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

• 1. Priming the Pump or the Sieve:Institutional Contexts and URM STEM Degree AttainmentsSylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Bryce Hughes Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA

2. A National ImperativeNational Academies (2011) report Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: AmericasScience and Technology Talent Establishes most of the growth in the new jobs will requirescience and technology skills Those groups that are most underrepresented in S&E arealso the fastest growing the general population (NationalAcademies, 2011, p. 3). In an effort to achieve long-term parity in a diverseworkforce, they recommend a near term, reasonable goal ofimproving institutional efforts to double the number ofunderrepresented minorities receiving undergraduate STEMdegrees. 3. A National Imperative2012 Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, Engage to Excel: Producing One MillionAdditional 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. 4. Purpose of the Study Identify 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. 5. Literature Review: Student-levelCharacteristics Pre-college experiences Strong high school curriculum High test scores and grades Advanced courses in science and mathematics High aspirations for a STEM degree URM students less likely to access AP courses, yet equally or more likely to aspire to a STEM degree 6. Literature Review: Institutional-LevelCharacteristics Faculty pedagogies STEM courses tend to utilize teacher-centered pedagogies Introductory STEM courses perceived as gatekeepers to STEM degrees Student-centered pedagogies key to retaining women and URM students in STEM programs Minority-targeted STEM retention programs Generally improve probability of URM STEM degree completion Mixed results regarding improving URM academic performance Undergraduate research experiences Found to be one of the most effective contributors to increasing URM STEM completion odds Benefits to students participating in undergraduate research may be conditional depending on timing and duration Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) HBCUs in particular provide a unique atmosphere that supports Black students degree attainment Research is beginning to demonstrate benefits for other URM students attending other categories of MSIs 7. Literature Review: Are SelectiveInstitutions Better for URM Students? More selective universities have higher graduation rates URM students also graduate at higher rates from moreselective institutions More recent studies have found conditions that indicatethis benefit does not apply across the board Wider usage of multilevel modeling in higher educationresearch has shown single-level modeling overstates theeffects of selectivity Selectivity was found to be negatively related to four-yearretention of women of color in STEM Biomedical and behavioral science students attending moreselective institutions were slightly but significantly less likelyto be retained in these programs to their fourth year Yet many recent multilevel studies continue to confirmselectivity positively predicts higher probability ofgraduation 8. Percentage of 2004 STEM Aspirants Who Completed STEM Degrees in Four, Five, and Six Years, by Race/Ethnicity60 52.450 46.643 40.44038.535.8 29.6 29302424.3 24.9 2221.8 20.220 18.212.3 11.6 9.410 04-Year Completion 5-Year Completion 6-Year CompletionAll students (N=56,499) White (N=39,160)Asian American (N=7,621)Latino (N=3,863)Black (N=4,695) Native American (N=1,160)Data Source: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2010-11 National Student Clearinghouse;HERI, UCLA 9. Method Longitudinal Data on STEM Aspirants Individual level: 2004 Freshman Survey, CIRP merged with completion data from the National Student Clearinghouse Sample: 58, 292 students across 353 institutions Faculty Data: 2007 & 2010 HERI Faculty Survey from659 institutions, with STEM Supplement for over10,000 STEM faculty STEM Best Practices Survey administered to STEMdeans and department chairs at our participatingcampuses Institutional Data obtained from IPEDS, Aggregates ofFaculty, and Aggregates of Peer characteristics fromstudents entering the same institutions in 2004. 10. Method Dependent Variable: STEM completion compared to: Bachelors completion in non-STEM field No bachelors degree completion-includes students stillenrolled (major not known) Measured at four, five, and six years to reflectdifferences in time to degree 11. Method Independent variables Background characteristics Pre-college preparation and experiences Aspirations and expectations Intended major Aggregate peer effects Institutional characteristics Faculty contextual measures Best practices in STEM 12. Method Analysis National weights Missing data with multiple imputation Multinomial HGLM Limitations Intended rather than declared major NSC data no information on term-to-term major No college experience measures Few high school preparation variables BPS data reported by STEM Deans and Dept. Chairs 13. Key Findings for Four Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEM Denser concentrations of MD aspirants and largercampuses negatively predict STEM completion Differences by race Latino (-), Black(ns) Asian/Pacific Islander (+) Other race (+) Women (-) HS grade (+), and effect enhanced by faculty useof student-centered pedagogy SAT, years of HS math and biology (+) 