United States

Nationally, there has been a push to increase the persistence of STEM majors for decades. The Neal Report in 1986 first sounded the alarm (1). Since then there has been a great deal of analysis and alarm ringing, but the success of STEM majors in introductory courses has not improved. The national average for persistence in gateway courses is still in the 60-70% range (2). At Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC), an open-access four-year state college, 30-40% of students who were enrolled in the introductory courses for the Biology and Chemistry majors did not successfully complete that course. A significant question that needed to be answered was how educational institutions, and more specifically how GGC, can meet the demands for greater numbers of STEM graduates to fill the technologically advanced jobs of the future. At GGC the School of Science and Technology uses an institutional model that includes four key High Impact Practices (HIPs) including Course-embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs), Peer Supplemental Instruction (PSI), and Faculty Learning Communities.

The specific aim of this project was to better understand why students withdraw from gateway (introductory) courses required for their major. This research project was a quantitative methods study employing questionnaires to collect data. The research questions this project addressed were: 
1. What are the top reasons why students withdraw from one of the gateway courses in their major?
2. When during the semester do students commit to withdraw and submit the form to withdraw from the course? 
3. How have students who have withdrawn made use of the available resource while enrolled in a course from which they ultimately withdrew?

We solicited the participation of approximately 2,126 undergraduate students who withdrew from one or more gateway course(s), more specifically, from Principles of Biology I and II with Laboratory, Principles of Chemistry I and II with Laboratory, College Algebra, Precalculus, and/or Programming Fundamentals courses in 2019 and 2020. The questionnaire covered reasons for and timing of the withdrawal decision. Additionally, students were questioned about their use of on-campus resources, such as Peer Supplemental Instruction (PSI), tutoring in the Academic Enhancement Center (AEC), and meeting with their course instructor outside of regular class sessions. We also asked about their use of online resources, such as the publisher’s textbook site or videos (Khan Academy, YouTube, etc.). 

From the 167 students who have responded by November 23, 2020, our preliminary analysis indicated that most students decided to withdraw close to mid-semester. The top two reasons given were course-related issues and work commitments. To better understand the dimensions of the issues chosen by the student, follow-up questions were asked. For example, two of the top dimensions of work commitments were worked too many hours and work schedule conflicts. In terms of resources, very few availed themselves of available on-campus opportunities and preferred online videos. Only 26 of 97 students who responded attended PSI sessions, only 21 of 92 students received tutoring in the AEC, and only 34 of 131 students met with their instructor outside of regular class sessions, while 65 of 100 students reported using online resources (videos) as part of their study strategy. 

This work is funded and supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation under NSF Award No. 1623779. 

1. Seymour, E., &amp; Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

2. Awong-Taylor, J., Runck, C., Mundie, T., D’Costa, A., Pursell, D., Leader, T…Moon, N.W. (2018, December 12). Engendering faculty and student engagement in STEM education: An institutional model. Scientia. //dx.doi.org/10.26320/SCIENTIA287. 


12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Top reasons that science majors cite for withdrawing from STEM gateway courses.

stem majors

course withdrawal

high impact practices

**Making Physics More Inclusive and Eliminating Exclusionary Practices in Physics**

As a gateway discipline to STEM majors and careers, physics plays a central role in deciding who does, and who doesn't, get to discover and pursue scientific careers. Technical and scientific professionals are rewarded with economic privilege and status which affords them both social and cultural power. Therefore, social justice will be realized only when the opportunity, and the choice, to excel in physics is open to all students. The culture and practices of the physics classroom reflect the culture of physics at large, which raises the question of how our professional physics communities can embrace, rather than inadvertently repel, a diverse group of academics that can help improve physics culture.  To this end, the 2021 Physics Education Research Conference will focus on defining inclusive spaces and practices. Additionally, we will explore strategies for eliminating exclusionary practices in our classrooms, research spaces, and professional organizations. We call on the community to propose sessions that will drive conversations related to these initiatives throughout PERC 2021.

