J Sci Educ Technol DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9292-5
Hierarchical Mentoring: A Transformative Strategy for Improving Diversity and Retention in Undergraduate STEM Disciplines Zakiya S. Wilson • Lakenya Holmes • Karin deGravelles Monica R. Sylvain • Lisa Batiste • Misty Johnson • Saundra Y. McGuire • Su Seng Pang • Isiah M. Warner
•
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract In the United States, less than half of the students who enter into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate curricula as freshmen will actually graduate with a STEM degree. There is even greater disparity in the national STEM graduation rates of students from underrepresented groups with approximately three-fourths of minority students leaving STEM disciplines at the undergraduate level. A host of programs have been designed and implemented to model best practices in retaining students in STEM disciplines. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Professors Program at Louisiana State University, under leadership of HHMI Professor Isiah M. Warner, represents one of these programs and reports on a mentoring model that addresses the key factors that impact STEM student attrition at the undergraduate level. By integrating mentoring and strategic academic interventions into a structured research program, an innovative model has been developed to guide STEM undergraduate majors in adopting the metacognitive strategies that allow them to excel in their programs of study, as they learn to appreciate and understand science more completely. Comparisons of the persistence of participants and nonparticipants in STEM curricular, at the host university and with other national universities and colleges,
Z. S. Wilson L. Holmes K. deGravelles M. R. Sylvain L. Batiste M. Johnson S. S. Pang I. M. Warner (&) Office of Strategic Initiatives, Louisiana State University, 213 Hatcher Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA e-mail:
[email protected] URL: http://osi.lsu.edu S. Y. McGuire Student Affairs, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
show the impact of the model’s salient features on improving STEM retention through graduation for all students, particularly those from underrepresented groups. Keywords Underrepresented Retention Mentoring Undergraduate research STEM Graduation rate
Introduction Global economic changes have increased the demand for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professionals in the United States (US) (Science and engineering indicators 2006). This increasing need has led to greater scrutiny of the matriculation and retention of STEM majors at colleges and universities across the nation. Unfortunately, the undergraduate attrition rate for students who major in the STEM disciplines remains one of the highest in the overall population of undergraduate students in the US (Tinto 1993). Nationally, less than half of the students who enter into STEM undergraduate curricula as freshmen will actually graduate with a STEM degree (Hayes et al. 2009). In part due to these high attrition rates, the international ranking of the US with regard to the production of STEM professionals is low and, as some political leaders and others have noted, has the potential to threaten the nation’s economic dominance in the global marketplace (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (US) and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (US) 2007; Galama et al. 2007; Lapointe et al. 1989; McKnight et al. 1987). The high attrition rate among STEM majors has generated a significant body of research which has led to the development of numerous intervention and prevention programs. While some of these programs have targeted the
123
J Sci Educ Technol
preparation STEM majors receive prior to enrolling in post-secondary programs, others focus on the experiences of STEM students on college or university campuses. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Professors Program at Louisiana State University (LSU) has been designed to increase the number of undergraduates, particularly underrepresented students, completing STEM degree programs. The programmatic mission has been to select students with strong secondary education backgrounds who were underachieving academically at the undergraduate level and provide them with academic interventions, mentoring, research experiences, and financial support. In this way, the LSU–HHMI Professors Program was designed to facilitate a reversal in a pattern of academic underperformance and to further stimulate student retention. The program incorporates elements from successful programs in the LSU Department of Chemistry (Collins et al. 2001) and the Center for Academic Success (CAS) (Hoffmann and McGuire 2009), as well as lessons learned from similar projects at other universities (Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly 1999; Maton and Hrabowski 2004).
Theoretical Framework Using an evidence-based approach, an undergraduate STEM education program has been designed to address the key factors leading to student attrition from STEM fields. At the core of this program’s design is the belief that mentoring, education, and research are the key components that will result in college and post-college persistence in STEM fields (Fig. 1). These components are clearly identifiable and their theoretical underpinnings provide support for their inclusion in the program design. Mentoring forms the foundation of the program. Studies show that undergraduate students who are mentored tend to have higher GPAs, higher retention rates, and more units
Fig. 1 Theoretical framework of an undergraduate program designed to increase student retention in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines
123
completed per semester as compared to their un-mentored colleagues (Campbell and Campbell 1997). Mentoring addresses key facets of student identity and social integration into scholarship and academe as a community (Redmond 1990; Jacobi 1991; Freeman 1999; Good et al. 2000; DuBois et al. 2002) and provides a core support system for students traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields (Good et al. 2000; Gurin et al. 2002; Summers and Hrabowski 2006). With this in mind, the undergraduate program studied in this under study ensures that each undergraduate participant has mentoring relationships with faculty, staff, and their peers. Additionally, we host mentor training workshops for faculty and graduate students who frequently interact with our students (Pfund et al. 2006; McGuire 2007). A key component of this effort is our requirement that the mentee-scholars must mentor others, particularly their peers. In this manner, the key survival skills which are imparted to the mentee-scholars are then reinforced. Secondly, undergraduate research has been shown to be strongly correlated with enhancement of the undergraduate education experience (Lopatto 2004; E. Seymour et al. 2004; Bauer and Bennett 2003; Chopin 2002; Sabatini 1997) particularly reduced attrition rates (Nagda et al. 1998) and increased rates of graduate education (Hathaway et al. 2002) for all students, especially underrepresented students. Furthermore, undergraduate research has been shown to be associated with the attainment of research skills (Kardash 2000; Lopatto 2004), increased persistence to the undergraduate degree (Nagda et al. 1998), and influencing the selection of a STEM career (Zydney et al. 2002). The undergraduate program under study has embraced these findings and makes certain that all participants are engaged in undergraduate research as early as possible. We have developed and sponsored studentfocused workshops on securing research experiences and have also developed partnerships with faculty interested in providing research opportunities to our students. The final component of our three-pronged approach to undergraduate persistence in STEM is education. Broadly speaking, education addresses issues such as learning styles (Jones et al. 2003; Burke and Dunn 2002), cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies (DeHaan 2005; Novak 2002), group study (Crouch and Mazur 2001; Springer et al. 1999), navigating competitive and collaborative academic settings (Bergin and Cooks 2000; Elaine Seymour and Hewitt 1997b), successful completion of gateway courses (Barlow and Villarejo 2004; Moreno and Muller 1999; Fullilove and Treisman 1990), recognizing (and when necessary overcoming) racial and academic identities and their roles in student success (Fries-Britt 1998; Steele 1997; Tinto 1987), social integration (McKinney et al. 1998), navigating the research enterprise,
J Sci Educ Technol
community service, effective presentations, service-learning, GRE preparation, and preparing competitive graduate applications. Largely, the education component is implemented through a series undergraduate success courses. Through these flexible and adaptive professional and academic development courses, program staff, affiliated faculty, and several additional campus entities (e.g. the Center for Academic Success, the Wellness Education division of the Student Health Center, and Career Services) offer the LSU–HHMI program participants workshops on the aforementioned topics. Additionally, students learn about research opportunities at LSU and beyond, and they engage in peer mentoring and support activities. Through this trifecta of mentoring, research, and education, participants in the LSU–HHMI Professors Program are engaged in very structured activities which support their academic and professional development. Herein, most students learn to successfully navigate their academic paths and become leaders who teach others what they have learned.
