Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
This chapter is based on a literature review to gain insight into the critical components of a STEM Student Success Model for underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate (UG) science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students since many articles reviewed focused on the equity, inclusion, and diversity of URM STEM students who are most likely to need help in their studies. The salient components of the model are learning with peers, interactions with faculty, STEM employability skills, and a supportive campus environment. The success of URM STEM students is necessary to address the preparation of URM graduates for the STEM workforce which in turn, will help address the workforce shortage in STEM fields if the United States is to maintain a competitive advantage in STEM disciplines.
Keywords
- STEM education
- underrepresented minority student
- learning with peers
- interactions with faculty
- STEM employability skills
- overcoming barriers to academic success
- supportive campus environment
1. Introduction
The United States of America (USA) is a technologically advanced nation and a world leader in STEM because of its many research universities, fundamental technologies, and connections between science, technology, and business. However, China is poised to become the world leader in STEM graduates and competes with the USA for technological supremacy which has triggered a national STEM crisis [1, 2]. The crisis results from the demands of the workforce being greater than the supply of STEM graduates in the right STEM fields at any given time. The shortage has resulted in a need and an opportunity for unrepresented minority STEM students to help bridge the gap through higher education institutions. To aid in these goals, a STEM Student Success Model with the most relevant components for success is proposed.
During their first two UG years, STEM students must complete 100- and 200-level gateway STEM classes before advancing to the upperclassman level. In the meantime, STEM students regardless of their major must learn how to translate between STEM disciplines which are inherently interdisciplinary. The STEM Translation Model in Figure 1 depicts how STEM students must translate within and between STEM disciplines [5]. Also, to help in the translation, STEM students engage in convergent cognition when they take classes that complement each other such as using an algebra function with a programmatic function which demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of STEM disciplines [6]. However, those students who are underprepared for the challenge or are unable to progress in their gateway classes may either switch to non-STEM majors or drop out of college [7]. Higher education institutions (HEIs) can provide UG STEM students with access to support activities with peers, faculty, and other stakeholders so they can enroll, persist, and graduate with STEM degrees timely [8].
Figure 1.
STEM translation model.
This study seeks to address the single research question “What critical elements make up a STEM Student Success Model?”. Since the model is exploratory, there are no hypotheses or propositions rather the National Survey on Student Engagement [9] and other reliable sources will be used to address the research question.
2. Components of the STEM student success model
2.1 Learning with peers
Learning with peers in the STEM community includes those academic activities in which STEM students can participate and/or lead a student group with faculty oversight and training. It is characterized by small groups of STEM students learning together with a peer student leader or facilitator. They include such activities as, peer tutoring, peer supplemental instruction, peer cooperative learning, peer-led team learning, and related small group learning activities.
2.1.1 Peer tutoring
While learning with peers comes in many forms, one of the most well-known forms is tutoring in one-on-one sessions or in group sessions led by peers but faculty or professionals can tutor students. Peer tutoring programs offered to all students in a course have been widely found to help STEM students in introductory gateway STEM courses [10], especially in large course courses with hundreds of students and with limited time for students to receive individualized instruction. Students are able to get the tutoring support they need to be an academic success. Struggling students who regularly attended peer tutoring increased exam performance, increased knowledge of biology concepts, and increased course persistence relative to their struggling peers who were not attending the peer tutoring sessions.
Peer tutoring is student-centered where the students seek help and set up appointments with their tutors in one-on-one or group sessions. A qualitative study of 10 tutors and 10 tutees in seven high risk STEM courses over one semester was performed at a university in Malaysia [11] while a quantitative analysis of 213 participants using new model, the Weekly Tutoring Group (WTG) at the University of Rhode Island was available on multiple days and times throughout the week [12]. While the studies both focused on peer tutoring, the first study was in two focus groups and participant observations but actual tutoring sessions were one tutor with three to nine tutees while the second study had groups of one peer leader of two to six students who were former supplemental instruction (SI) participants. Participants in WTG and tutoring groups saw an increase in regular attendance and a significant difference in proficiency and in actual grades, particularly when the students attended seven or more sessions. The tutoring sessions in both studies were similar to supplemental instruction (SI) but different because SI targets specific high-risk courses while tutors assist high risk students who seek help [11, 12].