Please download the full program [here. ](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TRMC_SYJ3PUqXyP7sskA7LRSA8ow0eRE/view?usp=sharing)

PERC SM 21

August 4, 2021 - August 5, 2021 in a Virtual Conference Format

Making Physics More Inclusive and Eliminating Exclusionary Practices in Physics

Nationally, there has been a push to increase the persistence of STEM majors for decades. The Neal Report in 1986 first sounded the alarm (1). Since then there has been a great deal of analysis and alarm ringing, but the success of STEM majors in introductory courses has not improved. The national average for persistence in gateway courses is still in the 60-70% range (2). At Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC), an open-access four-year state college, 30-40% of students who were enrolled in the introductory courses for the Biology and Chemistry majors did not successfully complete that course. A significant question that needed to be answered was how educational institutions, and more specifically how GGC, can meet the demands for greater numbers of STEM graduates to fill the technologically advanced jobs of the future. At GGC the School of Science and Technology uses an institutional model that includes four key High Impact Practices (HIPs) including Course-embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs), Peer Supplemental Instruction (PSI), and Faculty Learning Communities.

The specific aim of this project was to better understand why students withdraw from gateway (introductory) courses required for their major. This research project was a quantitative methods study employing questionnaires to collect data. The research questions this project addressed were: 
1. What are the top reasons why students withdraw from one of the gateway courses in their major?
2. When during the semester do students commit to withdraw and submit the form to withdraw from the course? 
3. How have students who have withdrawn made use of the available resource while enrolled in a course from which they ultimately withdrew?

We solicited the participation of approximately 2,126 undergraduate students who withdrew from one or more gateway course(s), more specifically, from Principles of Biology I and II with Laboratory, Principles of Chemistry I and II with Laboratory, College Algebra, Precalculus, and/or Programming Fundamentals courses in 2019 and 2020. The questionnaire covered reasons for and timing of the withdrawal decision. Additionally, students were questioned about their use of on-campus resources, such as Peer Supplemental Instruction (PSI), tutoring in the Academic Enhancement Center (AEC), and meeting with their course instructor outside of regular class sessions. We also asked about their use of online resources, such as the publisher’s textbook site or videos (Khan Academy, YouTube, etc.). 

From the 167 students who have responded by November 23, 2020, our preliminary analysis indicated that most students decided to withdraw close to mid-semester. The top two reasons given were course-related issues and work commitments. To better understand the dimensions of the issues chosen by the student, follow-up questions were asked. For example, two of the top dimensions of work commitments were worked too many hours and work schedule conflicts. In terms of resources, very few availed themselves of available on-campus opportunities and preferred online videos. Only 26 of 97 students who responded attended PSI sessions, only 21 of 92 students received tutoring in the AEC, and only 34 of 131 students met with their instructor outside of regular class sessions, while 65 of 100 students reported using online resources (videos) as part of their study strategy. 

This work is funded and supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation under NSF Award No. 1623779. 

1. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

2. Awong-Taylor, J., Runck, C., Mundie, T., D’Costa, A., Pursell, D., Leader, T…Moon, N.W. (2018, December 12). Engendering faculty and student engagement in STEM education: An institutional model. Scientia. //dx.doi.org/10.26320/SCIENTIA287. 


poster

UI is excited to announce the rescheduled 12th Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions December 10 & 12, 2020! As you may recall, the original conference scheduled back in March 2020 had to be cancelled due the worsening global conditions, and further declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stay tuned for details regarding the virtual conference.

On December 10, 2020 from 12:00-5:00pm (EST), and December 12, 2020 from 11:00am-5:00pm (EST), UI will host the Virtual 12th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference powered by Underline. Attendees will experience plenaries, workshops, symposia, and poster presentations on hypothesis-based research on interventions and initiatives that broaden participation in STEM careers. The conference will continue to facilitate the dialogue among education, behavioral, and social science researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM fields who participate in intervention programs. Graduate students in these fields are strongly encouraged to attend. Workshops, sessions, and posters will communicate effective strategies from successful STEM intervention programs, present results from empirical research studies, and synthesize the translation of research findings into practice on STEM learning, undergraduate research, graduate education, and student retention.

12th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference continues to facilitate the dialogue among education, behavioral, and social science researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM fields who participate in intervention programs. Workshops, sessions, and posters communicate effective strategies from successful STEM intervention programs, present results from empirical research studies, and synthesize the translation of research findings into practice on STEM learning, undergraduate research, graduate education, and student retention.

