United States

Introduction. Disparities in STEM undergraduate degree achievement has been a prevalent topic of concern in the current higher education landscape, particularly across race, gender and socio-economic status (Griffith, 2010; NCES, 2018). Despite shifts in population demographics, and an increase in the need for STEM workforce diversity to maintain the nation’s economic and technological prominence across the globe, minority student representation in STEM fields still falls far behind current population demographics (Eagan et al., 2013; Lane, 2016). In recent years, STEM enrichment programs have been implemented across higher education institutions in an effort to improve the student success outcomes of under-represented minority students in STEM (Carpi et al., 2017; Jackson &amp; Winfield, 2014). Several studies have found positive outcomes associated with program participation, specifically in graduation, persistence, and math academic preparation across under-represented minority students (e.g., Chang et al., 2014; Lee &amp; Harmon, 2013). Despite these promising results, few results investigate the effects of program participation after accounting for confounding variables that may cause bias in interpreting results (Gonyea &amp; Miller, 2007). For this reason, this study aims to expand research on the long-term effects of participation in STEM intervention programs, in particular the University of Houston’s Scholar Enrichment Program (SEP) a program funded by the National Science Foundation as part of the broader Houston-Louis Stokes Alliance Minority Participation (H-LSAMP). Considering the significance of STEM intervention programs at increasing the completion and persistence rates of URM students enrolled in STEM fields, this study examined the extent to which participation in the UH-SEP program impacts the graduation and persistence rates of minority students after controlling for socio-demographic and pre-college baseline characteristics. The study posed the following questions:
1) To what degree does program participation in the UH-SEP program have an effect on degree completion and persistence?
2) To what degree does program participation in the UH-SEP program have an effect on long-term student dropout and persistence trends over time? 
Methods. This study examined the 2013 and 2014 SEP freshman student cohorts (n=102), as well as a matched sample of non-SEP freshmen students enrolled in STEM fields across the same cohort years (n = 1,459). Student records contained information concerning academic progress, major, GPA, and demographics, allowing the in-depth analysis of persistence, drop-out and graduation rates over time. 
The first step of the analysis involved propensity score matching techniques that matched similar students across a series of baseline covariates that are related to persistence in STEM fields, specifically pre-college standardized math scores, race, gender and major (Ashford et al., 2016; Murphy, Murphy, Gaughan, Hume &amp; Moore; 2010). The resulting sample contained an equal number of SEP and non-SEP participants (n=131). The second step of the analysis involved logistic regression techniques to estimate program participation effects on graduation and persistence rates, using the propensity score matched sample. 
Finally, to estimate program participation effects on dropout and completion rates over-time, discrete-time survival analysis was conducted using a competing risks model to analyze patterns of student dropout while controlling for program participation and the competing risk of STEM persistence. 

Results. Tables 1 and 2 present results of the logistic regression models estimating the effect of program participation and retention in a STEM field. Logistic regression results demonstrated that participation in the UH-SEP program had a significant positive effect on graduation and retention in a STEM field. After controlling for estimated propensity scores, participants of the UH-SEP program were 3.46 times more likely to graduate and 2.55 times more likely to persist in a STEM field, compared to non-SEP students (p&lt;0.05). 

Table 1. Logistic Regression: UH-SEP Participation Effects on Graduation 
Variables Matched Students (n = 238)
Exp (B) 95% C.I for Exp (B)
Estimated Propensity Scores 28.53 .33 2500.65
Program Participation (SEP1) 2.51* 1.08 5.82

Cumulative GPA 4.81** 1.86 12.47
Accumulated Credit Hours 1.06** 1.04 1.08
Model Summary
N 248
% of cases predicted correctly 86.6%
Nagelkerke R2 .707
-2 Log likelihood (df) 154.447
Source: Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D.L., Horn, C., Hardy, J. and Brown, B. (2021). Impact of an intensive multi-disciplinary STEM enrichment program on underrepresented minority student success. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0452

Table 2. Logistic Regression: UH-SEP Participation Effects on STEM Retention

Variables Matched Students (n = 238)
Exp (B) 95% C.I for Exp (B)
Estimated Propensity Scores 5.61 0.13 235.46
Program Participation (SEP1) 1.49 0.74 2.99
Cumulative GPA 2.07 0.96 4.46
Accumulated Credit Hours 1.05** 1.03 1.06
Model Summary
N 248
% of cases predicted correctly 80.9%
Nagelkerke R2 .577
-2 Log likelihood (df) 201.204
Source: Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D.L., Horn, C., Hardy, J. and Brown, B. (2021). Impact of an intensive multi-disciplinary STEM enrichment program on underrepresented minority student success. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0452
Results of the competing risks model indicated that compared to non-SEP students, SEP participants had a decreased likelihood of dropout and increased likelihood of persistence in a STEM field, evident through the significant sub-hazard ratios for dropout. Table 3 presents the findings of the competing risks regression model. 