2.1.2 Peer supplemental instruction
Supplemental instruction (SI) was designed by Deanna Martin of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in 1974. SI is designed to foster learning and improve the academic performance of low-achieving students but focuses on identifying high-risk courses, such as those with significant grades of D, F, Withdrawal, or Incomplete (DFWI) or other students who traditionally are less prepared for difficult STEM courses. A major problem for STEM disciplines is students who achieve grades of C- or lower and are unable to progress in their STEM field either switch majors or drop out of college [13].
Supplemental instruction is characterized by increased passage rates in gateway courses, higher course grades, early engagement, collaborative learning, small group problem solving, and study skills with sessions facilitated by a trained peer group leader. As attendance in SI sessions increased so did positive student outcomes [13, 14, 15]. A study on the importance of SI at San Francisco State University showed that it benefits to STEM students who choose to make use of it and URM students who traditionally are less prepared for difficult STEM courses. While the impact of SI in introductory STEM courses has seen increased passage rates, the impact in upper-level courses was associated with higher proportions of STEM students obtaining As and Bs. Also, SI users performed better than non-users and were more likely to take subsequent STEM courses while URM SI students had significantly increased passage rates [14]. An SI study at California State University, San Marcos was conducted of STEM students enrolled in four biology courses and participated in online SI. They received increases in academic performance similar to traditional SI participants, had higher course grades, and had lower fail rates as compared to students who did not participate in either form of SI [15].
A study of peer SI (PSI) was conducted at Georgia Gwinnett College, a public college in Lawrenceville, Georgia. PSI incorporates two high-impact practices in improving STEM student education and retention that include early engagement and exposure to college survival skills and collaborative learning so that students can discover an array of study styles and perspectives while learning and problem-solving in groups. Model student leaders with faculty training and oversight facilitate PSI sessions, such as addressing STEM skills, metacognitive skills, and STEM course concepts as shown in Figure 2 [14].
Figure 2.
The STEM peer supplemental instruction model.
As PSI attendance for students in STEM classes at Georgia Gwinnett College increased to 4 or more sessions per term so did course averages and exam grades [14].
2.1.3 Peer cooperative learning
Peer cooperative learning is a type of group learning where students work together on class projects or other academic activities toward a common goal and each member sets and accomplishes his/her learning goal(s) concurrent with other members and students may work in groups on assignments in the classroom. Two studies were reviewed: one was a mixed methods study of an introductory algebra course with 20 final participants of 30 enrolled students at a community college in the southwestern United States [16] while the second one was a quantitative analysis of 456 students before implementation and 552 students after implementation across five STEM departments of peer cooperative learning techniques at Bridgewater State University [17]. Cooperative learning sessions resulted in an increase in student attendance, a decrease in student withdrawals, an increase in student motivation to work with peers in and outside of class sessions, and an increase in retention rates [16, 17].
2.1.4 Peer led team learning
In peer-led team learning (PLTL), students attend workshops that are led by a trained peer facilitator outside of class. The PLTL workshops are aligned with class topics in the curriculum as coordinated by the instructor or an educational specialist. Three quantitative studies were reviewed: Both studies were of PLTL and non-PLTL students in gateway biology courses. The first study was conducted at a private university in eastern Puerto Rico [18] and the two other studies were conducted at Syracuse University in New York [18, 19]. The researchers in each study concluded that the PLTL model contributes to the academic success of PLTL students and encourages student engagement and critical thinking resulting in academic achievement, retention, and graduation. However, students noted that they needed more than one PLTL weekly workshop [18, 19] which supports other peer-led learning studies in which sessions were more frequent than weekly or students attended multiple sessions of the same PTLT course.