Focus of the intervention
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) have been a source of inspirational discoveries and transformative technological advances, helping the US develop the world's most competitive economy (National Science & Technology Council, 2018). Within the next decade, our nation will need one million more STEM professionals than it can produce (United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2014). Currently there are a surplus of STEM careers and a depleted pool of individuals to assume these opportunities. One reason for the gap between the number of STEM career opportunities and STEM human resources is created by STEM exclusion. To address this, many initiatives on increasing the participation of those underrepresented and marginalized in STEM with primary attention given to women and people of color. STEM academic and workforce environments have come under scrutiny for their omitting persons of low socioeconomic status. 
The environments in which persons of low socioeconomic status live, go to school and to work do not have the cultural capital to encourage and nurture motivation and interest in STEM. In geographic regions where qualified teachers do not live and learning opportunities are not available, the experiences should be available online. UBOnline is a STEM diversity and inclusion initiative that harnesses the flexible and autonomous power of distance learning technology to afford persons of low socioeconomic status access to educational opportunities in STEM. 

Study population—
The population served by this project are secondary students of low socioeconomic status whose families' annual taxable income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty threshold. UBOnline intends to collaborate with centers, colleges and universities that host Upward Bound programs. While at the host institution during the summer residential program, the students have access to computers connected to the internet and have the resources to manipulate engineering design graphics software applications.
Contextual factors
The researcher evaluated the technological infrastructure available to the Upward Bound program participants. It also assessed the Upward Bound program staff attitudes toward implementation of technology and engineering courses and online learning opportunities among the educational opportunities they wish to afford their students.
Outcomes of the intervention
From 2014 to 2019, Basic descriptive data was collected and reported based on analyzing student responses to inquiries concerning technology and internet access it was found that 77.3 percent of Upward Bound programs have access to open computer labs during the academic year. Ninety-four percent of programs have access to open computer labs during the summer. Sixty-nine percent of Upward Bound programs have access to the internet/wifi in the residence halls during the summer. Eighty-five percent of programs are interested in integrating technology or engineering courses among the selectable elective courses offerings. Sixty-nine percent of programs would be interested in offering these learning opportunities using distance learning technology
Relevance to the UI community
This study is most relevant to the UI community due to the known low numbers of minority students. Basic STEM concepts are best learned at an early age—in elementary and secondary school—because they are the essential prerequisites to career technical training, to advanced college-level and graduate study, and to increasing one's technical skills in the workplace. The results of this prove the feasibility of integrating innovative STEM online educational opportunities in the curriculum of outreach programs that serve students of socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Next steps would be to create informal, online learning environments for students participating in these programs to practically test the feasibility of online learning integration.
References
National Science & Technology Council. (2018, December). Charting a Course for Success. A Report by the National Science & Technology Council. Available at: file:///C:/Users/pefaulkner/Downloads/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf 

US Department of Education (2010). Transforming American Education Learning Powered by Technology. Office of Educational Technology: Washington, DC.


Integrating STEM online learning initiatives in educational outreach programs

Background: The NIH and more specifically the NIGMS has an agenda to broaden participation and persistence in the biomedical workforce through research and interventions. Our previous research, adapted from social cognitive career theory, indicates that mentoring trainees in scientific communication (SC) skill development directly increases research career intention through the intermediate social-cognitive constructs of self-efficacy in and outcome expectations for acquiring SC skills, as well as science identity. We have now begun the translational phase of our work, applying our previous research findings to an intervention for mentors.
Purpose: While a variety of interventions exist that provide mentor training with the goal of strengthening the participation and persistence of a diverse group of trainees, no other programs focus specifically on SC skills and their impact on research career intention. The “Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence” (SCOARE) program trains mentors to address SC skill development specifically and thus increase trainee persistence in research careers. This poster outlines the development and design of the SCOARE program and the first two years’ evaluations.
Methods: The SCOARE program consists of a half-day workshop for faculty mentors of research trainees and an associated research study for the mentors and up to five of their trainees. Workshop learning objectives for mentors are (1) to understand their role and perspective as a mentor versus that of a trainee in SC development, (2) to learn how to set expectations, create structure, and create and apply strategies to increase engagement for their trainees in SC development, (3) to learn to deliver useful and appropriate feedback, and (4) to create, adapt, and personalize mentoring strategies to use with their own trainees. The workshops are delivered at five sites nationally: Georgia State University, the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Big Ten Academic Alliance, and the Gulf Coast Consortia. Local site partners at each institution recruit workshop participants. At the end of each workshop, attendees complete an anonymous evaluation that includes questions about workshop objectives, attendee skills and knowledge before and after the workshop, and attendee capability to implement strategies learned in the workshop. Evaluations are analyzed by the Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Results: Of the 168 mentors who attended the workshop in the first year, 160 completed the post-workshop evaluation (95%). The majority of participants agreed that they are satisfied with the workshop and would recommend it to a colleague. Participants also reported positive increases in skills and knowledge post-workshop, with the greatest skills increase in applying new and various techniques when mentoring trainees, and the greatest knowledge increase in how linguistic bias influences our perception of others. The majority of participants felt very capable of using most strategies covered in the workshop, but indicated a desire for more material on engagement and accountability strategies.
Conclusions: Overall the SCOARE program has been well-received by faculty mentors. We have honed the length of the workshop in response to mentor feedback, working to balance time spent on didactic workshop sections, activities, and group discussions. We have also added additional reflection time to help mentors digest the complex material and to address differing concerns of audiences at each workshop site.

