11
Klockan3 said:
It depends, partly it leads to understanding the maths but mostly it leads to memorizing the maths which is a bad alternative in my opinion. I think that this is the biggest problem with peoples approach to maths and physics, the tests should be seen as tests to see if you have understood the concepts, not tests to see if you have done this kind of exercises before.

As a simple example take matrix multiplication, tests in linear algebra often asks you to multiply matrices. Now, do they do this to gauge how well you have trained your ability to multiply matrices together or is it to see if you have understood what matrix multiplication is? It is obviously the later since being good at multiplying matrices is a useless skill to have outside of that course.


yes but to flip it over, would it be good if you knew what matrix multiplication is, but didn't have adequate practice into actually being able to calculate it?

I feel this is a dumb argument lol, as we both know that understanding the concept is JUST AS important as being able to calculate it...

I just feel that practicing calculations makes the calculations themselves second nature to the person, and that is the goal of learning anything.
 
  • #12
Klockan3 said:
It depends, partly it leads to understanding the maths but mostly it leads to memorizing the maths which is a bad alternative in my opinion. I think that this is the biggest problem with peoples approach to maths and physics, the tests should be seen as tests to see if you have understood the concepts, not tests to see if you have done this kind of exercises before.

As a simple example take matrix multiplication, tests in linear algebra often asks you to multiply matrices. Now, do they do this to gauge how well you have trained your ability to multiply matrices together or is it to see if you have understood what matrix multiplication is? It is obviously the later since being good at multiplying matrices is a useless skill to have outside of that course. If you understand the process there is no need to do any exercises on this.
what in the blue hell is matrix multiplication other than what the hell the name is; if you want to waste your time on a test and expand it into multiplication of the elements of row and column vectors be my guest
 
  • #13
I just realized after rereading the OP's post that he didn't mention anything specific at all..

what is your major anyways? I think all of us just kind of assumed physics.

or do you have an unrelated major, and are just taking science classes for credits?


It sounds a bit off, and I don't quite understand you regarding learning as simply "accumulating knowledge" because what good is accumulating said knowledge, if you don't know how to use it.

I could memorize the periodic table, but what good is it if I don't know anything about the elements themselves? Maybe a nerdy party trick, but what else?

and I'm not understanding your connection between rigorously redoing old test questions in preperation. I don't see how that is just studying to pass tests, as it is basically you going back and learning well how to do the calculations.


Also, most people can't sit in on a lecture and understand everything fully. It's all about the outside work. I generally feel that the nature of physics and mathematics IS the work you put into it outside. This isn't high school where simply going to the classes is enough. College is about learning things vital to what YOU want to learn about.

To put it simply, you are speaking in somewhat a twisted manner. I love going home and pondering the subject matter of my class. I actually enjoy doing the calculations over and over, because I know that that is the only way I can get used to using them.

if all of that seems unnecessary, or that you feel you neeeeed to do that stuff, maybe rethink your topic of study?


Believe it or not, this field is a bit more than just a "sit and absorb" in its education.
 
  • #14
Jake4 said:
yes but to flip it over, would it be good if you knew what matrix multiplication is, but didn't have adequate practice into actually being able to calculate it?
If you can't calculate it you don't really know what it is.

Edit: Btw, I am not the OP, but I am currently halfway through a double masters in theoretical physics and maths.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Klockan3 said:
If you can't calculate it you don't really know what it is.

exactly ; )
 
  • #16
Jake4 said:
exactly ; )
But I'd say that you should get that knowledge through understanding what problems the operations are supposed to solve and why they are defined like they are, not through mechanical repetition.
 
  • #17
Klockan3 said:
But I'd say that you should get that knowledge through understanding what problems the operations are supposed to solve and why they are defined like they are, not through mechanical repetition.

but see, you're embellishing. we never said "mechanical repetition"

but again, we're going around the same thing...

the two are both needed.

a conceptual understanding however, is a luxury that is not always possible.

most quantum theory can't be conceptualized well, but one can gain a great understanding of it mathematically.

And understanding it mathematically, is nothing if you don't know how to use it mathematically, and this comes from practice.
 
  • #18
Jake4 said:
And understanding it mathematically, is nothing if you don't know how to use it mathematically, and this comes from practice.
I'd argue otherwise, if you understand the maths properly you can use it and there are no practice requirements for it. The thing is that people in general don't understand that much about maths, like this guy:
clope023 said:
what in the blue hell is matrix multiplication other than what the hell the name is; if you want to waste your time on a test and expand it into multiplication of the elements of row and column vectors be my guest
 
  • #19
There is actually a learning technique called Overlearning which is most commonly used in maths and I suspect physics as well. It basically is where you practice something beyond the point where you know and understand it. A bit like what Klockan3 said "mechanical repetition", I used it without knowing it was an actual learning technique.