2.1.5 Other interactions with peers
Students can learn from interacting with peers with different viewpoints or who come from different backgrounds. In a NSSE 2022 survey [9], among first year students, 47% frequently had discussions with people with different political views, 47% frequently had discussions with people from a different economic background, and 59% frequently had discussions with people from a different race or ethnicity. This is significant because it contributes to inclusion and diversity in first-year students at the university sampled but no information was provided on senior students.
2.2 Interactions with faculty
STEM faculty can provide positive faculty support to students including intellectual challenge and stimulation, opportunities to discuss coursework outside of class and feedback about academic work, advice about educational programs and graduate study, and other activities. STEM student interactions with faculty can prove valuable in such activities as course goals and requirements, research projects, career plans, and STEM exam wrappers. As noted in Figure 2, faculty is involved with STEM students and leaders beyond the classroom. Specifically, as part of faculty oversight of peer supplemental instruction faculty select and train peer leaders, provide weekly mentoring, and conduct professional development workshops. There is a connection between faculty mentorship and research such that STEM students are able to establish a science identity to enroll, persist, and graduate timely. In STEM exam wrappers, after exams, students assess how they did in problem areas so that instructors will know any problems and respond to these evaluations so that it helps the students on the next exams during the course [20, 21].
2.3 STEM employability skills
There is a distinct gap in skill levels between the competencies gained in STEM programs and what employers are seeking in new graduates as confirmed by human resource professionals [22]. To close the skills gap, several studies noted that employers should communicate their employability skill requirements to the HEI including soft skills, and the HEI should embed employability skills and career-preparedness into the STEM curricula [23, 24, 25]. However, there are many other ways students can be prepared for the workforce. As noted in the prior learning with peers section, students learn how to develop problem-solving skills, analytical abilities, and soft skills during the group sessions. Likewise, students can seek career-related campus employment, internships, and research work with faculty in STEM laboratories.
2.4 Supportive campus environment
2.4.1 STEM intervention programs
STEM Intervention Programs (SIPs) have emerged on college campuses in the United States to foster, support, and sustain the interest of students in STEM, broaden the participation of URM students in STEM fields, enrich STEM student experiences, and respond to external influences and opportunities [31]. SIP studies tended to be conducted at large research universities, directed across multiple SIPs, and focused on URM students but did not address long term challenges such as continued funding.
Institutions offer SIPs that are tailored to meet the specific needs of targeted, diverse recipients resulting in a wide variety of program designs, purposes, and services for STEM students. The Program for Excellence in Education and Research in the Sciences is an academic support program at the University of California, Los Angeles established in 2003. It was designed to support first- and second year URM STEM students with an emphasis on research engagement, mentoring, STEM persistence, and entry into doctoral programs. While the study was of 141 STEM students in 2009 and 2010 with an average time to graduation of 4.2 years and found a correlation between student success and UG research [32] it was not specifically noted that any sessions were peer-led but has proven successful for STEM students.
2.4.2 STEM learning community
A STEM learning community (SLC) is a type of SIP in which STEM students join a learning community to accomplish their goals with a group goal and share learning experiences or activities in and outside of classes and are often organized around a common theme. Students connect with peers, faculty, administrators, and industry, conduct research, and participate in community service events. SLCs may include a residential component called a living-learning community. HEIs use learning communities (LCs) to promote the academic and social integration of entering students, especially within STEM majors so that entering STEM freshmen have a support base for their college transition and beyond. A study showed that by adding friendships to the same biological sciences freshman cohort it led to a support base for STEM students but had a negative impact when students were segmented based on their academic records [33]. In a second study, a case study of 119 student narratives of an SLC found that the psychosocial or learning factors for students identified were improved as a result of their participation in a STEM learning community [34]. The studies found that the SLCs resulted in friendship support and other support, such that the participants’ grades and GPAs increased.
2.4.3 Co-curricular activities
Although not directly tied to the curriculum, STEM students can engage in co-curricular activities to supplement their STEM learning experiences outside the classroom. Co-curricular activities include participation in clubs, organizations, associations, student government, community service, committee membership, career exploration, mentorship, and research. Integrating research and teaching exposes students to the process of knowledge creation through mentored or faculty led UG research initiatives. These activities give the STEM students the full complement of UG research experience to enter the STEM workforce [35].