Development and Evaluation of the Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence Program

The positive impacts of shadowing experiences on undergraduate students’ career exploration has been well documented in medicine and other health-related fields.1 However, use of shadowing to introduce students to scientific research careers has not been as thoroughly explored. At Xavier University of Louisiana (Xavier), under the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)-funded Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Program, research shadowing has been used to make students more aware of the research process and expand their knowledge of and enthusiasm for biomedical careers. The BUILD Program at Xavier, Project Pathways, offers opportunities for students to shadow in Xavier research labs and at local partner institutions. The participants observe undergraduate and graduate research students along with research staff and faculty in labs over a period of several weeks. Students are also given the opportunity to attend graduate courses in biomedical and psychological sciences. The benefits to the shadowing students include but are not limited to the opportunity to observe and ask questions about live experiments; the ability to explore the pros and cons of participating in research and attending graduate school; and the opportunity to experience the format and rigor of various types of graduate courses. Participants can also form and benefit from mentoring and near-peer mentoring relationships. Shadowing participants are uniformly positive in their responses to post-shadowing surveys, and have indicated that shadowing was effective at helping them to understand the research process and clarify their goals as related to research. Participants shadowing graduate students responded in a similar, positive manner overall, and on their intent to apply for graduate school. Overall the assessment results show that research shadowing is a low-cost, high-impact intervention, beneficial for large numbers of undergraduate students who are curious about biomedical research careers.

Research Shadowing: High Impact, Low Cost Introduction to Research

This study examined how students’ experiences in a Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP)-funded summer bridge program were associated with two social psychological factors, self-efficacy and belonging, which are strongly related to retention and success in college. Specifically, the degree to which students broadly report a positive bridge experience appears to be sufficient to promote a sense of belonging; however informal social experiences that may foster a peer social network might be most impactful. Activities that increase students’ awareness of campus resources and help build a peer social network may boost students’ confidence in their ability to reach their academic goals.

LSAMP Summer Bridge Programs: Effects on Academic Self-Efficacy and Belonging

Despite efforts to improve diversity in STEM career pathways, many demographic groups are still underrepresented based on ability status, gender identity, race and ethnicity, or sexual orientation; and this disproportional recruitment and retention manifests at every stage of the academic pipeline from undergraduate through professional appointments (Bernard & Cooperdock, 2018). Although many solutions to inequity have been proposed, research indicates that comprehensive mentoring and role modeling programs can improve women’s motivation and persistence in STEM (Haacker, 2015). However, comprehensive programs often consist of multiple components and require intensive resources (e.g., time, money, logistical support) that may limit their replicability and scalability (Komro, Flay, Biglan, & Wagenaar, 2016). Therefore, we conducted a randomized field experiment to one-of-three one-day professional development workshops to identify the critical elements of a prototypical comprehensive mentoring program for women: (a) exposure to STEM careers via female career role models; (b) training on how to maintain and grow their network of mentoring relationships; or (c) introduction to a local female scientist mentor. Here we show that the combination of all three elements were necessary to improve mentoring, motivational, and persistence outcomes.

Building optimal support programs: Evidence from a randomized field experiment

The NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub is eager to contribute a poster to introduce Understanding Interventions leaders and conference participants to the NSF INCLUDES National Network. One of the National Science Foundation’s “10 Big Ideas,” NSF INCLUDES (Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science), aims to enhance U.S. leadership in science and engineering by developing talent from all sectors of our society, including underrepresented minorities, women, and people with disabilities (NSF, 2018).