Table 3. Competing Risks Regression: UH-SEP Program Participation

Variable Sub hazard Ratios SE 95% Confidence Interval
Program Participation 0.541* 0.129 0.337 0.866
Calculus I Year Taken (Reference: never taken) 
First Year 1.04 0.321 0.567 1.90
Second Year 0.97 0.331 0.503 1.90
Cumulative GPA 0.992 0.216 0.647 1.52
Total Credits Accumulated 0.952** 0.005 0.941 0.963
Source: Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D., &amp; Horn, C.L. (2020). Persistence of Under-represented minorities in STEM fields: Are summer bridge programs sufficient? Unpublished manuscript.

Conclusions and Discussion. Findings from this study highlight the significant role that STEM intervention programs play in addressing inadequate academic preparation and barriers to the success of under-represented minority students in STEM (Chang et al., 2014; Crisp et al., 2009). Results add to the existing body of literature concerning racial disparities in STEM degree achievement by presenting program participation effects after controlling for pre-college and socio-demographic variables significantly associated with success in a STEM field. In addition, results from this study demonstrate the long-term significant effects of intervention programs on reducing the likelihood of dropout and increasing persistence among minority students. These findings support continuous calls for intervention programs that specifically target minority students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Given that findings from this study were limited to data from a single institution, recommendations for future studies include conducting similar analyses on a broader set of institutions within the H-LSAMP alliance as well as similar national intervention programs to gain a more comprehensive view of intervention effects on minority student success. 

Acknowledgments. Funding for this work is provided by the National Science Foundation: NSF Award HRD-1911310, 1407736, and 0903948. Additional funding was provided by Halliburton, Conoco Phillips, private donors, and the University of Houston’s Provost’s Office. 
References. 

Eagan Jr, M. K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M. J., Garcia, G. A., Herrera, F. A., &amp; Garibay, J. C. (2013). Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programs. American educational research journal, 50(4), 683-713.
Carpi, A., Ronan, D. M., Falconer, H. M., &amp; Lents, N. H. (2017). Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self‐efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 169-194.
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., &amp; Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555-580.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., &amp; Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution.
Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D.L., Horn, C., Hardy, J. and Brown, B. (2021). Impact of an intensive multi-disciplinary STEM enrichment program on underrepresented minority student success. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0452
Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D., &amp; Horn, C.L. (2021). Persistence of Under-represented minorities in STEM fields: Are summer bridge programs sufficient? Unpublished manuscript.
Gonyea, R. M., &amp; Miller, A. (2011). Clearing the AIR about the use of self‐reported gains in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(150), 99-111.
Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911-922.
Jackson, K. M., &amp; Winfield, L. L. (2014). Realigning the crooked room: Spelman claims a space for African American women in STEM. Peer review: emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate education, 16(2), 9.
Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar39.
Lee, D. M., &amp; Harmon, K. (2013). The Meyerhoff Scholars Program: Changing Minds, Transforming a Campus. Metropolitan Universities, 24(2), 55-70.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2018. “Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race and Ethnicity of Recipients.” https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/degreerecipients/.


13th Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions

Long-term Impacts of STEM Enrichment Programs on Under-represented Minority Students

student achievement

under-represented minorities

:stem education

persistence

intervention

The annual UI conference has grown from a meeting to a community of more than 6,000 researchers, program officers, evaluators, program directors, training faculty, and others within STEM, and now operates with a mission to mutually inform scholarship and practice, develop and enhance the community interested in educational interventions, and provide professional development for all STEM persons. UI held its first Virtual conference in December of 2020 in response to Covid-19 restrictions that forced the cancellation of the original March 2020 in person meeting. Born out of necessity, the virtual conference introduced a format that provided pre conference availability of symposia, Deeper Dives and Poster presentations. The 13th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference will continue with that design and we foresee future conferences adopting aspects of that format in reaching a virtual audience as well as those who attend the conferences in-person.