2.5 Removing academic barriers
There are barriers to STEM education that need to be addressed as part of the strategic plan. The removal of institutional academic barriers for undergraduate STEM students may begin as early as secondary school where prerequisite science and math courses may be offered. The potential barriers include math proficiency, course load, online classes and testing, technically complex materials, and equity and diversity of URM students. In removing these barriers, HEIs seek favorable student outcomes, especially for increased retention and graduation rates of STEM students [36]. In removing academic barriers, the student seeks help or is provided help through tutoring, supplemental instruction, cooperative learning, peer led telelearning, and through many other ways as noted above. There is evidence that systematically pairing a core STEM subject with another complementary subject may lead to greater overall learning in both subjects which is called convergent cognition. An example is when a core algebra class (algebra function) is paired with an introductory computer science class (programmatic function) such that the student uses algebra in writing an algorithm for a computer program which demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of STEM disciplines [6] as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Convergent cognition arising from complementary functions.
2.6 Underrepresented minority STEM students
There is a category of STEM students for which academic barriers need to be removed as shown by disparities in STEM retention and graduation rates between URM and non-URM students.
URM students who identify as African-American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Hispanic/Latino made up 33.2% of the U.S. population but represented only 22% of STEM undergraduate degrees and 9% of doctoral STEM degrees in 2016. The 6-year graduation rate for URM STEM majors was 33.8% as compared to 53.1% for non-URM STEM majors [37]. Consequently, URM students must navigate the challenges that disproportionately affect them so ultimately their representation in STEM fields will be equal to or better than their percentage of the USA population.
Early intervention efforts, particularly in the areas of mathematics through summer bridge and related peer learning programs help ensure URM students are adequately prepared to succeed in STEM fields. Likewise, network-based mentoring allows students to receive both professional and peer mentoring services as a mentor and a mentee that can alleviate barriers to success among URM groups in STEM fields including faculty mentoring programs. Also, HEIs can track successes and failures at the institutional level and collect data to help explain existing trends so there can be a stronger focus on removing institutional barriers. Finally, HEIs can capitalize on known successes, recognize the need for accountability, and facilitate future progress for increased persistence and graduation of URM STEM students [37, 38, 39, 40].
2.7 The STEM student success model
The STEM Student Success Model is an introductory model for STEM students and other stakeholders to use in determining what are the most likely critical components based on the NSSE and other reliable sources for STEM students to enroll, persist, and graduate timely. The STEM Student Success Model outlines in pictorial form the basic overlapping critical elements for which URM STEM students may enroll, persist, and graduate timely. The most salient stakeholders that support the model are peer students, faculty, and the institution. The main elements are listed in Figure 4 and detailed as follows:
Learning with peers is significant because many programs identified peers as leaders or participants in tutoring, supplemental instruction, cooperative learning, and peer-led team learning. The STEM Peer Supplemental Instruction Model as adopted presented STEM concepts covered in PSI sessions that include problem-solving, analytical skills/quantitative reasoning, metacognition, course content, and collaborative SI learning.
Interactions with faculty as a positive base is important in and outside of the classroom, including faculty-led research and peer leader training and oversight.
STEM employability skills are critical as these skills prepare students for the workforce with potential employer input and should be embedded into the curriculum whenever possible. Students can gain practical experience through research and internships.
A supportive campus environment is critical as it offers STEM intervention programs, STEM learning communities, undergraduate research experience, and co-curricular activities to supplement their academic careers.
Figure 4.
The STEM student success model.
The model depicts all four main sections but users would also need to access the details for more information on how STEM students were successful in their studies.
3. Conclusion
The United States is a technologically advanced nation and a world leader in STEM, but it competes with China for technological supremacy which has triggered a national STEM crisis. Consequently, HEIs and other organizations have taken on the responsibility for STEM education. As part of that response this study developed the STEM Student Success Model to address the challenge of URM STEM students who leave their majors in the first two critical years. The introduction of critical elements for the model was based on the NSSE survey and other sources that have been tested.