To achieve this aim, NSF has invested in robust collaborative infrastructure – the NSF INCLUDES National Network – to support the development, sharing, and scaling of knowledge and best practices across STEM broadening participation networks and projects nationwide. The INCLUDES Network, which is open to all interested in broadening participation in STEM, offers members opportunities to meet new partners and connect with funders and industry representatives; build capacity in areas such as measurement, communication, and sustainability; and share their own expertise and project impacts at a national scale. 

As a poster session participant, a leader from the NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub (which leads and supports the INCLUDES Network) will ask conference leaders and participants about the successes and challenges they experience in their broadening participation work, and describe for them resources, topical online affinity groups, and other Network activities the INCLUDES Network offers that align with their needs. The Hub leaders will also offer that people can sign into the Network website to join the Network’s online community and highlight its relevant features. 


Citations:
NSF (2018, January 31). NSF INCLUDES Report to the Nation. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/nsfincludes/pdfs/INCLUDES_report_to_the_Nation.pdf on 


An Introduction to the NSF INCLUDES National Network

Fair Play is a virtual simulation in which the player takes on the perspective of Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student on his way to becoming a renowned professor (Virtual Games for STEMM Faculty to Break the Bias Habit, DP4 GM096822; PI: Carnes, 2010-2014). While interacting with other characters and the environment in Fair Play, players experience situations that exemplify different types of racial biases and decide how to respond to each bias experience as it occurs. Research about the effects of game play suggests that the player is able to engage in perspective taking, which increases empathy, and it also increases their understanding of a number of racial bias concepts (Kaatz et al., 2017, Gutierrez et al., 2014). Do You Play Fair? A Workshop About Bias in Academia is a workshop that was developed to further extend the learning through Fair Play (NIH-NIGMS, R25GM114002, PI: Pribbenow, 2015-2020). It is based on the “habit breaking” model, which has been shown to decrease gender bias and has proven to be successful at improving bias literacy among players (Carnes et al., 2015). During the implementation of this project, the Fair Play workshop has been delivered to ~1170 faculty/instructors, administrators, academic staff, researchers, postdoctoral scientists and graduate students at sixteen universities and fourteen national STEMM-related conferences across the country. Evaluation results show consistently favorable responses on questions pertaining to participant satisfaction and learning; 96% of the participants indicated that the workshop was an effective way to teach about bias; 95% indicated they would recommend the workshop to a colleague. Workshop participants learned bias concepts and definitions, engaged in perspective taking, increased in their concern for the issues, and became more aware of the prevalence of bias-related issues in higher education and STEMM. Furthermore, participants articulated steps they intended to take to address bias in their professional environments.

Breaking the Bias Cycle for Future Scientists: A Workshop to Learn, Experience, and Change


At the center of efforts to diversify the biomedical science workforce is the need to empirically identify factors that predict individual persistence. Many in the biomedical sciences are employed in academic medicine and clinical research (here jointly referred to as academic medicine), fields in which persistence challenges have been documented (Pololi et al., 2012). Of these efforts, few have capitalized on the social science knowledge base to study persistence factors and guide relevant interventions (Byars-Winston, Gutierrez, Topp, & Carnes, 2011). Turnover theory, and its counterpart, embeddedness theory, were developed to emphasize the importance of motivations for people's choices to remain or leave in an organization or field (Hom et. al., 2017). Although prior research has documented the competing demands of professionals in academic medicine (Pololi et al., 2012), data on motivations to leave are lacking. In this study, we apply psychosocial theory to investigate predictors of persistence and leadership intentions for academic medical faculty.

A group of researchers used turnover theory in a previous study of researchers and clinicians at the Medical College of Wisconsin, concluding that female faculty "may not be leaning into promotion and leadership roles because of increased role conflict, work-life concerns, and organizational factors," and that this issue was more prominent for clinical rather than research faculty (Ellinas, Fouad, and Byars-Winston, 2018). Unlike the Medical College of Wisconsin, the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine and Public Health (SMPH) has time limits for tenure and promotion, creating organizational pressure for faculty advancement which could potentially affect leadership and promotion aspirations. In order to both explore and better develop interventions and cultural change at UW SMPH, it is important to identify factors that locally affect the decisions of female faculty to seek out leadership and promotion opportunities as well as leave the institution. Using turnover and embeddedness theory, we replicated the original study, performing hierarchical multiple regressions to examine the motivating factors for SMPH faculty to seek promotion and leadership. We investigated group differences by gender in the relationships of role strain, work-life conflict, and organizational and departmental climate to leadership and advancement decisions.

