Welcome to the ASCN webinar: Creating a Unified Community of Support: Increasing Success for Underrepresented Students in STEM As you enter, please review the Zoom controls below. Leave your audio and video off, unless prompted by a host. You can post any questions in the chat box. Thank you! Please leave your audio muted and video off (both indicated by a red slash) Click to open the Participants box. This will allow you to give nonverbal feedback. Click to open the Chat box. This will allow you to chat with Hosts and Participants

Lessons from the CSU STEM Collaboratives Creating a Unified Community of Support: Increasing Success for Underrepresented Students in STEM Lessons from the CSU STEM Collaboratives Elizabeth Holcombe University of Southern California

Overview Barriers to Success for Underrepresented Students in STEM Description of CSU STEM Collaboratives Campus Models of Success: Humboldt State and CSU-Dominguez Hills Value of the Project For Students For Campus Community Implementation Challenges and Supports Role of Collaboration Key Takeaways

Getting to Know You (Poll)

Barriers to Success for Underrepresented Students in STEM Continued barriers to success in STEM for students from low-income, first-generation, or URM backgrounds Decades of work and billions of dollars spent, but no significant progress in closing gaps

Barriers to Success for Underrepresented Students in STEM Why do gaps in success remain? Poorly taught introductory courses Negative, unwelcoming, competitive climate Lack of structural supports for students (i.e. mentoring, tutoring, effective remediation) Most existing programs only target one area of students’ needs or are disconnected from other important supports

CSU STEM Collaboratives 8 participating campuses in the California State University (CSU) system, funded by Helmsley Charitable Trust Campuses tasked with creating integrated program for underrepresented students in STEM that incorporates academic affairs and student affairs functions 3 linked high-impact practices: Summer bridge First-year experience Redesigned introductory STEM courses 2 years of implementation

Campus Models of Success: Humboldt State Klamath Connection Place-based learning community—thematic approach around Klamath River Basin that promoted integration across interventions Summer bridge: four-day residential program, included fieldwork, science assignments and experiments all related to theme FYE: Klamath Connection learning community, linked courses and major-specific first-year seminar that combined STEM content and college knowledge content; also had peer mentors Redesigned courses: content changed to include link to Klamath River, other courses in learning community

Campus Models of Success: Humboldt State Klamath Connection Significant benefits for students (13% point increase in retention, higher sense of belonging) Major benefits for campus community, spread to other departments New theme-based learning communities in STEM and liberal arts, new joint projects/grants

Logic Model: Humboldt

Campus Models of Success: Dominguez Hills FUSE Differentiated support for high-needs students at a commuter campus Different tracks based on math preparation and science experiences Summer bridge: 6 weeks, partnered with existing Early Start program, gave students a head start on math courses, plus additional STEM workshops that gave students early exposure to faculty and STEM careers FYE: paired/linked courses that were redesigned to include more active learning pedagogies, standards-based grading, and team-based learning, as well as peer-led team-learning sessions

Campus Models of Success: Dominguez Hills FUSE Higher STEM retention rates and course pass rates for participating students Intensive summer bridge less appropriate for working commuter students—some changes made after first year Especially positive benefits from Supplemental Instruction and Peer-Led Team Learning

Logic Model: Dominguez Hills

Poll: Integrated Programs?

Value of the Project for Students More positive outcomes for participants including: Improved retention (overall and in STEM), higher grades in STEM courses and higher pass rates, higher sense of belonging and self-efficacy Value comes from: Unified community of support that breaks down negative STEM climate Cohorting Integrated, cohesive curricular experiences that gave students a broader view of education and their future opportunities

Elements of STEM Student Success Unlike most initiatives for underrepresented students in STEM, this project supported students’ needs that were first-generation-specific AND STEM-specific Support in both areas is essential for success

STEM-Specific Elements of Student Success Math readiness STEM advising Hands-on and experiential learning STEM career awareness Peer mentors in STEM majors Development of scientific identity Peer-based learning models

First-Generation-Specific Elements of Student Success Setting expectations and creating college knowledge Working with faculty Validation Family support Intrusive advising and structured pathways

Poll: Elements of STEM Student Success

Unified Community of Support Brings together the expertise of academic and student affairs to address STEM-specific and first-generation-specific challenges Bridging silos in this way helps develop the most appropriate interventions for students, create multiple touch points of support, and build relationships and a community to support students as they encounter challenges Specific interventions (i.e. summer bridge or FYE) matter less than alignment of multiple programs, which required academic and student affairs staff to work together, learn from each other, and develop interventions that included knowledge from both communities Faculty and staff also experienced this unified community of support