14. Key Findings for Four-Year Completers:STEM vs. Non-STEM MD aspirant (+) but effect mitigated by facultygrading on a curve and selectivity (-) condition Ph.D./Ed.D. aspirant (+) Law degree aspirant (-) Engineering, physical sciences, healthtech/nursing, and computer science (+) Pre-med, pre-pharm, pre-dental, pre-vet (-) 15. Key Findings for Five-Year Completers:STEM vs. Non-STEM Drop in predictive power of institutional size Non-sig difference between Latino/other groupsand White students Decrease in gender gap Decrease in salience of SAT Decrease in gap between BA/BS aspirants andlaw/medical aspirants Changes regarding majors Engineering increased gap, more likely to completein 5 years Physical science, health tech/nursing, and computerscience gap decreased compared to biomedicalaspirants 16. Key Findings for Six-Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEM Decreased salience of institutional size Closing of gender gap Women at selective institutions have lower STEM completion rates than women at less selective institutions Drop in gap between medical degree aspirants and BA/BS aspirants 17. Key Findings for Four-Year STEMCompletion versus No Completion Control: private (+) Research-focused (-) vs. comp. masters Concentration 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 (+) 18. Key Findings for Four-Year STEMCompletion versus No Completion HS GPA, SAT scores, years of math and bio (+) Expect to transfer (-) MD aspirant (+), mitigated by faculty grading on acurve (-) and selectivity (+) Masters degree aspirant (+) Law degree aspirant (-) Engineering and pre-med/pharm/dental/vet (-) Health tech/nursing (+) 19. Key Findings for Five-Year STEMCompletion vs. No Completion Loss of significance: institutionalcontrol, concentration of STEMundergraduates, size, percentage of facultyinvolving UGs in research Expanded gender gap (women +) Expanded gap between low-income and middleincome Reduced salience for SAT composite MD aspirations become less salient Increased predictive power of planning to live oncampus Only academic major difference: pre- 20. Key Findings for Six-Year STEM Completion vs. No Completion Size and facultys involvement of undergraduatesin research significant (like in 4-year model) Racial gaps persist, African American and NativeAm (- incr.) Gender gap declines and is moderated byselectivity (+) condition Predictive power of MD aspiration dropsfurther, as does law degree aspiration 21. URM Six Year Completers in STEMCompared With Non-STEM Completers: Concentration of premedical undergraduates (-) MD aspirants (+), but MD aspirants at more selectiveinstitutions less likely to stay in science than MD aspiringpeers at less selective institutions Law degree asp. (-) vs. BA/BS aspirants Engineering aspirants (+) vs. biological sciences, HS GPA (+), and higher achieving students complete at evenhigher rates on campuses where STEM faculty used student-centered pedagogy more often SAT Composite and years of HS math (+) Females (-) Academic self-concept (+) No significant differences between URM groups amongcompleters in STEM vs. Non-STEM 22. URM Six Year Completers in STEM Compared with non-Completers STEM faculty that involve undergrads in research(+) Selectivity (+) HS STEM outreach programs at institutions (-) Native Americans (-) vs. Latina/os Women (+) English Native speakers (-) Health technology/nursing majors (-) vs. lifesciences majors HSGPA, years of HS math, and academic self-concept (+) Intend to live on campus freshman year (+) 23. ConclusionContexts MatterSelective institutions can improve productivity. Theypromote degree completion, but students are not morelikely to complete in a STEM degrees.Premed Phenomenon Students who begin premed at institutions are morelikely to complete in STEM, are less likely to completein STEM at selective institutions, high % of premedscauses students to switch from STEM among four yearcompleterspresumably a talented group. 24. ConclusionSupportive Environments Work! Minority engineers are more likely to be retainedin STEM if they complete college compared tobioscience aspirants. Having an undergraduate research program hasan effect on retaining minority students in STEM(and quicker degree completion). Faculty student centered pedagogy wasimportant to staying in STEM for high-achievingminority students. Grading on curve particularly hurt premedaspirants, they were more likely to leave STEM at 25. ConclusionIn order to produce 1 million more STEMdegrees, we have to address diversity andequity in attainments and improve access toSTEM careers.Call for evidence-based teaching practices inSTEM.New initiatives by AAU and APLU indicategreat interest in demonstration campuses thatcan make transformations to increaseproductivity of STEM degrees. 26. Contact InformationFaculty/Co-PIs:Postdoctoral Scholars:AdministrativeSylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Staff:Mitchell Chang Josephine Gasiewski Dominique HarrisonGraduate Research Assistants:Tanya FigueroaFelisha HerreraGina Garcia Bryce HughesJuan GaribayCindy Mosqueda Papers and reports are available for download from project website:http://heri.ucla.edu/nih Project e-mail: [email protected] study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05, the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076, and the American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM090776-01. Thisindependent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.