Attendees will experience plenaries, workshops, symposia, and poster presentations on hypothesis-based research on interventions and initiatives that broaden participation in STEM careers. The conference will continue to facilitate the dialogue among education, behavioral, and social science researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM fields who participate in intervention programs. Graduate students in these fields are strongly encouraged to attend. Workshops, sessions, and posters will communicate effective strategies from successful STEM intervention programs, present results from empirical research studies, and synthesize the translation of research findings into practice on STEM learning, undergraduate research, graduate education, and student retention.

The cost to attend the conference is $150. There are special rates for post-doctoral fellows and graduate students, as well as conference grants that can be provided for those with need. Registration for the conference is open, with additional information to come.

The annual UI conference has grown from a meeting to a community of more than 6,000 researchers, program officers, evaluators, program directors, training faculty, and others within STEM, and now operates with a mission to mutually inform scholarship and practice, develop and enhance the community interested in educational interventions, and provide professional development for all STEM persons. UI held its first Virtual conference in December of 2020 in response to Covid-19 restrictions that forced the cancellation of the original March 2020 in person meeting. Born out of necessity, the virtual conference introduced a format that provided pre conference availability of symposia, Deeper Dives and Poster presentations. The 13th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference will continue with that design and we foresee future conferences adopting aspects of that format in reaching a virtual audience as well as those who attend the conferences in-person.

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

Understanding Interventions 2020

Introduction. Disparities in STEM undergraduate degree achievement has been a prevalent topic of concern in the current higher education landscape, particularly across race, gender and socio-economic status (Griffith, 2010; NCES, 2018). Despite shifts in population demographics, and an increase in the need for STEM workforce diversity to maintain the nation’s economic and technological prominence across the globe, minority student representation in STEM fields still falls far behind current population demographics (Eagan et al., 2013; Lane, 2016). In recent years, STEM enrichment programs have been implemented across higher education institutions in an effort to improve the student success outcomes of under-represented minority students in STEM (Carpi et al., 2017; Jackson & Winfield, 2014). Several studies have found positive outcomes associated with program participation, specifically in graduation, persistence, and math academic preparation across under-represented minority students (e.g., Chang et al., 2014; Lee & Harmon, 2013). Despite these promising results, few results investigate the effects of program participation after accounting for confounding variables that may cause bias in interpreting results (Gonyea & Miller, 2007). For this reason, this study aims to expand research on the long-term effects of participation in STEM intervention programs, in particular the University of Houston’s Scholar Enrichment Program (SEP) a program funded by the National Science Foundation as part of the broader Houston-Louis Stokes Alliance Minority Participation (H-LSAMP). Considering the significance of STEM intervention programs at increasing the completion and persistence rates of URM students enrolled in STEM fields, this study examined the extent to which participation in the UH-SEP program impacts the graduation and persistence rates of minority students after controlling for socio-demographic and pre-college baseline characteristics. The study posed the following questions:
1) To what degree does program participation in the UH-SEP program have an effect on degree completion and persistence?
2) To what degree does program participation in the UH-SEP program have an effect on long-term student dropout and persistence trends over time? 
Methods. This study examined the 2013 and 2014 SEP freshman student cohorts (n=102), as well as a matched sample of non-SEP freshmen students enrolled in STEM fields across the same cohort years (n = 1,459). Student records contained information concerning academic progress, major, GPA, and demographics, allowing the in-depth analysis of persistence, drop-out and graduation rates over time. 
The first step of the analysis involved propensity score matching techniques that matched similar students across a series of baseline covariates that are related to persistence in STEM fields, specifically pre-college standardized math scores, race, gender and major (Ashford et al., 2016; Murphy, Murphy, Gaughan, Hume & Moore; 2010). The resulting sample contained an equal number of SEP and non-SEP participants (n=131). The second step of the analysis involved logistic regression techniques to estimate program participation effects on graduation and persistence rates, using the propensity score matched sample. 
Finally, to estimate program participation effects on dropout and completion rates over-time, discrete-time survival analysis was conducted using a competing risks model to analyze patterns of student dropout while controlling for program participation and the competing risk of STEM persistence. 