Value for Campus Community Improved Relationships Learning Other faculty work Student affairs work Students Needed institutional supports and policies Better Experiences with Teaching and Students Joint Work and New Initiatives Unified Community of Support

Value: Improved Relationships Among faculty Developing relationships across departments (e.g. chemistry and math faculty) Able to directly connect students with other faculty and talk to one another about students’ work across courses Across divisions Faculty and administration developing better relationships Inviting to each other’s meetings and asking for input and advice on various student issues

Value: Learning About other faculty work Learning about what is going on in other classes or about other grants/projects About student affairs work (leading to mutual respect) Faculty learn about advising, mentoring, etc. and understand the value and importance of it for underrepresented student success About students Connecting with students across multiple experiences leads to learning more about their academic experiences and their lives in general About needed institutional supports and practices Learning more about the institution and students, understanding what works and what gaps remain

Value: Better Experiences with Teaching and Students Additional opportunities to connect with students (outside of just one class) lessen intimidation and help students feel more comfortable with faculty Students more willing to speak up in class, open up about what is going on in their lives More engaged classes and more positive experiences with students

Value: Joint Work and New Initiatives Teaming up with other departments to apply for new grants Expanding elements of STEM Collaboratives into other departments/schools Partnering with student affairs or student support services in new ways New ways of working on campus

Unified Community of Support: Another Perspective “I think one of the big values was just getting the faculty and the staff and admissions and residence life and the mentors, to kind of all be much more aware of what the others are doing and in so doing, being able to have a more unified approach. It kind of created a community amongst the faculty and staff as well. So, that was one of the big values I think.” “That group of students, that [STEM Collaboratives] cohort, now is not associated with an academic or a student support service unit. It spans multiple academic units and student support service units. So, it forces the leaders of all of those to have ownership for that community and then to speak to each other accordingly.”

Implementation Challenges Poor Program Design Institutional Policies and Practices Workload Team Composition and Interpersonal Dynamics Lack of Collaboration

Implementation Challenges Poor Program Design that did not match student needs or institutional capacity Not considering students’ outside demands (work, family, other required courses) when cohorting Not including engaging, major-specific courses in redesign or cohorted experience Not analyzing data thoroughly enough to target the right students or to ensure a cohesive cohort Not selecting appropriate existing programs to partner with (i.e. EOP, which has very few STEM students at many campuses)

Implementation Challenges Institutional Policies and Practices General lack of awareness of certain policies necessary for redesigning courses or integrating interventions Overly complex policies that hinder implementation Specific policies that hinder team-teaching or interdisciplinary courses, block scheduling, or new course approval

Implementation Challenges Workload Not accounting for additional work of integrating programs in incentive and reward structures for either faculty or staff Existing structures and policies sometimes actually inhibit collaborative and integrative work

Implementation Challenges Team Composition and Interpersonal Dynamics Did not include people with key responsibilities that would facilitate necessary changes (i.e. registrar, advising, admissions) Did not include the right combination of influential leaders and on-the-ground faculty/staff Lack of teambuilding or professional development to bridge gaps among people who do not normally work together

Implementation Challenges Lack of Collaboration led to: Ineffective communication and relationship-building Competition among support programs Lack of knowledge of other units Poor relationships between academic and student affairs

Implementation Challenges (Poll)

Implementation Challenges How have you (or how might you) overcome some of these challenges?

Importance of Collaboration Collaboration was an important facilitator of success in terms of implementing the integrated programs Collaboration led to better program design that: incorporated academic affairs and student affairs knowledge, used data to better serve students’ needs, and built off existing services and programs Collaboration helped overcome implementation challenges including: ensuring program elements were connected and cohorted, recruiting students and gaining buy-in from faculty and staff, and circumventing rigid or inflexible policies

Strategies to Foster Collaboration and Promote Integration Mechanisms that help facilitate alignment across interventions and build unified community of support include: Thematic Approach Professional Learning Community Pathways or Structured Curriculum Advising and Technology Systems

Key Takeaways Two key sets of knowledge that are crucial for underrepresented student success in STEM—but siloed in academic affairs and student affairs Integrated programs created a unified community of support that had immense value for students, faculty, and staff Some implementation challenges are unique to integrated programs Collaboration is key determinant of success for integrated programs Specific high-impact practices are less important than integrating multiple experiences to create cohesive experience

Questions?