We found that organizational commitment and support were significantly associated with faculty's promotion aspirations, leadership aspirations, and intentions to leave the organization. Given that our sample consists of both research and clinical faculty at a large midwestern university, the conclusions of our study are limited to these populations. However, in the context of previously published literature (Ellinas, Fouad, and Byars-Winston, 2018), these results confirm that organizational context can affect the aspirations of faculty in biomedical training environments, regardless of other external factors such as a tenure clock. Investing in policy, infrastructure, and evidence-based interventions and programming for the intentional career development of faculty is therefore an important aspect of a proactive talent development and retention model in academic medical centers.

Predictors of Career Advancement and Intentions to Leave in Biomedical Faculty

The percentage of students of color and women in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is low relative to European American students and men and is often a result of both racial and gender discrimination (Castro, 2014). Specifically, a large portion of African American women are less likely to earn a degree in engineering (Gregory, 2015), yet research on the relationship between their representation and retention is still limited. Indeed, prior studies suggest that a strong sense of community and science identity can potentially mitigate the effects of racial discrimination on retention outcomes among students of color in STEM (Maton et al., 2016). Thus, the current study seeks to examine whether the relationship between racial climate and science self-efficacy is mediated by sense of community among African American female students in STEM in general, and engineering in particular. Specifically, we hypothesize that the effect of negative racial climate on science self-efficacy will be weaker for students with high sense of community but stronger for students with low sense of community. 
Data for this study will come from the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Two sets of data analyses will be conducted: the first will consist of female Meyerhoff undergraduate students in STEM from six cohorts, and the second will consist of African American female Meyerhoff undergraduate students in engineering from the same six cohorts. Racial/ethnic climate was measured using Discrimination and Bias Scale (Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015), which assesses students’ experience of different forms of bias, harassment, and discrimination on campus at the end of first year. Sense of community was measured also at the end of first year using the Sense of Community Index-2 (Chavis et al., 2008), which assesses the degree to which the students feel like a part of the Meyerhoff Scholars community. Scores on Science Self-Efficacy Scale (Chemers et al., 2010) by the end of second year were used to assess the degree to which the students feel like they are scientists. Lastly, being STEM majors at the beginning of third year was used as measure of retention. The hypothesis will be tested using logistical regression analyses (analyses currently underway). If the hypothesis is supported, the study could inform scholars’ programs about potential areas of intervention (i.e., building strong sense of program community, and science self-efficacy) to increase retention of women, and specifically African American women in STEM despite of their experiences with negative racial climate.


The relationship of racial climate, sense of community, and science self-efficacy among African American female undergraduate students in STEM 


The number of under-represented (UR) scientists in biomedical research remains alarmingly low. New mechanisms are needed to facilitate the success of members of UR groups to ensure a diverse and vibrant workforce. We partnered with 9 Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) to identify and address training needs related to the formal and informal curriculum, networking opportunities, and mentoring for scholars from under-represented backgrounds. We developed a year-long, online, instructor-led training program with 9 modules for postdoctoral fellows and faculty from the 9 MSIs to help launch their research careers. Scholars who complete the modules participate in an annual 3-day Summit for further training, networking, mentoring, and peer feedback on works in progress. LEADS has enrolled a total of 60 scholars since 2017. We found significant improvements in the Scholars' research skill confidence. Collectively, they published 132 articles, submitted 73 grants and secured 46 grants for a 63% success rate. Feedback from LEADS Scholars has suggested the need for enhanced training in additional areas, as well as increased opportunities for networking and mentoring. 



Top reasons that science majors cite for withdrawing from STEM gateway courses.

Downloads

Next from 12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Integrating STEM online learning initiatives in educational outreach programs

Similar lecture

Modification and Validation of the Teaching Practices Inventory for Online Courses

Top reasons that science majors cite for withdrawing from STEM gateway courses.

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from 12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Integrating STEM online learning initiatives in educational outreach programs

Similar lecture

Modification and Validation of the Teaching Practices Inventory for Online Courses

Downloads