This chapter identified the most likely critical elements for STEM students that will formulate the model. The first major section, learning with peers addressed the types of resources that STEM students may have access to including peer tutoring, peer supplemental instruction, peer cooperative learning, and peer-led team learning. This section included a peer supplemental instruction model which details major STEM skills that students would be expected to master in STEM majors. The next major section, interactions with faculty showed how positive interactions between faculty and students can lead to positive outcomes including opportunities to discuss coursework outside of class and feedback about academic work, research projects, career plans, and STEM exam wrappers.
The third major section, STEM employability skills recognized the need to prepare students for the workforce by having employers communicate their employability skill requirements to the HEI, participating in internships and research, and embedding employability skills and career-preparedness into the STEM curricula. The last section, a supportive campus environment addressed what the HEI can offer to students including STEM intervention programs, STEM learning communities, and co-curricular activities. Also, the subsection on URM STEM students addressed disparities between URM and non-URM students and how the disparities can be overcome through early intervention programs, mathematics skills development, mentoring network usage, and data tracking to identify what works for URM students. The model depicts all four main sections but users would also need to access the details for more information on how STEM students were successful in their studies.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank all my family members who encouraged me to pursue a writing career.
Nomenclature
The most important nomenclature regarding undergraduate STEM education in an unusual or highly specific way are:
A. Overview of U.S. Department of Homeland Security STEM Designated Degree Program List
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) STEM Designated Degree Program List is a complete list of fields of study that DHS considers to be STEM fields of study under
Engineering (14).
Biological and biomedical sciences (26).
Mathematics and statistics (27).
Physical sciences (40).
There are 18 additional STEM fields of study in the program list with two-digit CIP codes as follows:
Agriculture, agriculture operations, and related sciences (01).
Natural resources conservation (03).
Architecture and related services (04).
Communications, journalism, and related programs (09).
Communications technologies/technicians and support services (10).
Computer and information sciences and support services (11)
Education (13).
Engineering technologies and engineering-related fields (15).
Military science, leadership, and operational art (28).
Military technologies and applied sciences (29).
Multi/interdisciplinary studies (30).
Science technologies/technicians (41).
Psychology (42).
Homeland security, law enforcement, firefighting, and related protective services (43).
Social sciences (45).
Transportation and materials moving (49).
Health professions and related programs (51).
Business, management, marketing, and related support services (52).
The 2-digit codes are further divided into 6-digit codes that are available at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/stem-list.pdf which contains a complete STEM-designated degree program listing.
Acronyms and abbreviations
Classification of Instructional Programs | |
D, F, Withdrawal, Incomplete | |
Department of Homeland Security | |
Higher Education Institution | |
National Survey of Student Engagement | |
Peer-Led Team Learning | |
Peer Supplemental Instruction | |
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics | |
STEM Intervention Program | |
STEM Learning Community | |
Supplemental Instruction | |
Undergraduate | |
Underrepresented Minority | |
United States of America | |
Weekly Tutoring Group |
References
- 1.
Dollar D. The US-China tech rivalry shapes the economic relationship [Internet]. In: Dollar & Sense Podcast. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2020. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/the-us-china-tech-rivalry-shapes-the-economic-relationship/ - 2.
Herman A. America’s STEM crisis threatens our national security. American Affairs Journal. 2019; III (1):127-148 - 3.
University of Education, Winneba. FSE to Promote STEM Education in Ghana [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://uew.edu.gh/news/fse-promote-stem-education-ghana - 4.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2020 STEM Designated Degree Program List [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/stem-list.pdf - 5.
Glancy AW, Moore TJ. Theoretical Foundations for Effective STEM Learning Environments. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, Purdue e-Pubs, School of Engineering Education Working Papers, Paper 1. 2013 - 6.
Rich PJ, Leatham KR, Wright GA. Convergent cognition. Instructional Science. 2012; 41 (2):431-453. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-012-9240-7 - 7.
