BLACK STEM ASPIRANTS AND THE OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE Association for Institutional Research Denver, Colorado May 28, 2015 Tanya Figueroa, Ashlee Wilkins Sylvia Hurtado UCLA

Introduction  Too few Black students graduate with STEM degrees  Black students face multiple challenges in STEM majors  A number of experiences and activities mitigate the effect of these barriers – the “opportunity structure” in STEM programs

Purpose of Study  Purpose: Investigate the factors that are predictive of Black students’ participation within two components of the opportunity structure:  Supplemental instruction  Faculty mentorship and support

Supplemental Instruction  Targets “at-risk courses” as opposed to “at-risk students”  Peer-facilitated sessions focused on problem solving and enhancing course material  Voluntary; not remedial  Supplemental instruction has been shown to improve academic performance and term-to-term retention rates in single-institution studies

Faculty Mentoring  Intentional support, as opposed to happenstance faculty-student interactions  Consists of professional and personal support  Faculty mentoring also improves academic performance and retention

Methods  Data source and sample:  2004 CIRP Freshman Survey (TFS)  2008 CIRP College Senior Survey (CSS)  Institutional data from IPEDS Sample: 792 Black STEM aspirants and a random sample of 792 White students across 175 institutions  Analysis  Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)  4 models

Methods (Cont.) Student-Level Variables Demographic Characteristics (6) High School Preparation, Achievement, and Experiences (8) Campus Climate (4) College Experiences (12) STEM Area of Focus (6) Institutional-Level Variables Institutional Characteristics (e.g. size, selectivity, type) (11)

Findings Black Students: Supplemental Instruction Student-Level  Years of Biology in High School (-)  HPW Talking to Teachers Outside Class (+)  Joined a Club or Organization Related to Major (+)  Receipt of Faculty Mentorship (+) Institutional-Level  Undergraduate Full-Time Enrollment (-)  Proportion of STEM Undergraduate Majors (-)  Research/Doctoral Granting Institution (+)

Findings White Students: Supplemental Instruction Student-Level  High Income (-)  Years of Biology (-)  Positive Cross-Racial Interactions (+)  Studied with Other Students (+)  Faculty Interested in Students' Academic Problems (+)  Receipt of Faculty Mentorship (+) Institutional-Level  Undergraduate Full-Time Enrollment (+)

Comparing Significant Coefficients from the Black STEM Model 7 to the Coefficients from the White STEM Model 7 for Supplemental Instruction Black STEM students n=792 White STEM students n=792 Variables b S.E. b Z-ScoreMeaning Institutional Variables Undergraduate full-time enrollment (10,000) * * 0.00 *** Affect is more pronounced for White students Research/Doctoral granting institution (vs. master comprehensive) 0.26 ****** Only affects Black students Proportion of STEM undergraduate majors * Only affects Black students Pre-college preparation, achievement and experiences (Responses taken from TFS) Years of biological science in H.S * * 0.02 n.s.Similar effect Hours per week: Talking with high school teachers outside class 0.06 ** Only affects Black students College Behaviors (Responses taken from the CSS) Joined a club or organization related to major 0.11 * Only affects Black students STEM Environment Receipt of faculty mentorship 0.01 *** ** 0.00 n.s.Similar effect

Findings Black Students: Receipt of Faculty Mentorship Student-Level  Felt Intimidated by your Professors(-)  High Middle Income (100K-199K) (+)  Positive cross-racial Interactions(+)  Sense of Belonging (+)  Participated in a Program to Prepare for Graduate School (+)  Overall College GPA (+)  Met With an Advisor/Counselor About Your Career Plans (+)  Participated in an Internship Program (+)  Had Instruction that Supplemented Coursework (+)  Faculty Here are Interested in Students’ Academic Problems (+) Institutional-Level  HBCU (+)  Proportion of Undergraduate White Students (+)

Findings White Students: Receipt of Faculty Mentorship Student-Level  High School GPA (-)  SAT composite score (-)  HPW Talking to High School Teachers (+)  Sense of Belonging (+)  Participated in a program to prepare for graduate (+)  Overall college GPA (+)  Met with an advisor/counselor about your career (+)  Studied with other students (+)  Joined a club or organization related to major (+)  Had instruction that supplemented course work (+)  Faculty here are interested in students' academic (+)  Academic self-concept (+)  Engineering aspirants are less likely than biology aspirants (-)