Model Design Fig. 2 LSU–HHMI Professor Program Mentor Model
The LSU–HHMI Professors Program incorporates and implements the mentoring, research and education components through its Mentoring Model (Fig. 2). This model has been strategically designed to address the key factors that have been shown to significantly impact STEM student retention: (a) academic performance in undergraduate coursework, (b) self-image, (c) pre-college background, (d) academic advising, (e) financial support, and (f) social integration in the STEM culture (Braxton et al. 2004; Tinto 1993; Metzner 1989; Seidman 2005; Elaine Seymour and Hewitt 1997a). The principal partners in designing and testing this model have been the LSU Office of Strategic Initiatives, led by Prof. Warner, and the LSU Center for Academic Success, formerly led by Prof. Saundra McGuire. At the core of this model is the belief that any student who is motivated to change maladaptive behaviors, willing to embrace new experiences, and has access to necessary support structures can become successful. Having garnered years of anecdotal evidence of the consistent and dramatic improvement in the performance of STEM students after receiving mentoring and academic interventions, Professors Warner and McGuire collaborated to develop this mentoring model. Using the mentoring ladder, the program provides comprehensive support services to students. These include (1) collaboration with the CAS to provide a thorough assessment of learning styles, a repertoire of effective metacognitive learning strategies, and effective study strategies; (2) challenging research opportunities; (3)
mentor and mentee interactions; and (4) advising and support structures that help students navigate the path from a mindset of failure and helplessness to one of empowerment and success. These programmatic components, integrated into the mentoring model, facilitate participants’ evolution from those who are mentored to becoming mentors; from those who are tutored to those who tutor; from those who receive advising to those who serve as advisors and role models. We have found that this strategic progression towards reciprocal responsibility on the part of each student reinforces the success strategies taught to participants. Herein, LSU–HHMI Professors Program undergraduate participants (i.e. LSU–HHMI Scholars) develop a strong sense of community and are taught the fundamental principles of mentoring, metacognition, and research through classes and interactions with their peers, graduate students, high school students, program staff, CAS learning strategists, and faculty at the college, high school, and elementary school levels. LSU undergraduate students are invited to apply to become LSU–HHMI Scholars based on two factors: (1) academic underperformance during their freshman year as STEM majors and (2) their potential in the STEM areas as suggested by their pre-college background and performance. Once selected, LSU–HHMI Scholars are given mentoring and research experiences that help their integration into the STEM community of learners. After being
123
J Sci Educ Technol
introduced to basic learning principles by CAS, these students develop the metacognitive strategies that propel them upward on Bloom’s hierarchy of learning levels (Fig. 3) and this higher level learning allows students to appreciate and understand science more completely (Anderson et al. 2001).
Participant Criteria Since inception in academic year (AY) 2002–2003, nearly one hundred LSU undergraduates have entered the LSU– HHMI Professors Program Hierarchical Mentoring Model. While a core criterion of participation is academic underperformance in the first year of STEM undergraduate study at LSU, an additional criterion is a demonstrated potential for success in STEM fields, as evidenced through the participants’ high school academic background and performance. Program participants, called LSU–HHMI Scholars, were selected through a rigorous application process which included written essays, interviews with faculty and staff mentors, and letters of recommendation. Upon entry into the mentoring model, these Scholars typically have a grade point average between 2.5 and 3.0, must have significant interest in long-term careers in STEM, and must fully commit to participating in all aspects of the mentoring model. At the onset of the LSU–HHMI Professors Program, a limited number of students entered the program with GPAs above 3.0; these LSU–HHMI Scholars were selected because of their potential as role models during the early development of this program. In later Fig. 3 Bloom’s Taxonomy, outlining higher-order cognitive skill sets
123
years, a sister program, LA-STEM Scholars served in this capacity. While most LSU–HHMI Scholars entered the mentoring model as rising sophomores, a small number have entered as rising juniors. For the purposes of this study, all LSU– HHMI Scholars have been combined into one large cohort and have collectively been evaluated to gauge the success of the LSU–HHMI mentoring model. A key point of interest for this group is its demographics by ethnicity (Fig. 4). Another key point of interest for this group has been the retention and graduation rates for students in STEM undergraduate curricula at LSU and beyond. Beyond the LSU–HHMI Scholars, two other groups who have not participated in the LSU–HHMI Mentoring Model have been included in this study for the sake of comparison. The non-participant LSU STEM undergraduate population forms a group; retention data on these LSU STEM undergraduates have been collected by the LSU Office of Budget and Planning’s Institutional Research Team. STEM undergraduates in more than 200 US colleges and universities form the final group, and retention data of these nation-wide STEM undergraduates have been collected by the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) at the University of Oklahoma (Hayes et al. 2009).
