Priming the Pump or the Sieve: Institutional Contexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments

Priming the Pump or the Sieve

Sylvia HurtadoKevin EaganBryce HughesHigher Education Research Institute, UCLAPriming the Pump or the Sieve: Institutional Contexts and URM STEM Degree Attainments

1A National ImperativeNational Academies (2011) report Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: Americas Science and Technology Talent

Establishes most of the growth in the new jobs will require science and technology skillsThose groups that are most underrepresented in S&E are also the fastest growing the general population (National Academies, 2011, p. 3). In an effort to achieve long-term parity in a diverse workforce, they recommend a near term, reasonable goal of improving institutional efforts to double the number of underrepresented minorities receiving undergraduate STEM degrees. 2A National Imperative2012 Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees In Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics

Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would, alone, generate three-quarters of the targeted 1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade.Retaining more students in STEM majors is the lowest-cost, fastest policy option to providing the STEM professionals that the nation needs.Changing productivity levels means changing practices, and mindsets from priming the sieve to priming the pump, or talent development. 3Purpose of the StudyIdentify the faculty and institutional characteristics that contribute to higher rates of STEM degree completion, particularly among underrepresented groups, controlling for students entering characteristics.

Identify challenges and opportunities to prime the pump and improve the use of evidence-based approaches.

4Literature Review: Student-level CharacteristicsPre-college experiencesStrong high school curriculumHigh test scores and gradesAdvanced courses in science and mathematicsHigh aspirations for a STEM degreeURM students less likely to access AP courses, yet equally or more likely to aspire to a STEM degree5Literature Review: Institutional-Level CharacteristicsFaculty pedagogiesSTEM courses tend to utilize teacher-centered pedagogiesIntroductory STEM courses perceived as gatekeepers to STEM degreesStudent-centered pedagogies key to retaining women and URM students in STEM programsMinority-targeted STEM retention programsGenerally improve probability of URM STEM degree completionMixed results regarding improving URM academic performanceUndergraduate research experiencesFound to be one of the most effective contributors to increasing URM STEM completion oddsBenefits to students participating in undergraduate research may be conditional depending on timing and durationMinority-serving institutions (MSIs)HBCUs in particular provide a unique atmosphere that supports Black students degree attainmentResearch is beginning to demonstrate benefits for other URM students attending other categories of MSIs6Literature Review: Are Selective Institutions Better for URM Students?More selective universities have higher graduation ratesURM students also graduate at higher rates from more selective institutionsMore recent studies have found conditions that indicate this benefit does not apply across the boardWider usage of multilevel modeling in higher education research has shown single-level modeling overstates the effects of selectivitySelectivity was found to be negatively related to four-year retention of women of color in STEMBiomedical and behavioral science students attending more selective institutions were slightly but significantly less likely to be retained in these programs to their fourth yearYet many recent multilevel studies continue to confirm selectivity positively predicts higher probability of graduation7Data Source: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2010-11 National Student Clearinghouse; HERI, UCLA 8MethodLongitudinal Data on STEM AspirantsIndividual level: 2004 Freshman Survey, CIRP merged with completion data from the National Student ClearinghouseSample: 58, 292 students across 353 institutionsFaculty Data: 2007 & 2010 HERI Faculty Survey from 659 institutions, with STEM Supplement for over 10,000 STEM facultySTEM Best Practices Survey administered to STEM deans and department chairs at our participating campusesInstitutional Data obtained from IPEDS, Aggregates of Faculty, and Aggregates of Peer characteristics from students entering the same institutions in 2004. 9MethodDependent Variable:STEM completion compared to:Bachelors completion in non-STEM fieldNo bachelors degree completion-includes students still enrolled (major not known)Measured at four, five, and six years to reflect differences in time to degree10MethodIndependent variablesBackground characteristicsPre-college preparation and experiencesAspirations and expectationsIntended majorAggregate peer effectsInstitutional characteristicsFaculty contextual measuresBest practices in STEM11MethodAnalysisNational weightsMissing data with multiple imputationMultinomial HGLMLimitationsIntended rather than declared majorNSC data no information on term-to-term majorNo college experience measuresFew high school preparation variablesBPS data reported by STEM Deans and Dept. Chairs12Key Findings for Four Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEMDenser concentrations of MD aspirants and larger campuses negatively predict STEM completionDifferences by raceLatino (-), Black(ns) Asian/Pacific Islander (+)Other race (+)Women (-)HS grade (+), and effect enhanced by faculty use of student-centered pedagogySAT, years of HS math and biology (+)13Key Findings for Four-Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEMMD aspirant (+) but effect mitigated by faculty grading on a curve and selectivity (-) conditionPh.D./Ed.D. aspirant (+)Law degree aspirant (-)Engineering, physical sciences, health tech/nursing, and computer science (+) Pre-med, pre-pharm, pre-dental, pre-vet (-)14Key Findings for Five-Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEMDrop in predictive power of institutional size Non-sig difference between Latino/other groups and White studentsDecrease in gender gapDecrease in salience of SATDecrease in gap between BA/BS aspirants and law/medical aspirantsChanges regarding majorsEngineering increased gap, more likely to complete in 5 yearsPhysical science, health tech/nursing, and computer science gap decreased compared to biomedical aspirants