Comparing Significant Coefficients from the Black STEM Model 6 to the Coefficients from the White STEM Model 6 for Faculty Mentoring and Support Black STEM students n=792 White STEM students n=792 Variables bS.E. b Z-ScoreMeaning Demographic Characteristics High middle income ($100K-$199,999)2.22 * Only affects Black students Campus Climate (responses take from the CSS) Felt intimidated by your professors ** Only affects Black students Positive cross-racial interactions 0.10 * Only affects Black students Sense of belonging 0.16 ** * ** 0.04 n.s.Similar effect College Experiences (responses taken from the CSS) Behaviors Participated in a program to prepare for graduate school 2.89 ** * ** 0.76 n.s.Similar effect Overall college GPA 0.60 ** ** 0.22 n.s.Similar effect Met with an advisor/counselor about your career plans 2.70 ** * *** 0.51 n.s.Similar effect Participated in an internship program 1.87 ** Only affects Black students Had instruction that supplemented course work 2.52 ** * ** 0.44 n.s.Similar effect Perceptions/Attitudes Faculty here are interested in students' academic problems 3.98 ** * *** 0.46 n.s.Similar effect

Discussion and Conclusion  Institutional context matters!  May be reflective of the opportunities available to students which vary by institution.  Or some institutions may be more intentional in targeting services  Institutions can learn from each other  Campus Climate matters! - for both White and Black students

Implications  Students should not be expected to volunteer for activities  Institutional Agents foster engagement  Dialogue with students about needs  Tailor services for the unique needs of Black students  Need for qualitative research to get at nuances of Black student experiences at various types of institutions

Contact Info Faculty/Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Ashlee Wilkins Tanya Figueroa Bryce Hughes Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Graduate Research Assistants: Website: Post-Bacc Research Analyst: Robert Paul 16 This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO and R01 GMO , the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number , and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.

References  Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of acion: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.  Barlow, A., & Villarejo, M. (2004). Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational enrichment program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9),  Bauer, K. W. (1998). Editor’s notes. In New Directions for Institutional Research (No. 98, pp. 1–5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Bohlscheid J., & Clark, S. (2012). Career preparedness survey outcomes of food science graduates – A follow-up assessment. Journal of Food Science Education, 11,  Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J., & Li, S. (2008). Reinventing undergraduate education: Engaging college students in research and creative activities. ashe higher education report, volume 33, number 4. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(4),  Perna L.W., Gasman M., Gary, S. Lundy-Wagner V., & Drezner, N. D. (2010). Identifying strategies for increasing degree attainment in STEM: Lessons from minority-serving institutions. New Directions For Institutional Research, (148),  Seymour, R., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S., & DeAntoni, T. “Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates: First Findings from a Three-year Study.” Science Education, 2004, 88(4), 493–594.  Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.  Strayhorn, T. L., & Terrell, M. C. (2007). Mentoring and satisfaction with college for Black students.” Negro Educational Review, 58(1-2), 69–83.  Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4),

Literature  In general the opportunity structure:  Increases students’ confidence and skills (Bauer & Bennett, 2003; Seymour et al., 2004; Strayhorn & Terrell, 2007)  Facilitates the development of curiosity and inner motivation via collective learning (Olstedt, 2005)  Socializes students into STEM (Lopatto, 2004)  Improves retention and persistence in STEM (Hu, Scheuch, Schwartz, Gayles & Li, 2008)  Propels students into careers in STEM (Bohlscheid & Clark, 2012)

Limitations  Only includes the responses of Black students who persisted to the fourth year of college  CSS had a relatively low longitudinal response rate (23%)  Cannot assume a causal relationship between the dependent variables and those independent variables

Descriptive Statistics: Black Students Variable Sex68% Female Had never utilized Supplemental Instruction by 4 th yr in college 11.6% Faculty Mentorship (mean score)49.11 Institutional Selectivity1133 (avg. SAT score of incoming class) Proportion of White students in the student body 0% at HBCUs to 93% at PWIs (range) 54.75% (Average)

Descriptive Statistics: White Students Variable Sex48% Female Had never utilized Supplemental Instruction by 4 th yr in college 14.8% Faculty Mentorship (mean score)48.92 Institutional Selectivity1162 (avg. SAT score of incoming class) Proportion of White students in the student body 18% to 93% (range) 64.47% (average)

Conceptual Framework Critical Perspectives Microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007) Campus Climate (Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000 Social Factors Faculty (Hoffman & Oreopoulos, 2007) Peers (Harper & Quaye, 2007; Museus, 2008) The Institutional Context Designation (Toldson,2013) Selectivity (Chang et al, 2008)