Mentoring: A Transformative Strategy for Improving Retention and Diversity We have found that the strategies employed through the LSU–HHMI Mentoring Model collectively lead toward
J Sci Educ Technol
Fig. 4 Demographics of the LSU-HHMI Scholars, by ethnicity
greater retention and STEM graduation rates for all participants, but particularly those from underrepresented groups. Historically, the STEM undergraduate retention rates at LSU have been low. For students entering LSU from fall 1998 through fall 2003, the six-year graduation rate of students who entered STEM curricula as freshmen and continued through to BS degree attainment (in a STEM field) ranged from 32 to 35% per year and the graduation rates for African American students, the largest minority group at LSU, ranged from 19.2 to 23.5% (Fig. 5). The LSU–HHMI Professors Program, initiated in Academic Year (AY) 2002–2003, has been able to reverse this trend. Comparing the graduation rates of LSU–HHMI Scholars to (1) LSU STEM undergraduates, and (2) nationwide STEM undergraduates (Hayes et al. 2009), provides strong evidence of the success of the mentoring model in helping to retain students in STEM fields (Fig. 6). For this comparison study, we have used the CSRDE method wherein two cohorts are identified, i.e. students from all ethnicities were included in the ‘‘All’’ category and only African American students were included in ‘‘Minority’’ group.
Fig. 5 Six-year graduation rates for all incoming freshmen entering into LSU STEM undergraduate curricula, 1998 through 2002
Fig. 6 Six-year graduation rates for the LSU-HHMI Professors Program Scholars, LSU incoming freshmen in STEM curricular for AY 2002–2003, and national consortium incoming freshmen in STEM curricular as reported by the Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis at the University of Oklahoma
Examination of retention data shows that LSU–HHMI Scholars are significantly more likely to complete a STEM undergraduate degree than is true of other LSU non-participating students. With six-year STEM graduation rates of 62 and 55% respectively for all and minority students, LSU–HHMI Scholars were significantly more successful in completing STEM BS Degrees than non-participants at LSU. Moreover these students are low-performing students who overcome academic challenges and are retained in the STEM disciplines. These outcomes are also better than the national average as polled and reported by the CSRDE (Hayes et al. 2009). Notably, our African American Scholars are completing STEM degrees at approximately the same rate as the all other students. This almost parity in graduation rates for minority students represents the greater success of the LSU–HHMI Professors Program Mentoring Model in addressing student persistence in STEM fields and shows that the integration of mentoring and academic interventions into a structure undergraduate research program has the potential to dramatically impact student persistence in STEM undergraduate curricula. To further probe the saliency of the LSU–HHMI Professors Program Hierarchical Mentoring Model on student retention, we have analyzed the rates of retention and graduation based on student entrance into the model. Although the model was designed for students in the early portion of their undergraduate education, i.e. freshmen and sophomores, we have also admitted students at all levels of education. Consequently, it is important to assess the impacts of the model on students who entered at the early and latter stages of their undergraduate studies. Of the program participants, the majority entered the model at either the freshmen or sophomore levels (Fig. 7). Participants, entering at the freshmen level, joined the model after their first semester at LSU, and participants
123
J Sci Educ Technol
has been gathered from this group and many have attested that the learning strategies, attained through program participation, prepared them for success in all degree programs.
Discussion and Summary
Fig. 7 Demographics of undergraduate participants, upon entry into the LSU-HHMI Professors Program Hierarchical Mentoring Model
entering at the sophomore level, entered after their second semester. Our study shows that the model’s impact on student retention at either of these early stages yields comparable results, whether evaluating students’ retention through graduation in a STEM discipline or a non-STEM discipline. The overall graduation rates were 73.9 and 76.7% for students entering the LSU-HHMI Hierarchical Mentoring Model at the freshmen and sophomore levels, respectively. The overall graduation rate for students at LSU who enter in a STEM degree program and exit the university with some degree whether STEM or non-STEM is 55.9%. Consequently, the graduation rates for LSU-HHMI Professors Program participants represent an average 20 point increase over the graduation rates for the comparable group of students (Fig. 8). Notably the students who entered at the sophomore level were more likely to complete a STEM degree than those who entered at the freshmen level. However those students who were not retained in STEM disciplines were more likely than non-participants to graduate with a baccalaureate degree. Anecdotal evidence
The LSU–HHMI Professors Program retention success, although dramatic, garners attention because of the specific requirement that the selected participants had to be academic underperformers. This selection criterion strengthens the findings reported here since the participants were not selected for superior academic performance as compared to other STEM undergraduates as one might assume. The LSU–HHMI Scholars were selected because of their academic underperformance. The goal of this program has been to help these students to learn to think more deeply about science by providing research experiences and targeted academic interventions. The success that we have had with increasing the retention rates of students in the HHMI Professors Program, particularly as compared to the general population at LSU, has revolved around several factors which we have identified and described below. 1.
2.
3.
Fig. 8 Six-year graduation rates for undergraduates entering into the LSU-HHMI Hierarchical Mentoring Model at either the freshmen or sophomore levels
123
4. 5.
Realization, after attending a learning strategies presentation or meeting at the CAS, that what they are currently doing is not working; this may be poor time management (particularly wrong or inconsistent choices), learning strategies that they employ which most likely are low on Bloom’s Taxonomy and learned habits from high school that perpetuate academic decline. Inattention to courses in which they have little interest, not understanding or committing to the truth that mastery takes ‘work,’ etc. An honest commitment to systematically identify exactly what is not working; this comes as a result of academic advisement during mentoring meetings and following up on all ‘‘intervention’’ assignments, honestly communicating with the program staff about their current academic status and progress, learning from interactions and insights from faculty research mentors, staff, other professional/academic support mentors, and program peers, taking their individual development plan seriously. Changes in mindset about their ability to learn the ‘‘hard’’ subject matter, particularly for under-represented students in comparison to majority students; stepping outside of isolation (perceived or real) as a ‘minority’ student and not allowing that to hinder them academically. Committing to work through the plan of action. Following through on their commitment which prevents them from relapsing into old academically destructive habits and ways of thinking.
J Sci Educ Technol
6.
Continuous improvement which develops sustained personal pride and great satisfaction in the outcome which propels them to maintain what they have obtained.
