1. Sylvia Hurtado, Minh Tran, Kevin Eagan, Christopher Newman, & Paolo Velasco University of California, Los Angeles Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum Atlanta, Georgia – June 1, 2009 “We Do Science Here”: Underrepresented Students in Difference College Contexts

2.  Promoting Diversity: Access and Engagement in Biomedical and Behavioral Science Research Preparation  UCLA Higher Education Research Institute  A national study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF)  Purpose: to examine underrepresented student access to resources and forms of engagement that result in outcomes (skills, dispositions, and behaviors) necessary for a research career in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Introduction

3.  Background  Previous Research  Conceptual Framework  Methods  Results  Discussion  Implications Overview

4.  In 2002, only 17% of scientists and engineers in the United States were people of color with only 6% of this population comprising underrepresented minorities (NSF, 2002)  URM students’ STEM completion rate: 26%  White/Asian American STEM completion rate: 46%  Priority: develop, recruit, and retain top STEM students to maintain U.S. global economic competitiveness (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2007) Background

5.  Benefits of student-faculty interaction (Astin, 1993; Pascarelle & Terenzini, 2005)  Student background factors – not all types of students have frequent faculty interactions ( Cole, 2007; Kuh & Hu, 2001)  College experiences that influence interaction include difference by major, year in school, academic performance, accessibility cues, and types of institution (HBCUs & HSI) (Cole, 2007)  Department practices and values that discourage students at PWIs (Johnson, 2007)  STEM degree attainments at HBCUs/HSIs may be largely due to faculty interaction (Nelson Laird et al., 2007; Allen, 1992) Previous Research

6. Performance Recognition Competence Science Identity Social performances of relevant scientific practices Recognizing oneself and getting recognized by others as a “science person” Knowledge and understanding of science content Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Identities (Carlone & Johnson, 2007) Conceptual Framework

7.  Science Identification (Carlone and Johnson, 2007)  Academic Tribes and Culture (Becher, 1989)  Culture of Science as a source of “disruption” ▪ Folklore, myths, and legends ▪ Socialization ▪ Normalization – “This is how science is done!” Conceptual Framework

8. Mixed Methods  Sequential (Creswell, 2003)  Phase 1: quantitative longitudinal study of students from over 115 higher education institutions  Phase 2: qualitative five-campus case study  Advantages  Provides broader perspectives and more detail to examine and interpret quantitative results Methods

9. Data & Sample  5 campuses: 1 HBCU, 2 HSIs, & 2 PWIs  Semi-structured interview protocol  17 faculty & staff interviews  Focus group participants: 71 students, purposefully recruited from undergraduate research programs  60% female/40% male  56% Latina/o, 18% Black, 13% Asian American, 8% multiracial, 2.5% American Indian, & 2.5% White  70% were biology, biochemistry, or chemistry majors Qualitative Methods

10. Qualitative Analysis  Coded transcriptions using NVivo® software to identify emergent themes (Bazely, 2007)  Acceptable inter-coder reliability levels between 75%-85% (Miles & Huberman, 1994)  Cross-case analyses to tease out the contextual differences (Miles & Huberman, 1994) Qualitative Methods

11. Data and sample  2004 Freshman Survey and 2005 Your First College Year (YFCY) Survey  Final analytic sample: 3,003 students across 117 institutions Quantitative Methods

12. Variables  DV: Faculty interactions: frequency of interaction with faculty during office hours; interaction with faculty outside of class or office hours; getting advice about their educational program; received emotional support from faculty (alpha = 0.68)  IVs:  Demographic characteristics (race, gender, SES)  Prior academic preparation (HS GPA, summer research program)  College experiences (e.g., research participation, feeling intimidated by faculty, participation in academic clubs)  Institutional characteristics (size, selectivity, normative contexts) Quantitative Methods

13. Analysis  Principal axis factoring (factor analysis)  Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) Limitations  Not a representative sample  Low survey response rate  Analysis of secondary data  Purposeful sampling for focus groups  Data were collected at different time points in students’ undergraduate career Quantitative Methods

14.  Effect of being Black/African American (-)  HBCU (+)  Selectivity (+)  Size (+)  Effect of participation in academic club (+)  Aggregated science commitment (+)  Aggregated feeling that faculty treat students like numbers (+)  Research expenditures (-)  Work on a professor’s research project (+)  Research expenditures (+) Results: Predicting Interactions with Faculty Outside of Class (Quantitative)

15.  Institutional effects  Selectivity (-)  Size (-)  Feeling that faculty treat students like numbers (-)  Individual effects  Opinion: faculty interested in students’ personal/academic problems (+)  Frequency: Received negative feedback on academic work (+)  Participated in academic enrichment program for minority students (+)  Success at managing the academic environment (+) Results: Predicting Interactions with Faculty Outside of Class (Quantitative)