Langie G, Pinxten M. The transition to STEM higher education: Policy recommendation – Conclusions of the readySTEMgo-project. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. 2018; 8 (10):10-13. DOI: 10.3991/ijep.v8i2.8286 - 8.
Sithole A, Chiyaka ET, McCarthy P, Mupinga DM, Bucklein BK, Kibirige J. Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies. 2017; 7 (1):46-59. DOI: 10.5539/hes.v7n1p46 - 9.
National Survey on Student Engagement. A Pocket Guide to Choosing a College: NSSE 2022 Answers from Students [Internet]. Available from: https://docs.udc.edu/irap/NSSE22-Pocket-Guide-Report-UDC.pdf - 10.
Batz Z, Olsen BJ, Dumont J, Dastoor F, Smith MK. Helping struggling students in introductory biology: A peer-tutoring approach that improves performance, perception, and retention. Cbe—Life Sciences Education. 2015; 14 (2):1-12 - 11.
Chan YF, Sidhu GK, and Lee LF. Active learning in higher education: A case study. In: Tang SF & Logonnathan L, editors. Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference 2014 Proceedings. Singapore: Springer; 2015. pp. 519-526. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-399-6_47. - 12.
Mendes SH, Fede JH, Wilks MB. Data-based program reform: A shift from supplemental instruction to weekly tutoring groups. Learning Assistance Review. 2017; 22 (2):75-96 - 13.
Peterfreund AR, Rath KA, Xenos SP, Bayliss F. The impact of supplemental instruction on students in STEM courses: Results from san Francisco State University. Journal of College Student Retention Research Theory and Practice. 2007; 9 (4):487-503 - 14.
Achat-Mendes C, Anfuso C, Johnson C, Awong-Taylor J. Learning, leaders, and STEM skills: Adaptation of the supplemental instruction model to improve STEM success and build transferable skills in undergraduate courses and beyond. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research. 2019; 20 (2):14-23 - 15.
Hizer SE, Schultz PW, Bray R. Supplemental instruction online: As effective as the traditional face-to-face model? Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2017; 26 (1):100-115. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-016-9655-z - 16.
Rivera N. Cooperative Learning in a Community College Setting: Developmental Coursework in Mathematics [doctoral dissertation]. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University; 2013 - 17.
Salomone M, Kling T. Required peer-cooperative learning improves retention of STEM majors. International Journal of STEM Education. 2017; 4 (1):1-19. DOI: 10.1186/s40594-017-0082-3 - 18.
Dreyfuss AE, Fraiman A. Peer-led team learning: An active learning method for the 21st century. In: Paper Presented at Proceedings of ICERI2015 Conference. Seville, Spain: International Academy of Technology, Education, and Development; 2015. pp. 0698-0706 - 19.
Snyder JJ, Carter BE, Wiles JR. Implementation of the peer-led team-learning instructional model as a stopgap measure improves student achievement for students opting out of laboratory. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2015; 14 (2):1-6. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0168 - 20.
Hodges LC, Beall LC, Anderson EC, Carpenter TS, Cui L, Feeser E, et al. Effect of exam wrappers on student achievement in multiple, large STEM courses. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2020; 50 (1):69-79 - 21.
Kim YK, Sax LJ. The effect of positive faculty support on mathematical self-concept for male and female students in STEM majors. Research in Higher Education: Journal of the Association for Institutional Research. 2018; 59 (8):1074-1104. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-018-9500-8 - 22.
McGunagle D, Zizka L. Employability skills for 21st century STEM students: The employers’ perspective. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning. 2020; 10 (3):591-606. DOI: 10.1108/HESWBL-10-2019-0148 - 23.
Clinkscales-Verdell A, Keith JM, Warnock J, White VM. Best practices for underrepresented minority students in an engineering summer bridge program. In: Paper Presented at ASEE 123rd Annual Conference and Exposition. New Orleans, LA: American Society for Engineering Education. 2016 Paper ID #17173 - 24.
Turner BD. STEM employability skills: Employer and faculty expectations and perceptions of skill competencies in STEM graduates [doctoral dissertation]. New Castle, Delaware: Wilmington University; 2019 - 25.