We have found that mentoring, undergraduate research, academic interventions, and career exploration opportunities play critical roles in student embracement of the above mentioned factors. The LSU–HHMI Scholars are infused into the mentoring ladder which aids in introspection and initiates the mental processes required to overcome the negative cognitive effects of academic failure (Bosson et al. 2004; Carr and Steele 2009; O’Brien and Crandall 2003; Steele and Aronson 1995; Steele et al. 2002). Overcoming negative cognitive processes aids in students’ changed mindsets and leads to gains in the students’ educational experiences (Dweck 2006). The learned helplessness and overall decreased esteem associated with academic decline is also resolved through individualized academic advising designed to direct a student’s metacognitive journey into academic success. In addition, participants are required to conduct undergraduate research and present at conferences. This socialization of students into the scientific community facilitates personal growth for the students and reinforces their self-identity as STEM researchers (Berger and Milem 1999; Gurin et al. 2002; Hausmann et al. 2007; Locks et al. 2008). Employing such techniques are tangible ways LSU HHMI Professors Program contribute to students’ transition from academic underperformance and their resulting retention through graduation. We note that the participants in the study are paid a nominal stipend for participation in the program and thus may be more motivated to change and adapt their behavior than is true of the comparison group. However, we should also note that improvement in academic performance was not a criterion for remaining in the LSU HHMI Professors Program. Thus, we believe the higher levels of STEM degree completion is based on those students who were selected to participate in this program and chose to embrace the concepts outlined in the LSU HHMI Mentoring Model. The reversal of academic decline was a key factor that contributed to students’ persistence in STEM majors. The comprehensive mentoring approach provided through the LSU HHMI Professors Program was vital to stemming attrition from STEM undergraduate curricula, particularly with underperforming students. The results for two cohorts suggest that LSU–HHMI Scholars experience greater retention through graduation than for non-participating STEM undergraduates at LSU. Surveys of participants and interviews with project staff linked this outcome to attitudinal and behavioral changes brought on by the students themselves and the various components of the program.
Particularly important, according to participants, was the role of the mentoring component of the program in concert with research opportunities, peer interactions, and academic support services. The mentoring component was comprehensive and multidimensional including faculty research mentors, research group mentors (including graduate students and postdoctoral researchers), CAS staff, and LSU HHMI Professors Program staff advisors and peer mentors. In summary, our findings suggest that increased metacognitive sophistication and mentoring play critical roles in helping these students to successfully complete their undergraduate studies and prepare for graduate study and/ or entrance into the STEM workforce. Through welldesigned mentoring programs, students develop constructive strategies for enhancing their higher-order thinking skills which help them to appreciate and understand science more completely and often result in improved academic/coursework performance. Mentoring helps students to realize and envision their self-identity as STEM scholars with the potential to offer meaningful contributions to their disciplines. The HHMI Professors Program at LSU actualizes the traditional apprenticeship model, which through the ages has demonstrated its enduring practicality and is even now fostering the next generation of STEM practitioners as they gain the skills and confidence to galvanize the next age of scientific and technological advances. Acknowledgments IMW acknowledges a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor’s Award for support of this study. ZSW acknowledges the LSU Office of Budget and Planning for compiling university data for this study. This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Professors Program at Louisiana State University.
References Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed). Longman, New York Barlow AE, Villarejo M (2004) Making a difference for minorities: evaluation of an educational enrichment program. J Res Sci Teach 41(9):861–881. doi:10.1002/tea.20029 Bauer K, Bennett J (2003) Alumni perceptions used to access undergraduate research experience. J High Educ 74(2):210–230 Berger JB, Milem JF (1999) The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. [Article]. Res High Educ 40(6):641–664 Bergin DA, Cooks HC (2000) Academic competition among students of color. Urban Educ 35(4):442–472. doi:10.1177/0042085900 354004 Bosson JK, Haymovitz EL, Pinel EC (2004) When saying and doing diverge: the effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus non-verbal anxiety. J Exp Social Psychol 40(2):247–255. doi: 10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00099-4
123
J Sci Educ Technol Braxton JM, Hirschy AS, McClendon SA (2004) Understanding and reducing college student departure. Ashe-eric higher education report. Volume 30, issue 3: Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Crosspoint Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46256. Tel: 877-7622974; Fax: 800-597-3299; e-mail:
[email protected]; Web site: http://www.josseybass.com Burke K, Dunn R (2002) Learning style-based teaching to raise minority student test scores there’s no debate!. Clgh J Educ Strateg Iss Ideas 76(2):103–106 Campbell TA, Campbell DE (1997) Faculty/student mentor program: effects on academic performance and retention. Res High Educ 38(6):727–742 Carr PB, Steele CM (2009) Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(4): 853–859. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.003 Chopin SF (2002) Undergraduate research experiences: the translation of science education from reading to doing. Anat Rec 269(1):3–10 Collins SN, Stanley GG, Warner IM, Watkins SF (2001) Perspective—what is louisiana state doing right? [Article]. Chem Eng News 79(50):39–42 Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (US), Committee on Science Engineering, Public Policy (US) (2007) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing america for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69(9):970–977 DeHaan RL (2005) The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. J Sci Educ Technol 14(2):253–269. doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-4425-3 DuBois DL, Holloway BE, Valentine JC, Cooper H (2002) Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. Am J Community Psychol 30(2):157–197. doi:10.1023/ A:1014628810714 Dweck CS (2006) Mindset: the new psychology of success, 1st edn. Random House, New York Freeman K (1999) No services needed? The case for mentoring highachieving african american students. Peabody J Educ 74(2): 15–26 Fries-Britt S (1998) Moving beyond black achiever isolation— experiences of gifted black collegians. [Article]. J Higher Educ 69(5):556–576 Fullilove RE, Treisman PU (1990) Mathematics achievement among African American undergraduates at the University Of California, Berkeley: an evaluation of the mathematics workshop program. J Negro Educ 59(3):463–478 Galama T, Hosek JR, National Defense Research Institute (US) (2007) Perspectives on US competitiveness in science and technology (Conference proceedings). Rand Corp, Santa Monica Gandara P, Maxwell-Jolly J (1999) Priming the pump: strategies for increasing the achievement of underrpresented minority undergraduates. College Board, New York Good JM, Halpin G, Halpin G (2000) A promising prospect for minority retention: students becoming peer mentors. J Negro Educ 69(4):375–383 Gurin P, Dey EL, Hurtado S, Gurin G (2002) Diversity and higher education: theory and impact on educational outcomes. [Article]. Harv Educ Rev 72(3):330–366 Hathaway R, Nagda B, Gregerman S (2002) The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: an empirical study. J Coll Stud Dev 43:614–631 Hausmann LRM, Schofield JW, Woods RL (2007) Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among african
123