I passed my maths exam last year by just doing problem after problem after problem. I understood the maths work fine and the repetition got me used to the formulas and how to use them in solving questions. So I can't really see why this repetition would be bad, I mean you have to concentrate on the problems and you are learning how to apply the relevant questions as you do so. Where is the pitfall?
 
  • #20
MisterMan said:
There is actually a learning technique called Overlearning which is most commonly used in maths and I suspect physics as well. It basically is where you practice something beyond the point where you know and understand it. A bit like what Klockan3 said "mechanical repetition", I used it without knowing it was an actual learning technique.

I passed my maths exam last year by just doing problem after problem after problem. I understood the maths work fine and the repetition got me used to the formulas and how to use them in solving questions. So I can't really see why this repetition would be bad, I mean you have to concentrate on the problems and you are learning how to apply the relevant questions as you do so. Where is the pitfall?

Well, I guess there's a point when repeating the same problem over and over again wouldn't be useful anymore.
From what I have seen past the years after some solving problem sets with increasing level of diffuclty if you understand every solution of problem you have done, then repeating solving them or similar problems wouldn't change much your grade in the exam.

But everyone has his own habits for learning, whatever works for you.
 
  • #21
Klockan3 said:
I'd argue otherwise, if you understand the maths properly you can use it and there are no practice requirements for it. The thing is that people in general don't understand that much about maths, like this guy:

oooooooh cool guy

I'll be the first to admit my 'understanding' if you would call it that is lacking but perhaps you would so kind as to enlighten me rather than write me off, what greater thing is their to understand than multiplying the elements together? At least my professor hasn't shown me there's much more to it than that and he recommends lots of practicing, why is your perspective better than his?
 
  • #22
clope023 said:
oooooooh cool guy

I'll be the first to admit my 'understanding' if you would call it that is lacking but perhaps you would so kind as to enlighten me rather than write me off, what greater thing is their to understand than multiplying the elements together? At least my professor hasn't shown me there's much more to it than that and he recommends lots of practicing, why is your perspective better than his?
Matrices represents things, for example usually you see them as linear transformations between vector spaces when it comes to multiplication where the n'th column represents what new vector the n'th element of the old vector gets transformed into. Matrix multiplication is then defined as what you get if you put together two linear transformations to create a new one. With this matrix multiplication gets obvious, all that is left is to just multiply and add scalars with each other, no need for practicing formulas and such.
MisterMan said:
Where is the pitfall?
That instead of learning something such that it becomes obvious that this way is the correct way you can easily trick yourself into believing that you understand the theory better than you actually do by more or less memorizing solution strategies. The less you memorize instead of understanding it the better and you inevitably memorize things when you do problems.

But of course it have a lot to do with what you want to get out of your education.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
"why is your perspective better than his?"

Klockan's perspective is better for a very easy reason - it actually tells you why someone would care about matrices.

"And understanding it mathematically, is nothing if you don't know how to use it mathematically, and this comes from practice."

I think I know what this poster is saying, Klockan, and as a mathematician seeing his perspective in a different sense, I agree. When the focus is on being able to use the mathematical symbols to make physical conclusions, there is an element of practice for the sake of familiarity. Any of us who have dealt with beastly complicated mathematics know there is a special challenge in handling examples and computations. In easy mathematics, such as basic lower division linear algebra, someone who knows what matrices mean and understands what the operations stand for should need very little practice in doing computations, but that's because the theory virtually explains all there is to be said in those simple cases. I'm sure when more complicated mathematics is involved, the actual implications of the calculations go beyond a broad theoretical statement in mathematics, and involve subtle physical steps and all.
 
  • #24
I took matrices as an example because it is something everyone can relate to and it is quite obvious how the theory helps. Now I had no problems getting to where I am now without doing exercises and I have way better retention and understanding of the material than most afterwards, I think that at least partly that has to do with my unorthodox approach but that is something which is impossible to know.

I don't even know if this would actually work well for anyone but me, but I can at least try to make people do a bit less exercises and read a bit more about the theory... I never needed the exercises since I got almost 100% accuracy on my calculations anyway as long as I am not guessing, so I just need to know how to go from A to B, not the details.