Results. Tables 1 and 2 present results of the logistic regression models estimating the effect of program participation and retention in a STEM field. Logistic regression results demonstrated that participation in the UH-SEP program had a significant positive effect on graduation and retention in a STEM field. After controlling for estimated propensity scores, participants of the UH-SEP program were 3.46 times more likely to graduate and 2.55 times more likely to persist in a STEM field, compared to non-SEP students (p<0.05). 

Table 1. Logistic Regression: UH-SEP Participation Effects on Graduation 
Variables Matched Students (n = 238)
Exp (B) 95% C.I for Exp (B)
Estimated Propensity Scores 28.53 .33 2500.65
Program Participation (SEP1) 2.51* 1.08 5.82

Cumulative GPA 4.81** 1.86 12.47
Accumulated Credit Hours 1.06** 1.04 1.08
Model Summary
N 248
% of cases predicted correctly 86.6%
Nagelkerke R2 .707
-2 Log likelihood (df) 154.447
Source: Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D.L., Horn, C., Hardy, J. and Brown, B. (2021). Impact of an intensive multi-disciplinary STEM enrichment program on underrepresented minority student success. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0452

Table 2. Logistic Regression: UH-SEP Participation Effects on STEM Retention

Variables Matched Students (n = 238)
Exp (B) 95% C.I for Exp (B)
Estimated Propensity Scores 5.61 0.13 235.46
Program Participation (SEP1) 1.49 0.74 2.99
Cumulative GPA 2.07 0.96 4.46
Accumulated Credit Hours 1.05** 1.03 1.06
Model Summary
N 248
% of cases predicted correctly 80.9%
Nagelkerke R2 .577
-2 Log likelihood (df) 201.204
Source: Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D.L., Horn, C., Hardy, J. and Brown, B. (2021). Impact of an intensive multi-disciplinary STEM enrichment program on underrepresented minority student success. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0452
Results of the competing risks model indicated that compared to non-SEP students, SEP participants had a decreased likelihood of dropout and increased likelihood of persistence in a STEM field, evident through the significant sub-hazard ratios for dropout. Table 3 presents the findings of the competing risks regression model. 


Table 3. Competing Risks Regression: UH-SEP Program Participation

Variable Sub hazard Ratios SE 95% Confidence Interval
Program Participation 0.541* 0.129 0.337 0.866
Calculus I Year Taken (Reference: never taken) 
First Year 1.04 0.321 0.567 1.90
Second Year 0.97 0.331 0.503 1.90
Cumulative GPA 0.992 0.216 0.647 1.52
Total Credits Accumulated 0.952** 0.005 0.941 0.963
Source: Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D., & Horn, C.L. (2020). Persistence of Under-represented minorities in STEM fields: Are summer bridge programs sufficient? Unpublished manuscript.

Conclusions and Discussion. Findings from this study highlight the significant role that STEM intervention programs play in addressing inadequate academic preparation and barriers to the success of under-represented minority students in STEM (Chang et al., 2014; Crisp et al., 2009). Results add to the existing body of literature concerning racial disparities in STEM degree achievement by presenting program participation effects after controlling for pre-college and socio-demographic variables significantly associated with success in a STEM field. In addition, results from this study demonstrate the long-term significant effects of intervention programs on reducing the likelihood of dropout and increasing persistence among minority students. These findings support continuous calls for intervention programs that specifically target minority students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Given that findings from this study were limited to data from a single institution, recommendations for future studies include conducting similar analyses on a broader set of institutions within the H-LSAMP alliance as well as similar national intervention programs to gain a more comprehensive view of intervention effects on minority student success. 

Acknowledgments. Funding for this work is provided by the National Science Foundation: NSF Award HRD-1911310, 1407736, and 0903948. Additional funding was provided by Halliburton, Conoco Phillips, private donors, and the University of Houston’s Provost’s Office. 
References. 