american and white first-year college students. [Article]. Res High Educ 48(7): 803–839. doi: 10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9 Hayes RQ, Whalen SK, Cannon B (2009) 2008–2009 csrde stem retention report. Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman Hoffmann R, McGuire SY (2009) Teaching and learning strategies that work. [Letter]. Science 325(5945):1203–1204 Jacobi M (1991) Mentoring undergraduate academic success: a literature review. Rev Educ Res 61(4):505–532 Jones C, Reichard C, Mokhtari K (2003) Are students’ learning styles discipline specific? Community Coll J Res Pract 27(5):363–375 Kardash C (2000) Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. J Educ Pyschol 92(1):191–201 Lapointe AE, Mead NA, Phillips GW (1989) A world of difference: An international assessment of mathematics and science. Educational Testing Service, Princeton Locks AM, Hurtado S, Bowman NA, Oseguera L (2008) Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. Rev High Educ 31(3):257–285 Lopatto D (2004) Survey of undergraduate research experiences (sure): first findings. Cell Biol Educ 3:270–277 Maton KI, Hrabowski FA (2004) Increasing the number of African American Phds in the sciences and engineering—a strengthsbased approach. Am Psychol 59(6):547–556. doi:10.1037/0003066x.59.6.547 McGuire SY (2007) Using the scientific method to improve mentoring. Learn Assist Rev 12(2):33–45 McKinney K, Saxe D, Cobb L (1998) Are we really doing all we can for our undergraduates? Professional socialization via out-ofclass experiences. [Article]. Teach Sociol 26(1):1–13 McKnight CC, Crosswhite FJ, Dossey JA, Kifer E, Swafford JO, Travers KJ et al (1987) The underachieving curriculum: assessing US school mathematics from an international perspective. Stipes Publishing Co, Champaign Metzner BS (1989) Perceived quality of academic advising: the effect on freshman attrition. Am Educ Res J 26(3):422–442. doi: 10.3102/00028312026003422 Moreno S, Muller C (1999) Success and diversity: the transition through first-year calculus in the university. Am J Educ 108(1):30–57 Nagda B, Gregerman S, Jonides J, von Hippel W, Lerner J (1998) Undergraduate student-faculty partnerships affect student retention. Rev High Educ 22:55–72 Novak J (2002) Meaningful learning: the essention factor of conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Sci Educ 86:548–571 O’Brien LT, Crandall CS (2003) Stereotype threat and arousal: effects on women’s math performance. Pers Social Psychol Bull 29(6):782–789. doi:10.1177/0146167203252810 Pfund C, Pribbenow C, Branchaw H, Lauffer S, Handlesman J (2006) The merits of training mentors. Science 311(5760):473–474 Redmond SP (1990) Mentoring and cultural diversity in academic setting. Am Behav Sci 34:188–200 Sabatini D (1997) Teaching and research synergism: the undergraduate research experience. J Profess Issues Eng Educ Pract 123(3):98–102 Science and engineering indicators (2006) In Board, NS (ed). National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics, Arlington Seidman A (2005) College student retention: formula for student success (Ace/praeger series on higher education). Praeger Publishers, Westport Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997a) Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press, Boulder
J Sci Educ Technol Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997b) Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press, Boulder Seymour E, Hunter AB, Laursen SL, Deantoni T (2004) Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study. Sci Educ 88(4):493–534. doi:10.1002/sce.10131 Springer L, Stanne M, Donovan S (1999) Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 69(1):21–51 Steele CM (1997) A threat in the air—how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. [Article]. Am Psychol 52(6):613–629 Steele CM, Aronson J (1995) Stereotype threat and the intellectual test-performance of African-Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol 69(5):797–811
Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J (2002) Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 34 (vol 34, pp 379–440, Advances in experimental social psychology) Summers MF, Hrabowski FA (2006) Diversity—preparing minority scientists and engineers. Science 311(5769):1870–1871. doi: 10.1126/science.1125257 Tinto V (1987) Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Tinto V (1993) Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London Zydney A, Bennett J, Bauer K (2002) Impact of undergraduate research experiences in engineering. J Eng Educ 91:151–157
123
J Sci Educ Technol DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9348-6
Increasing Access for Economically Disadvantaged Students: The NSF/CSEM & S-STEM Programs at Louisiana State University Zakiya S. Wilson • Sitharama S. Iyengar • Su-Seng Pang • Isiah M. Warner • Candace A. Luces
The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Increasing college degree attainment for students from disadvantaged backgrounds is a prominent component of numerous state and federal legislation focused on higher education. In 1999, the National Science Foundation (NSF) instituted the ‘‘Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships’’ (CSEMS) program; this initiative was designed to provide greater access and support to academically talented students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Originally intended to provide financial support to lower income students, this NSF program also advocated that additional professional development and advising would be strategies to increase undergraduate persistence to graduation. This innovative program for economically disadvantaged students was extended in 2004 to include students from other disciplines including the physical and life sciences as well as the technology fields, and the new name of the program was Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM). The implementation of these
two programs in Louisiana State University (LSU) has shown significant and measurable success since 2000, making LSU a Model University in providing support to economically disadvantaged students within the STEM disciplines. The achievement of these programs is evidenced by the graduation rates of its participants. This report provides details on the educational model employed through the CSEMS/S-STEM projects at LSU and provides a path to success for increasing student retention rates in STEM disciplines. While the LSU’s experience is presented as a case study, the potential relevance of this innovative mentoring program in conjunction with the financial support system is discussed in detail. Keywords Mentoring Economically disadvantaged Retention Persistence Undergraduates STEM curricula Academically talented students National Science Foundation Technology driven education
Introduction Z. S. Wilson (&) I. M. Warner Office of Strategic Initiatives and Department of Chemistry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA e-mail:
[email protected] S. S. Iyengar Department of Computer Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA S.-S. Pang Office of Strategic Initiatives and Department of Mechanical Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA C. A. Luces Office of Strategic Initiatives, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
Theodore Roosevelt, an advocate of education, extolled that ‘‘A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.’’ Education is the foundation for economic development and prosperity, and it is the access point by which groups from all backgrounds are able to capture the American dream. While African Americans, Latin Americans, and Native Americans comprise a visible percentage of the US population, these groups continue to be seriously underrepresented in many disciplines that impact the nation’s economy, largely the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Whether looking at this
123
J Sci Educ Technol
in terms of ensuring national security, cultivating the continued prosperity of America in an increasingly global economy, or increasing access for a culturally diverse citizenry, it is a national imperative to provide opportunities for young minds from all backgrounds to have access to higher education, particularly within the STEM disciplines. It is the responsibility of stakeholders in education to support educational reform that improves the learning experiences of all students. To help the United States maintain its competitive edge in global markets, support is particularly important in the sciences and mathematics (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (US) and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (US) 2010; Galama et al. 2007; Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy 2007; National Academy of Sciences et al. 2011). In 1999, the National Science Foundation (NSF) instituted the ‘‘Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships’’ (CSEMS) program; this endeavor was initiated to provide greater access and support for academically talented students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Designed to provide financial support and mentoring to lower income students, the NSF/ CSEMS initiative was developed and implemented to improve student retention and graduation within the mathematical, computational science, and engineering disciplines. In 2004, NSF extended the program to include the physical and biological sciences as well as other STEM disciplines and renamed the program, Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM). Since their inauguration, the NSF/CSEMS and S-STEM programs have provided strategic opportunities to test educational models designed to improve the retention of students in STEM disciplines, particularly those from economically disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds. The implementation of these two programs in Louisiana State University (LSU) has shown significant and measured success since 2000, and LSU has become a Model University in providing support to economically disadvantaged students within STEM disciplines. The success of these programs at LSU is evidenced by the graduation rates of all LSU/CSEMS and S-STEM participants, of which nearly ninety percent have graduated with STEM degrees! This report provides an analysis of the key features of the CSEMS and S-STEM initiatives at LSU and how systemic improvements have led to the graduation rate gains that epitomize LSU as a Model University. While LSU’s experience is presented as a case study, the potential relevance of this innovative mentoring program in conjunction with the financial support system is discussed in detail.