I don't really get it why people are not more like this, I mean even in the more advanced courses you do mostly just handle things that you have handled in courses before, just introducing a few new concepts each time. So what you need to do is to learn about those concepts, doing exercises is a huge waste of time then since you are mostly just practicing things that should already be second nature to you.
 
  • #25
Sure, I likely have an approach similar to yours, Klockan - I tend to sit and try to absorb and internalize the theory first usually. The reason more people are not like that is simply that few people think like you and me [and few people are mathematicians at heart]. For some, the theory is approached on some naturality principle - that this theory answers a very natural question to ask, and the examples are a special case where you grind away a bit.

Others want to spend extra time grinding away at the examples and become experts at them. In fact, some make entire research careers out of computation.

A good exercise should not be a special case of the theory which is trivially resolved using the theory. A good exercise should introduce a subtle *extra assumption* which the theory considers too specific to deal with, and should examine the interactions between the theory and the special assumptions. People who love the computational aspect probably prefer taking the grandiose theory more on faith and research questions more along the lines of this interaction.
 
  • #26
For some reason klockan you keep switching my points around, and trying to add a certain flavor to my argument.

derHam had it correct. It's all about familiarity.

Understanding the concept is very important, but you can understand it but not be used to the computational aspect.

For some reason you keep making a connection that repeated practice will make a person less likely to understand it, because they will memorize?

I would see this more as a question of the person's intent, rather than a by-product of their method.

If I understand a concept, then I'm going to move on to practicing, so that I become comfortable with it. It's that simple.

I am by NO means downplaying the idea of understanding a topic conceptually.

but I feel you're downplaying the importance of being comfortable with the computational aspect.
 
  • #27
I just don't see how you can be unfamiliar with the computation if you understand the concepts. The deal is that the computational parts are mostly things you should have learned in earlier courses so they should pose no problems to you or if it is the first time you are presented with them they are mostly trivial. To me, you needing to do a lot of computations to "understand" is a sign that you don't really understand.
 
  • #28
Klockan3 said:
I just don't see how you can be unfamiliar with the computation if you understand the concepts. The deal is that the computational parts are mostly things you should have learned in earlier courses so they should pose no problems to you or if it is the first time you are presented with them they are mostly trivial. To me, you needing to do a lot of computations to "understand" is a sign that you don't really understand.

I understand how to play chess, but would be stupid to sign up for some huge competition without practicing to become used to and familiar with the game.

I understand how to graph rational equations, but I would be stupid to move on before going through a bunch of test problems to make sure I'm comfortable doing them.
 
  • #29
"I just don't see how you can be unfamiliar with the computation if you understand the concepts. The deal is that the computational parts are mostly things you should have learned in earlier courses so they should pose no problems to you or if it is the first time you are presented with them they are mostly trivial. To me, you needing to do a lot of computations to "understand" is a sign that you don't really understand."

Klockan, see the last paragraph in my last post before this one. Jake, there might be something more to my analysis beyond the "familiarity" you're going on about, which I agree is an important point by itself...I think my point is similar to yours though.

In short, Klockan, your analysis applies only in the case of trivial computations - i.e. ones which follow directly from the theory. Maybe these were all that were in question in the first place, but I felt my additional dimension to the picture is necessary to consider.

Let's look at it this way - stuff in a basic signal processing course at the lower levels usually follows trivially from basic linear algebra theory and stuff like Euler's identity. However, the coursework is still nontrivial, because dealing with the intricacies of examples and how they interact with the broader theory involves MORE KNOWLEDGE than just the theory. And "messing around" with these is necessary, to get a feel.

It's like saying all of group theory follows from the axioms. But you add the additional assumption of abelian-ness and there is "more" which can be said. So is the case with applications - everything follows from theoretical stuff. But "more" can be said in special cases, some of which must be studied extensively to be fully appreciated.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Jake4 said:
I understand how to graph rational equations, but I would be stupid to move on before going through a bunch of test problems to make sure I'm comfortable doing them.
Why?
deRham said:
In short, Klockan, your analysis applies only in the case of trivial computations - i.e. ones which follow directly from the theory. Maybe these were all that were in question in the first place, but I felt my additional dimension to the picture is necessary to consider.
But I have gone through a physics/maths double major without doing any computational exercises since 6th grade in elementary school and I am currently in grad school... I don't live in the US so we don't have a lot of computational homework or when we do it isn't mandatory so I haven't been forced to do it.

