Sylvia Hurtado - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Sylvia HurtadoKevin EaganBryce HughesHigher Education Research Institute, UCLA

Priming the Pump or the Sieve:

Institutional

Contexts and URM STEM Degree AttainmentsSlide2

A National Imperative

National Academies (2011) report

Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent

Establishes

most of the growth in the new jobs will require science and technology skills

“Those 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. Slide3

A National Imperative

2012 President’s 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. Slide4

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.Slide5

Literature Review: Student-level Characteristics

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 degreeSlide6

Literature Review: Institutional-Level Characteristics

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 MSIsSlide7

Literature Review: Are Selective Institutions Better for URM Students?

More selective universities have higher graduation rates

URM students also graduate at higher rates from more selective institutions

More recent studies have found conditions that indicate this benefit does not apply across the board

Wider usage of multilevel modeling in higher education research has shown single-level modeling overstates the effects of selectivity

Selectivity was found to be negatively related to four-year retention of women of color in STEM

Biomedical and behavioral science students attending more selective institutions were slightly but significantly less likely to be retained in these programs to their fourth year

Yet many recent multilevel studies continue to confirm selectivity positively predicts higher probability of graduationSlide8

Data Source: 2004 Freshman Survey, 2010-11 National Student Clearinghouse; HERI, UCLA Slide9

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 from 659 institutions, with STEM Supplement for over 10,000 STEM faculty

STEM Best Practices Survey – administered to STEM deans and department chairs at our participating campuses

Institutional Data obtained from IPEDS, Aggregates of Faculty, and Aggregates of Peer characteristics from students entering the same institutions in 2004. Slide10

MethodDependent Variable:STEM completion compared to:

Bachelor’s completion in non-STEM field

No bachelor’s degree completion-includes students still enrolled (major not known)

Measured at four, five, and six years to reflect differences in time to degreeSlide11

MethodIndependent variablesBackground characteristics

Pre-college preparation and experiences

Aspirations and expectations

Intended major

Aggregate peer effects

Institutional characteristics

Faculty contextual measures

Best practices in STEMSlide12

MethodAnalysis

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. ChairsSlide13

Key Findings for Four Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEMDenser concentrations of MD aspirants and larger campuses negatively predict STEM completion

Differences by race

Latino (-), Black(ns)

Asian/Pacific Islander (+)

Other race (+)

Women (-)

HS grade (+), and effect enhanced by faculty use of student-centered pedagogy

SAT, years of HS math and biology (+)Slide14

Key Findings for Four-Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEMMD aspirant (+) but effect mitigated by faculty grading on a curve and selectivity (-) condition

Ph.D./

Ed.D

. aspirant (+)

Law degree aspirant (-)

Engineering, physical sciences, health tech/nursing, and computer science (+)

Pre-med, pre-

pharm

, pre-dental, pre-vet (-)Slide15

Key Findings for Five-Year Completers: STEM vs. Non-STEM

Drop in predictive power of institutional size

Non-sig difference between Latino/other groups and White students

Decrease in gender gap

Decrease in salience of SAT

Decrease in gap between BA/BS aspirants and law/medical aspirants

Changes regarding majors

Engineering increased gap, more likely to complete in 5 years

Physical science, health tech/nursing, and computer science gap decreased compared to biomedical aspirantsSlide16

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 aspirantsSlide17

Key Findings for Four-Year STEM Completion 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 (+)Slide18

Key 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 (+)Slide19

Key Findings for Five-Year STEM Completion vs. No CompletionLoss of significance: institutional control, concentration of STEM undergraduates, size, percentage of faculty involving UGs in research

Expanded gender gap (women +)

Expanded gap between low-income and middle income

Reduced salience for SAT composite

MD aspirations become less salient

Increased predictive power of planning to live on campus

Only academic major difference: pre-med/pharm/dental/vet (-) compared to biosciencesSlide20

Key Findings for Six-Year STEM Completion vs. No CompletionSize and faculty’s 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 (+) condition

Predictive power of MD aspiration drops further, as does law degree aspirationSlide21

URM 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 institutions

Law degree asp. (-) vs. BA/BS aspirants

Engineering 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 often

SAT Composite and years of HS math (+)

Females (-)

Academic self-concept (+)

No significant differences between URM groups among completers in STEM vs. Non-STEMSlide22

URM 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/

os

Women (+)

English Native speakers (-)

Health technology/nursing majors (-) vs. life sciences majors

HSGPA, years of HS math, and academic self-concept (+)

Intend to live on campus freshman year (+)Slide23

Conclusion

Contexts Matter

Selective 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 completers—presumably a talented group. Slide24

ConclusionSupportive 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.Slide25

Conclusion

In

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.Slide26

Contact Information

This 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

/

nih

Project

e-mail:

herinih@ucla.edu

Faculty/Co-PIs:

Sylvia Hurtado

Mitchell Chang

Tanya Figueroa

Gina Garcia

Juan Garibay

Postdoctoral Scholars:

Kevin Eagan

Josephine Gasiewski

Administrative Staff:

Dominique Harrison

Graduate Research Assistants:

Felisha Herrera

Bryce Hughes

Cindy Mosqueda