123
Model design As Roosevelt maintained, undergraduate education is a primary access point for economic success, and many scholars and political leaders have asserted that student persistence in the STEM disciplines is important for the economic future of the US (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy 2007; Galama et al. 2007; National Academy of Sciences et al. 2011). Unfortunately, less than half of the US students who enter into STEM undergraduate curricula as freshmen will actually graduate with a STEM degree (Hayes et al. 2009; Graduation Gaps for Science Majors 2010; Wilson et al. 2011). Minority groups, underrepresented in these fields, have even higher attrition rates from these disciplines (Fig. 1). While disparities in retention for minority groups are well defined, generally, disparities in student retention and graduation rates in STEM disciplines for economically disadvantaged students are not often discussed. Nevertheless, low-income students face inherent challenges in financing their higher education aspirations while pursuing academically rigorous curricula, like those within the STEM disciplines (Hossler et al. 2009).
Fig. 1 Six-year Graduation Rates for US Colleges and Universities, collected by the Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis at the University of Oklahoma. The graduation rates are given for freshmen entering into STEM undergraduate curricula and continued through to graduate with a STEM undergraduate degree. Institutional selectivity is based on entrance requirements. Highly selective institutions require a minimum ACT Score of 24.0 or a minimum SAT score of 1,100. Selective institutions will allow ACT Scores between 22.5 and 24.0 or SAT scores between 1,045 and 1,100 for admission. Moderately selective institutions will allow ACT Scores between 21.0 and 22.5 or SAT scores between 990 and 1,044 for admission
J Sci Educ Technol
Retention research lists ‘‘lack of adequate financing’’ as a major factor for many students leaving college (Cabrera and Fries-Britt 2008; Seidman 2005). The lack of adequate financing affects many students at Louisiana State University (LSU). Approximately 25% of the 23,000 undergraduate students are eligible to receive federal aid (either US Department of Education Pell Grant or Subsidized Stafford Loan) (Lousiana state university office of budget and planning). Financially disadvantaged students face significant obstacles in finding sufficient funding to complete their college studies. Disadvantaged students who decide to remain are often times burdened with obtaining loans and/or working long hours. Due to financial constraints, many academically talented students are not able to maintain the level of achievement consistent with their potential. The major focus of the NSF/CSEMS and S-STEM projects at LSU has been to construct an academic support program that meets the needs of financially disadvantaged students without over-burdening these with exhaustive program requirements. The objectives of this project were to recruit financially disadvantaged students, to retain them, and to enhance their educational experiences. Specifically, program efforts worked to: (1)
(2) (3)
(4) (5)
(6) (7)
Recruit academically talented students ranging from high school seniors to existing LSU students as well as nearby community college, Baton Rouge Community College (BRCC), students who have demonstrated great potential for success, especially women and minorities in the physical, life, and computational sciences and mathematics. BRCC is located in the same city as LSU. Transfer articulation between BRCC and LSU has recently established. Retain these students through the incorporation of academic support and professional development. Provide students with mentoring from faculty, Office of Strategic Initiatives (OSI) staff, and a cohort of students in other OSI undergraduate education programs. Provide students with (optional) research training opportunities. Enhance the educational experience of students through workshops/seminars, K-12 and community outreach opportunities. Promote intercultural participation among non-minority and minority students. Expand the proposed program activities to accommodate a student population larger than the scholarship recipients.
Infrastructure and Implementation The conundrum of student persistence in STEM disciplines has been investigated from a variety of different avenues.
Minority students who have participated in studies on this topic have cited campus and classroom climate as well as the lack of mentoring as major factors leading to STEM attrition (Hausmann et al. 2007; Locks et al. 2008). Additional studies have found that students’ academic selfefficacy and precollege preparedness both play roles in student success and persistence in STEM disciplines (Braxton et al. 2004). While self-efficacy does include such things as study and time management skills, it also includes precollege background and the effective navigation of college acclimation. Further data exemplify the disparity in student persistence at the precollege level. Studies on high school graduation rates show that 72% of white students who began high school in 1997 graduated in 2001, while only 52% of Latino and 51% of African-American students graduated within 4 years. Finally, of those students who enrolled in college in the fall of 1998, 59% of white students graduated in 4 years; in contrast, only 36% of Latino students and only 40% of African–American students graduated 4 years later. Whether considering student persistence or student achievement at the precollege, the data reveals a general pattern of disparities for students of color across a variety of measures. Summarily, minority students face challenges in persistence at the precollege level and under-preparation for advanced study in STEM disciplines at the undergraduate level. Consequently, the duality of disparities lead to ‘‘pipeline’’ challenges at the undergraduate level and is operationalized as ‘‘leakage’’ in the pipeline. The two prime negative factors that contribute towards the ‘leakage rate’ of minority students at the undergraduate level are economic and academic backgrounds. The former includes socioeconomic background which inadvertently leads to students matriculation through public school systems with less rigorous academic programs, fewer advanced placement courses in the sciences and mathematics, and a general under-preparation for advanced study in the STEM disciplines. Recognizing that many factors contribute to student persistence at the undergraduate level, the CSEMS/ S-STEM education model was designed to integrate interventions that address the varying factors contributing to persistence. Herein, technical training and professional development were paired with mentoring in a strategic approach designed to empower students while provide an academic support infrastructure that could guide them in realizing their potential. This conglomerate of approaches formed the bases of the education model (Fig. 2), which is based on a core belief that mentoring and training are key ingredients for sustaining student interest in STEM disciplines and their efficacy for navigating educational pathways within these disciplines.