Edit: But as I said I don't really know if this works for most, the ones I have talked to really do not want to stop doing exercises :( So it is more a philosophical question to me, I know that none will do it differently but I don't know if it is because they are so indoctrinated in that way of thinking or if it is because they can't do it any other way.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
"But I have gone through a physics/maths double major without doing any computational exercises since 6th grade in elementary school and I am currently in grad school"

Therein may be our misunderstanding. I think some of the 'theoretical' things you may have done, I may classify as computations [but not trivial ones, rather very respectable things]. I am a mathematician [into the more abstract fields], and not a physicist.

I don't define a computation as something with lots of numbers and multiplying a million messy matrices. I define it as when you actually determine a specific detail about an example [which is how mathematicians tend to define it]. Sorry for the confusion if it was there.

Certainly I think practicing gross computations for too long is silly. For instance, taking a million integrals is not the way to learn. A few computations in the sense of taking integrals or such can be healthy, but not more than that.

"the ones I have talked to really do not want to stop doing exercises"

Depending on how repetitive their work is, they may be wasting their time. If they are illustrating a new realization of the theory for themselves, they are spending it wisely.
 
  • #32
"I understand how to graph rational equations, but I would be stupid to move on before going through a bunch of test problems to make sure I'm comfortable doing them."

"Why?"

If it's a useful skill [to your goals], you should practice it simply because it will be useful to you. If one's understanding of the theory is sufficient to be able to do all the test questions in one's head, then there's no need to worry.

"To me, you needing to do a lot of computations to "understand" is a sign that you don't really understand."

A LOT is not necessary. But some computations can expose misunderstanding of the theory! Computations are a sanity check, not the end-all that some make them to be.
 
  • #33
deRham said:
Therein may be our misunderstanding. I think some of the 'theoretical' things you may have done, I may classify as computations [but not trivial ones, rather very respectable things]. I am a mathematician [into the more abstract fields], and not a physicist.
I haven't done those kinds of exercises either, I haven't done any exercises at all except for the mandatory hand ins of proofs you have to do in just about every upper level maths course. (There is really no good alternative to hand ins in those classes)

And I am not just a physicist, I have taken several grad level maths courses... I am currently deciding if I want to do my thesis with the maths department or the physics one. When I was younger I was more into physics but when I noticed that they in general have poor understanding of what they are doing compared to mathematicians I decided to at least read as much maths as the pure maths people who go into fields relating to physics.

deRham said:
A LOT is not necessary. But some computations can expose misunderstanding of the theory! Computations are a sanity check, not the end-all that some make them to be.
This I agree completely with and is what I am trying to tell people. I think that the reason that I can go on like I describe above has a lot to do with my near perfect memory and I have noticed that most have an atrocious habit of forgetting a lot of things so I can't really say that something that works for me would also work for them.

When I was younger I thought that everyone else was just stubborn for doing it the hard way, but then I started to notice how bad their memories were.
 
  • #34
OK, so you are in favor of exercises which bring something new out of the theory, but not those which are repetitive and serve only as a memory crutch. That I am in accord with.

As to my comment about computations and your background - I am well aware you're both a physics and math student and have probably taken lots of math. Remember, though, that something like "what is a universal covering space of so and so" would count as a computation to me. Anything involving using the theory to actually describe something in more detail within the context of an example. Not only math courses, but entire math research articles can be modeled on these sorts of pursuits. I'm not limiting "computation" to multiplying 2 matrices 20 times ... and it sounded like our different definitions of computation came from our different backgrounds. The sort of computation I'm talking about has nothing to do with memory or repetition, but with raw reasoning itself.

Anyway, I think we're probably on the same page.
 

What are learning styles and why are they important for science?

Learning styles refer to the different ways in which individuals prefer to learn and process information. In science, understanding one's learning style can help improve comprehension and retention of complex concepts, leading to better performance on exams.

What are the different types of learning styles?

The most common learning styles are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. Visual learners prefer to learn through images, diagrams, and videos. Auditory learners prefer to learn through listening and speaking. Kinesthetic learners prefer hands-on activities and learn best by doing.

How can I determine my learning style?

There are various online quizzes and assessments that can help determine your learning style. You can also reflect on your study habits and identify which methods have been most effective in the past.

Can I have more than one learning style?

Yes, it is possible to have a combination of learning styles. Many individuals have a dominant learning style, but may also benefit from incorporating elements of other styles into their studying methods.

How can I use my learning style to improve my performance on science exams?

If you are a visual learner, try creating diagrams or mind maps to organize information. Auditory learners can benefit from discussing concepts with others or recording themselves reciting information. Kinesthetic learners can try hands-on activities or simulations to better understand scientific concepts.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
997
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
796
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
674
Replies
6
Views
844
Back
Top