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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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 (+)

9. 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 (+)

10. 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) -0.11 * 0.000.14 * 0.00 *** Affect is more pronounced for White students Research/Doctoral granting institution (vs. master comprehensive) 0.26 ****** 0.070.050.07 Only affects Black students Proportion of STEM undergraduate majors -0.46 * 0.190.130.16 Only affects Black students Pre-college preparation, achievement and experiences (Responses taken from TFS) Years of biological science in H.S. -0.05 * 0.02-0.05 * 0.02 n.s.Similar effect Hours per week: Talking with high school teachers outside class 0.06 ** 0.02-0.010.03 Only affects Black students College Behaviors (Responses taken from the CSS) Joined a club or organization related to major 0.11 * 0.05-0.010.05 Only affects Black students STEM Environment Receipt of faculty mentorship 0.01 *** 0.00 0.01 ** 0.00 n.s.Similar effect

11. 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 (+)

12. 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 (-)

13. 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 * 0.95-0.900.69 Only affects Black students Campus Climate (responses take from the CSS) Felt intimidated by your professors -1.33 ** 0.49-0.190.49 Only affects Black students Positive cross-racial interactions 0.10 * 0.040.050.03 Only affects Black students Sense of belonging 0.16 ** * 0.040.14 ** 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 ** * 0.872.07 ** 0.76 n.s.Similar effect Overall college GPA 0.60 ** 0.230.73 ** 0.22 n.s.Similar effect Met with an advisor/counselor about your career plans 2.70 ** * 0.512.97 *** 0.51 n.s.Similar effect Participated in an internship program 1.87 ** 0.66-0.360.59 Only affects Black students Had instruction that supplemented course work 2.52 ** * 0.531.41 ** 0.44 n.s.Similar effect Perceptions/Attitudes Faculty here are interested in students' academic problems 3.98 ** * 0.48 4.56 *** 0.46 n.s.Similar effect

14. 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

15. 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

16. Contact Info Faculty/Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Ashlee Wilkins Tanya Figueroa Bryce Hughes Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Graduate Research Assistants: Website: www.heri.ucla.edu E-mail: heri@ucla.edu 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 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.

17. 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), 861-881  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, 8-15.  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), 1-103.  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), 41-51.  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), 271-286

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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)

21. 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)

22. 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)