123
J Sci Educ Technol Fig. 2 Comprehensive approach for increasing the success of economically disadvantaged students in STEM undergraduate curricula
The strategy of this approach is simple and can be adopted easily by any other institution. The comprehensive set of strategies for bringing students to success, especially for minorities are summarized as: Integration of academic support, enhancement, and professional activities in information technology training; Academic enhancement activities that includes personal mentoring and career placements, and Outreach activities include involvement in K-12 education, industrial training and field trips. The financial and social gaps between ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘advantaged’ groups are significant. To address the financial gaps, the recruited students were offered annual scholarship of $3,000–$4,000 combined with the tuition waiver provided through Louisiana’s Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS) program over the period of project. The stipend paid proved to be a critical recruitment tool to encourage and sustain more talented, financially disadvantaged high school students to consider a collegiate level education. The funds from this project have served as the seed money to establish scholarships and enhancements for financially needy and academically talented students in STEM. To address the social gaps, CSEMS/S-STEM Scholars received additional mentoring and research training. The design structure of four key activities forms the foundation of these interactions and includes the following: (Fig. 3)
Fig. 3 LSU/S-STEM programmatic activities
123
• • • •
Recruitment of Students Information Technology Training, Academic Enhancement Activities Educational and Industrial Outreach.
Through the collaboration of the Center for Academic Success (CAS), the Office of Strategic Initiatives (OSI), and the Mathematics Consultation Clinic, the academic enhancement and outreach activities were designed, implemented, and sustained. The OSI, Department of Computer Science, CAS, and faculty members throughout the science and math disciplines have provided active mentoring and academic assistance for the Scholars to maximize their chance for academic success. While the Scholars were provided with various enhancement opportunities including technical training and introduction to research, the mentoring component was often cited by students as the most significant contributor to their persistence within their STEM undergraduate curricula. Further details on this component are provided in the following section.
Mentoring: A Significant Contributor to Undergraduate Student Persistence Individual Academic/Research Mentor for Each OSI Program Student In the past, faculty mentors have been assigned to students upon acceptance into the program. Students could elect to either secure research with their assigned mentor, who would serve as both a faculty and research mentor, or secure research independently. To support the goal of developing autonomous scholars, current practice has been to provide students with the necessary resources for developing effective faculty-student relationships and to encourage them to secure research mentors based on their individual research interests. Program managers provide guidance to students throughout this process. Faculty mentors attend a training session sponsored by OSI, and each mentor agrees to write his or her student a letter of introduction, and to meet with the student several times per year. Faculty mentors also give research presentations during Summer Bridge, as well as during the academic year and attend several program social events and dinners. Additionally, a faculty liaison is identified for each
J Sci Educ Technol
participating department. This faculty liaison will pair students with their respective mentors, as well as act as a general advocate for CSEMS/S-STEM in the department. Individual Mentoring and Counseling OSI program students are required to meet with OSI staff each semester. Students on program academic warning or probation are required to meet a minimum of four times a semester. During mentoring meetings, the scholar’s academic progress is discussed and students are advised accordingly. Some students require counseling sessions and will meet with the program counselor. When appropriate, students are referred to other resources on campus, including Career Services, the Honors College, Center for Academic Success, the Writing Center, various on-campus tutorial centers, the Center for Freshman Year, and the advising services available through their major colleges. In some instances, the students may also be advised to meet with their professor. Any scholar who receives less than a C on any graded test or paper must seek formal tutoring and verification sheets must be turned in weekly. The program staff monitors the scholar’s progress by verifying the completion of the tutoring requirement via mentoring meetings and email correspondence. Students are introduced to learning and study strategies regarding topics such as metacognition, time management, stress, test anxiety, and discipline-specific learning strategies by Dr. Saundra Y. McGuire, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Learning and Teaching and former Director of LSU Center for Academic Success. Dr. McGuire is a collaborator on several OSI Mentoring projects and has published articles and book chapters that help faculty teach in ways that actively engage students in the learning process. The program managers provide guidance to the students throughout this process.
Participants and Results The recruitment and selection of students are based on their residency, financial needs, GPA, statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, and an interview. The project’s management team works collaboratively with the university’s Financial Aid and Scholarship Office to identify economically disadvantaged candidates for participation in the project. An extensive recruitment agenda is aimed at this group and includes mailings, applications, and interviews with program staff. Based on the financial needs, academic records and future goals, low-income STEM undergraduate students were selected to participate, of which 55% were underrepresented by race and/or ethnicity. These selected scholars where high-achieving students with financial need.