15Key Findings for Six-Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEMDecreased salience of institutional sizeClosing of gender gapWomen at selective institutions have lower STEM completion rates than women at less selective institutionsDrop in gap between medical degree aspirants and BA/BS aspirants

16Key Findings for Four-Year STEM Completion versus No CompletionControl: private (+)Research-focused (-) vs. comp. mastersConcentration of STEM undergraduates (-)Institutional size (+)Pct. of faculty involving undergraduates in research (+)Selectivity (+)Racial differences: Native American and Latino (-); Asian American (+)Black (-), mitigated by HBCU (+) and selectivity (-)Women (+)Low/Low-middle income (-); upper-middle (+)17Key Findings for Four-Year STEM Completion versus No CompletionHS GPA, SAT scores, years of math and bio (+)Expect to transfer (-)MD aspirant (+), mitigated by faculty grading on a curve (-) and selectivity (+)Masters degree aspirant (+)Law degree aspirant (-)Engineering and pre-med/pharm/dental/vet (-)Health tech/nursing (+)

18Key Findings for Five-Year STEM Completion vs. No CompletionLoss of significance: institutional control, concentration of STEM undergraduates, size, percentage of faculty involving UGs in researchExpanded gender gap (women +)Expanded gap between low-income and middle incomeReduced salience for SAT compositeMD aspirations become less salientIncreased predictive power of planning to live on campusOnly academic major difference: pre-med/pharm/dental/vet (-) compared to biosciences19Key Findings for Six-Year STEM Completion vs. No CompletionSize and facultys involvement of undergraduates in research significant (like in 4-year model)Racial gaps persist, African American and Native Am (- incr.)Gender gap declines and is moderated by selectivity (+) conditionPredictive power of MD aspiration drops further, as does law degree aspiration20URM Six Year Completers in STEMCompared With Non-STEM Completers:Concentration of premedical undergraduates (-)MD aspirants (+), but MD aspirants at more selective institutions less likely to stay in science than MD aspiring peers at less selective institutionsLaw degree asp. (-) vs. BA/BS aspirantsEngineering aspirants (+) vs. biological sciences, HS GPA (+), and higher achieving students complete at even higher rates on campuses where STEM faculty used student-centered pedagogy more oftenSAT Composite and years of HS math (+)Females (-)Academic self-concept (+)No significant differences between URM groups among completers in STEM vs. Non-STEM21URM Six Year Completers in STEM Compared with non-CompletersSTEM faculty that involve undergrads in research (+)Selectivity (+)HS STEM outreach programs at institutions (-)Native Americans (-) vs. Latina/osWomen (+)English Native speakers (-)Health technology/nursing majors (-) vs. life sciences majorsHSGPA, years of HS math, and academic self-concept (+)Intend to live on campus freshman year (+)22ConclusionContexts MatterSelective institutions can improve productivity. They promote degree completion, but students are not more likely to complete in a STEM degrees.

Premed Phenomenon Students who begin premed at institutions are more likely to complete in STEM, are less likely to complete in STEM at selective institutions, high % of premeds causes students to switch from STEM among four year completerspresumably a talented group.

23ConclusionSupportive Environments Work!Minority engineers are more likely to be retained in STEM if they complete college compared to bioscience aspirants.Having an undergraduate research program has an effect on retaining minority students in STEM (and quicker degree completion).Faculty student centered pedagogy was important to staying in STEM for high-achieving minority students.Grading on curve particularly hurt premed aspirants, they were more likely to leave STEM at institutions where used.

24ConclusionIn order to produce 1 million more STEM degrees, we have to address diversity and equity in attainments and improve access to STEM careers.

Call for evidence-based teaching practices in STEM.

New initiatives by AAU and APLU indicate great interest in demonstration campuses that can make transformations to increase productivity of STEM degrees.

25Contact InformationThis study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05, the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM090776-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors. Papers and reports are available for download from project website: http://heri.ucla.edu/nihProject e-mail: [email protected]/Co-PIs:Sylvia HurtadoMitchell Chang

Tanya FigueroaGina GarciaJuan GaribayPostdoctoral Scholars:Kevin EaganJosephine GasiewskiAdministrative Staff:Dominique HarrisonGraduate Research Assistants:Felisha HerreraBryce HughesCindy Mosqueda

26