16. Themes  Faculty Support  Large impersonal science environments  Lack of institutional reward structures  Competitive Environments  Cutthroat competition facilitated in part by faculty and gatekeeper courses  Faculty Approachability  Reluctance to approach faculty and faculty cues denoting inaccessibility  Underrepresentation of minority faculty Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student Experiences (Qualitative)

17. Faculty Support  Student A (PWI): That seems to happen when you have really good professors that are doing other things besides teaching, like doing world-renowned research. They tend to not care about the other responsibilities that come along with that.  Student B (HSI): They treat you as a whole person rather than just what you have to offer academically, and that made a big difference for me, just knowing that they’re real people too and you can go to them outside of academics, and then that in turn, the advice that they give you, benefits you academically because, you know, they push in the right direction. Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student Experiences (Qualitative)

18. Faculty Support  Faculty Director A (PWI): It’s a challenge to bring more new faculty on and because there are no tenure perk points. It’s “I’ve got to publish and I’ve got to do other things, I gotta serve on this committee, I don’t get any points if I [help you], so no.”  Faculty Director B (HSI): I haven’t wanted to run one of these big programs because nationally all my friends who got into this, their scientific careers went down the tubes … I mean, they don’t get papers now… they can’t focus on things because it’s too much, so I really was reluctant to do this.” Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student Experiences (Qualitative)

19. Competitive/Collaborative Environments  Student D (HSI): I think one way [my professor] seeks to motivate us is to kind of be like, “Don’t you want to be better than so-and-so.”  Student E (PWI): It’s not in your nature to learn like that I don’t think. It puts too much pressure on your when you’re not trying to understand the material because you like it, you’re trying just to ace the class, so it’s not that desire to learn, but the desire to get a better grade.  Student F (HBCU): It’s not a competition in the sense, “Oh, I need to outdo you,” but... I see my friends constantly studying, and let’s just say if I see them make a higher grade than I made on my test and I knew I could have studied more, then I’m like, “OK, I need to get my stuff together.” Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student Experiences (Qualitative)

20. Faculty Approachability  Student G (PWI): I think it’s hard to ask for help... all my professors are either White or Asian and it’s kind of hard for me sometimes, but just recently I started to talking to a few of my professors when I didn’t understand something, but it took me two years to finally do it. It’s intimidating.  Student H (HBCU): I was able to see professors that were African American, bio-chemistry Ph.D. professors, people that look like me, which motivated me to say, “OK, I can do this.”  Student I (PWI): Once you get past that reluctance they are like definitely willing to help. It’s just that hurdle you have to get over of being afraid to really ask.  Student J (HBCU): If [faculty] hear you say you want to grad school, that’s when they really start pushing and really want you to do well and really give you all the resources that you need to do well. Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student Experiences (Qualitative)

21.  Frequency of student-faculty interactions affected by 2 main factors:  Structural characteristics of institutions  Peer normative contexts  Institutional differences related to faculty interactions for Black students Discussion

22. Structural characteristics of institutions  Size: Undergraduates have to contend with their peers and graduate students for faculty time  Selectivity: More competitive environments facilitated by science faculty  Sense of competition felt among students and encouraged by faculty corresponds to theory on students’ development of science identity (Carlone and Johnson, 2007) as well as disciplinary culture perpetuated by tradition and socialization (Becher, 1989) Discussion

23. Peer normative contexts  Students’ sense that faculty treat them like numbers in a book significantly depressed faculty interaction.  Findings may be due to…  Faculty cues signifying level of approachability  Overall ethic of caring for both students’ personal and academic lives Discussion

24. Black Students & HBCUs  Tended to interact with faculty significantly less frequently than their White peers at PWIs  Students enrolled at an HBCU felt more confident in themselves and in their interactions with faculty because professors looked like them.  Finding supports prior work that concluded HBCUs promote stronger connections between Black students and faculty (Allen, 1992; Laird et al., 2007). Discussion

25.  Provide opportunities and resources that facilitate meaningful connections between students and faculty to counteract large, impersonal environments.  Lack of tangible incentives in institutional reward structures for faculty participation and administration of undergraduate research programs.  Provosts/Deans need to find ways to recognize the work of faculty who devote time and effort to undergraduate research programs Conclusions and Implications

26. Questions Faculty and Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Mitchell Chang Graduate Research Assistants: Kevin Eagan Lorelle Espinsoa Christopher Newman Jessica Sharkness Minh Tran Paolo Velasco Administrative Staff: Aaron Pearl Acknowledgments: 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 as well as the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076. 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