Eagan Jr, M. K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M. J., Garcia, G. A., Herrera, F. A., & Garibay, J. C. (2013). Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programs. American educational research journal, 50(4), 683-713.
Carpi, A., Ronan, D. M., Falconer, H. M., & Lents, N. H. (2017). Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self‐efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 169-194.
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555-580.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution.
Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D.L., Horn, C., Hardy, J. and Brown, B. (2021). Impact of an intensive multi-disciplinary STEM enrichment program on underrepresented minority student success. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2020-0452
Ghazzawi, D., Pattison, D., & Horn, C.L. (2021). Persistence of Under-represented minorities in STEM fields: Are summer bridge programs sufficient? Unpublished manuscript.
Gonyea, R. M., & Miller, A. (2011). Clearing the AIR about the use of self‐reported gains in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(150), 99-111.
Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911-922.
Jackson, K. M., & Winfield, L. L. (2014). Realigning the crooked room: Spelman claims a space for African American women in STEM. Peer review: emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate education, 16(2), 9.
Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar39.
Lee, D. M., & Harmon, K. (2013). The Meyerhoff Scholars Program: Changing Minds, Transforming a Campus. Metropolitan Universities, 24(2), 55-70.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2018. “Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race and Ethnicity of Recipients.” https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/degreerecipients/.


symposium

Introduction: The lack of diversity among faculty at universities and medical schools in the United States is a matter of growing concern. At universities in the US, underrepresented minority (URM) researchers make up a mere 3.5% of the faculty in the life sciences and just 6.3% of the faculty in basic science departments at medical schools (Lambert et al., 2020). Women also remain underrepresented, accounting for only 39% of the faculty in the life sciences at universities and 35% of the faculty in basic science departments at medical schools (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2017; National Science Foundation, 2019). We hypothesize that there are a significant number of postdoctoral researchers with aspirations of becoming faculty members in academia, but many seek nonacademic careers due to uncharacterized influences. 

Methods: Based on psycho-social theories for career development and motivation, we developed and conducted a survey to examine the factors that influence commitment to or divergence from conventional academic research careers with 1284 biomedical postdocs across the United States. To further elucidate the benefits, challenges, and strategies for pursuing an academic career, 994 responses were qualitatively analyzed using both content and thematic analyses. 177 unique codes, 20 categories, and 10 subthemes emerged from the data and were generalized into two thematic areas: Life in Academia and Strategies for Success.

Results: We reveal four main outcomes that were largely undefined in the field. (1) The first two years of postdoctoral training are pivotal in the retention of women and URM postdocs in the academic research pipeline. (2) The likelihood of biomedical postdocs choosing an academic research career increases as financial security, mentorship from their PI and their sense of self-worth increase. (3) Unlike their colleagues, many URM postdocs do not expect to associate with the people that they value most in a research-intensive faculty position. (4) We also find that female postdocs reported lower research self-efficacy (belief in research abilities) and lower outcome expectations (belief in the outcomes of research efforts) than men, which also significantly predicts first-author publication rates. 

Conclusions and Discussion: Multiple factors are responsible for URM and female postdocs not choosing to pursue careers in academic research, including the low expectation of finding people of similar background or like-values in academia. For women, lower self-efficacy and outcome expectations compared to their male counterparts were strong predictors for choosing non-academic careers. Interventions addressing such factors in the early stages of postdoctoral training may prevent attrition of underrepresented groups. For advisors and institutions, this work provides a unique perspective from postdoctoral scholars on elements of the academic training path that can be improved to increase retention, career satisfaction, and preparation for the scientific workforce.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (Award Number UL1TR002384) for support.

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

Introduction. The focus of the STEM Bridges Across Eastern Queens project intervention is the redesign of introductory STEM courses with the goal of increasing retention in STEM of under-represented minority students. A primary outcome is identifying implementation fidelity related to student academic performance. In the absence of treatment fidelity data, it is impossible to know the true cause of both positive and negative outcomes. Further, continued and modified interventions in response to positive outcomes is hindered by lack of fidelity data. According to a 2019 review of the implementation fidelity literature (Hill & Erickson, 2019), there are at least three types of fidelity: structural, process, and dose. Structural fidelity refers to implementation adherence to factors such as staffing levels and frequency of contact, while process fidelity relates to provider-client interactions as well as client to client interactions (O’Donnell, 2008). Dose fidelity specifies the extent to which an intervention program was ultimately available to those who were meant to implement it (Dusenbury et al., 2003). This project primarily focuses on dose fidelity and the extent to which instructors actually implemented the intervention as designed. The study population included undergraduate students at a two-year or four-year college enrolled in treatment or control introductory STEM courses in Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Science, and/or Physics. 

Methods. The analytic sample through fall 19 comprises 6,979 unique students with course GPAs from study sections across an array of treatment- and control-assigned sections each term. Of these, 3802 or 56% were enrolled at the two-year college and 2968 or 44% were enrolled at the four-year college. Each term, lists of eligible sections from included study courses are provided to the project evaluator for random assignment to study conditions. Students self-selected their course sections without knowledge of section assignment. Faculty from included departments actively engaged in course redesign workshops, semester-embedded faculty development opportunities, and professional development supports which have been expanded over time, as per faculty requests. 