University of Houston. Scholar Enrichment Program [Internet]. Available from: https://www.uh.edu/nsm/scholarenrichment/about/ - 26.
Florida State University. Student Support Services-STEM [Internet]. Available from: https://care.fsu.edu/college-programs/student-support-services-stem - 27.
Martin JP, Choe NH, Halter J, Foster M, Froyd J, Borrego M, et al. Interventions supporting baccalaureate achievement of Latinx STEM students matriculating at 2-year institutions: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2019; 56 (4):440-464. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21485 - 28.
Rincon BE, George-Jackson CE. STEM intervention programs: Funding practices and challenges. Studies in Higher Education. 2016; 41 (3):429-444. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.927845 - 29.
Estrada M. Ingredients for Improving the Culture of STEM Degree Attainment with Co-curricular Supports for Underrepresented Minority Students [Commissioned Paper]. 2014. Available from: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_088832.pdf - 30.
Dika SL, D’Amico MM. Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2016; 53 (3):368-383. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21301 - 31.
George CE, Castro EL, Rincon B. Investigating the origins of STEM intervention programs: An isomorphic analysis. Studies in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (9):1645-1661. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1458224 - 32.
Sellami N, Toven-Lindsey B, Levis-Fitzgerald M, Barber PH, Hasson T. A unique and scalable model for increasing research engagement, STEM persistence, and entry into doctoral programs. Cbe—Life Sciences Education. 2021; 20 (1):1-11 - 33.
Jeffrey W, Schaefer DR, Xu D, McPartlan P, Solanki S. STEM learning communities promote friendships but risk academic segmentation. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12 (1):1-9. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-15,575-y - 34.
Carrino SS, Gerace WJ. Why STEM learning communities work: The development of psychosocial learning factors through social interaction. Learning Communities Research and Practice. 2016; 4 (1):1-22 - 35.
El-Haggar N, Mezhoudi N, Alrawjih F. The impact of co-curricular activities supported by generic skills on students’ performance at university level. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 2019; 8 (12):981-986. DOI: 10.35940/ijitee. K1290.1081219 - 36.
De S, Arguello G. STEM education in college: An analysis of stakeholders’ recent challenges and potential solutions. Florida Distance Learning Association Journal. 2020; 5 (9):1-13 - 37.
Markle RS, Williams TM, Williams KS, deGravelles KH, Bagayoko D, Warner IM. Supporting historically underrepresented groups in STEM higher education: The promise of structured mentoring networks. Frontiers in Education. 2022; 7 :1-14. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.674669 - 38.
Ghazzawi D, Pattison D, Horn C. Persistence of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields: Are summer bridge programs sufficient? Frontiers in Education. 2021; 6 :1-12. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.630529 - 39.
Whitcomb KM, Singh C. Underrepresented minority students receive lower grades and have higher rates of attrition across STEM disciplines: A sign of inequity? International Journal of Science Education. 2021; 43 (7):1054-1089. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2021.1900623 - 40.
Estrada M, Burnett M, Campbell AG, Campbell PB, Denetclaw WF, Gutiérrez Carlos G, et al. Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. Cbe Life Sciences Education. 2016; 15 (3):1-10. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038 - 41.
Singh M. Acquisition of 21st century skills through STEAM education. Academia Letters. 2021:1-7. DOI: 10.20935/AL712 - 42.
Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 10 June 2014; 111 (23):8410-8415. Available from:https://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410 - 43.
Ferrare JJ. A multi-institutional analysis of instructional beliefs and practices in gateway courses to the sciences. CBE - Life Sciences Education. 2019; 18 (2):1-16. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.17-12-0257 - 44.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Term enrollment estimates fall 2020. 2020. Available from: https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/CTEE_Report_Fall_2020.pdf - 45.
Emery N, Maher JM, Ebert-May D. Studying professional development as part of the complex ecosystem of STEM higher education. Innovative Higher Education. 2019; 44 (6):469-479. DOI: 10.1007/s10755-019-09475-9