To date, 243 students have participated in the OSI/S-STEM Program. With an average cumulative GPA of 3.345, this very diverse group of students has included African Americans (49%), Caucasians (35%), Asians (10%), and Hispanic (4%), all of which have been US citizens or permanent residents (Fig. 4). Forty-three percent of the participants have been women and fifty-seven percent have been men. Graduation Rates in STEM Financial aid for low-income students was found to be critical to ensuring persistence in undergraduate programs. There has been some anecdotal information on the program’s impact on student persistence; and these have largely been collected in mentoring meetings between students and program manager/academic counselor. Nevertheless, the most poignant evidence of the program’s impact is seen through the retention rates of students in STEM disciplines through graduation. The larger comparison of the total population of STEM students at LSU to those high financial needs students participating in the S-STEM project offers some insight. In the current grant, 94% of participants have been retained. This is a very significant increase over the six-year graduation rates of students not enrolled in the program, which hovers around 34% for students who entered LSU as STEM majors since 1998 through 2003. Beyond this data, financial aid has been shown to have significant impacts on student persistence at other institution and these findings have been well in line with this data. Improvement in Recruitment and Retention Rates The results of three CSEMS/S-STEM projects demonstrate the clear success of its model in retaining student until graduation (Fig. 5). All these projects included undergraduates in varying STEM majors at LSU. To gain some insight into the projects’ retention of STEM majors, data
Fig. 4 Demographics of the LSU-S-STEM Scholars, by ethnicity
123
J Sci Educ Technol
was gathered on the overall LSU six-year graduation rates in STEM disciplines. On average, approximately 34% of freshmen entering into STEM disciplines at LSU actually complete a STEM degree. This data include students from majority and minority groups as well as students from economically disadvantaged groups. STEM retention rates are shown for the three prior projects with LSU STEM majors and a select number of colleges and universities as polled by the Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis. The LSU CSEMS/S-STEM programs chronicle the positive impact of its financial support working in concert with a wellstructured mentoring program on student retention in STEM disciplines. Notably over 50% of all participants have been underrepresented by ethnicity, and the positive impacts on STEM retention and graduation are seen uniformly for both minority and majority students.
Concluding Remarks Using NSF/CSEMS and NSF/S-STEM projects, LSU/OSI has developed a very successful mentoring program for economically disadvantaged students based on the following indicators: (a) The costs for college education have been leveraged efficiently and effectively; (b) Graduation rates have increased; (c) More students have received regional/national awards and recognitions; and (d) Student performance (e.g., GPA) has improved. Achieving all of these for college students has been a challenge in higher
education, especially for minority and female students in the STEM disciplines. LSU/OSI has created numerous innovative mentoring activities to achieve these impressive results. OSI was established to break disciplinary barriers and change the traditional way of conducting education and mentoring. Herein, LSU resources have been leveraged to enhance the synergy and positive ‘‘composite action’’ among the existing projects. OSI Mentoring Programs have and continue to: (1) nurture students in an interdisciplinary environment so that they become Inspirational Teachers, Exemplary Mentors, and Effective Leaders; (2) create and implement programs that broaden the participation of more diversified students; (3) enhance the academic environment to better support students, who subsequently transfer their service to K-12 education. Furthermore, CSEMS/S-STEM Scholars are able to readily relate to a broad spectrum of individuals: academicians, K-12 teachers and students, industry personnel, and the public in general. It is anticipated that all OSI program students will exert a positive and ethical influence in the community as Model Citizens. The noticeable success of the CSEMS/S-STEM projects at LSU is largely attributed to its mentoring strategy. Pairing multifaceted mentoring approaches with financial aid has addressed the social and financial gaps that economically disadvantaged students experience in higher education settings. This has helped students to better acclimate to the university while increasing students access to campus resources, and this acclimation has been a direct factor in participants graduation rates. The CSEMS/S-STEM efforts at LSU have demonstrated that financial aid alone does not address all of the factors leading to undergraduate attrition. The strategic pairing of scholarships with mentoring and training programs provided a level of academic and social support that is critical to increasing student persistence. Sustainability
Fig. 5 Six-year Graduation Rates in STEM Degree programs for US Colleges and Universities, LSU, and LSU/S-STEM participants. The graduation rates are given for freshmen entering into STEM undergraduate curricula and continued through to graduate with a STEM undergraduate degree
123
OSI has been permanently established at LSU since 2001. All of the infrastructures, including space and facilities, are available. In addition to the designated Vice Chancellor and Associate Vice Chancellor for Strategic Initiatives, LSU has also provided several permanent staff positions for OSI, including secretary, business manager, counselor, office manager, several program managers, several student workers, etc. OSI has demonstrated its sustainability in structural changes that will increase all mentoring activities (student retention, graduation rate, etc.) in the future. Therefore, OSI has been institutionalized by LSU and the student support programs will be continuous. Meanwhile, LSU is in the process of establishing an ‘‘Endowment Account’’ through industries and alumni for extending further support of OSI student programs. In addition,
J Sci Educ Technol
Louisiana’s Board of Regents (BoR) supports educational and research programs within STEM disciplines, and OSI has already started receiving support from BoR for their student programs on a yearly basis since 2008. Acknowledgements The authors are very grateful to National Science Foundation for their funding many of these projects. We are also grateful to all students in their participation in this work. This study was partially sponsored by the National Science Foundation under project numbers: NSF/DUE-9986857, NSF/DUE-0220830, and NSF/ DUE-0631147. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
References Braxton JM, Hirschy AS, & McClendon SA (2004) Understanding and reducing college student departure. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, vol 30. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Cabrera AF, Fries-Britt S (2008) Minority student retention: the best of the journal of college student retention: research, theory, and practice. [Book Review]. Rev Hig Educ 31(4):508–510 Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (US), & Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (US) (2010) Rising above the gathering storm revisited: rapidly approaching category 5. National Academies Press, Washington, DC Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, & Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (2007)
Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington, DC Galama T, Hosek JR, National Defense Research Institute (US) (2007) Perspectives on US Competitiveness in science and technology. Rand Corp, Santa Monica, CA Graduation Gaps for Science Majors (2010, February 17) Inside Higher Ed Hausmann LRM, Schofield JW, Woods RL (2007) Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and white first-year college students. Res High Educ 48(7):803–839 Hayes RQ, Whalen SK, Cannon B (2009) Csrde stem retention report, 2008–2009. Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman Hossler D, Ziskin M, Gross JPK, Kim S, Cekic O (2009) Student aid and its role in encouraging persistence. In: Smart JC (ed) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol 24. Springer, Netherlands, pp 389–425 Locks AM, Hurtado S, Bowman NA, Oseguera L (2008) Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. Rev High Educ 31(3):257–285 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine (2011) Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. National Academies Press, Washington, DC Seidman A (ed) (2005) College student retention: formula for student success. American Council on Education - Oryx Press Series on Higher Education, Washington, DC Wilson Z, Holmes L, deGravelles K, Sylvain M, Batiste L, Johnson M, et al (2011) Hierarchical mentoring: a transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate stem disciplines. J Sci Educ Technol. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9292-5 Lousiana State University Office of Budget and Planning. http:// www.bgtplan.lsu.edu
123
![Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer [PDF]](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/improving-outcomes-a-strategy-for-cancer-pdf_6479da1b098a9e3c228b4588.jpg)