Results. Treatment and control section instructors completed implementation fidelity surveys to determine the extent to which each section is offered in compliance with its random assignment. Compliance fidelity was scored as full implementation, partial implementation, or no implementation, and it was noted where data were unavailable. For most course sections, treatment implementation was full or partial and control sections were no implementation or ‘no data’, which were considered as no implementation in analysis. 

Analysis of semester-to-semester retention within study courses shows significantly higher rates for treatment than control students between successive semesters from the fall 2018 to spring 2020 term. Students in treatment-assigned sections scored higher than their control classmates. 

Conclusions and Discussion. While intervention implementation fidelity has been an important consideration for studies in fields such as medicine and mental health treatment, usage in higher education research has been limited. Yet as our study reveals, there are practical advantages in the information they can provide to various higher education stakeholders, including faculty who are planning and teaching effective course enhancements, and administrators who are devising strategic student retention initiatives. The implementation fidelity surveys were developed for faculty to remain accountable to the project’s objectives but eventually to better capture a snapshot of just-in-time teaching during the academic semester and track the changes in teaching practice and mindset after implementation. These surveys provide quantitative data, including compliance scores to better assess redesign activities, and qualitative data such as faculty perspectives on successful curriculum enhancements, what evidence-based teaching methods are being utilized, and how student peer mentors engage with their classmates and instructors through open-ended reflections. Over the course of this project, the results of implementation surveys have evolved into a formative needs-assessment as they communicated increasing requests from faculty participants for opportunities to improve their pedagogy and to collaborate with their colleagues across both campuses to develop and share teaching practices and resources. Figure 1 shows the addition of faculty interventions across the life of the project, all of which have stemmed from faculty requests. 

Acknowledgements. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education Grant PO31C160208. We would like to thank the faculty, peer mentors, and students involved with this project. 

References
Borrelli, B. (2011). The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71, 552-563.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M. & Hansen, W.B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 18 (2), 237-256.
Hill, H.C. & Erickson, A. (2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48 (9), 590-598.
O’Donnell, C.L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 33-84.

Impact of Course Redesign Implementation on Student Success and Ongoing Pedagogical Practices

Background: Minorities make up almost 28% of the US population with 13% being African American and 16.6% being Latino/Hispanic. This is projected to rise to 50% in two decades. Physicians from these backgrounds barely make up 10% of practicing medical doctors in the US. The same is true for scientists and educators. Several initiatives have been launched at national, state and regional levels but have yet to produce significant change. While academic institutions bring in students from these backgrounds, there is considerable leakage from the pipelines. A study from the University of California system highlights the problem (Alexander et al 2009). The authors of the study found that even though the under-represented minority (URM) students, on average, did not perform on par with white students, they were nearly as likely as white students to persist in completing at least four gateway courses. The authors concluded that URM students experienced academic challenges, but many persist in their prehealth courses despite these challenges if offered encouragement and opportunity. Therefore, interventions designed to support URM student performance in undergraduate and gateway courses are considered to be particularly important for increasing the diversity of health related professional and graduate schools (Estrada et al 2016 and McGee et al. 2012). Many medical schools have programs in place that prepare URM students for admission, however the number of qualified candidates remain far short of the desired goal. Finding meritorious URM students who can compete and qualify for admission to health related professions and graduate schools remains the biggest challenge. 
Hypothesis: A summer immersion program for disadvantaged students (including URM students) will prepare them for a rigorous preparatory Masters program and matriculation into a health or science professional school.
Design: We have initiated a four week intensive academic enhancement in the summer (ACES) program for students who were just below the cutoff for admission to our master’s program in biomedical sciences with the understanding that students who achieve a B or above grade in four relevant gateway courses (Cell Biology, Biochemistry, Physiology and Microbiology) will be offered admission to the main master’s program at the end of the ACES program. 
Results: Over the past five years we have admitted 63 students into our summer ACES program. Of the 63 students, 38 are women; and 30 are URMs; the rest are Asian or Caucasian. A few of them are self-declared economically disadvantaged and some are first in family to go to college. Sixty of these students qualified for the main Masters program after completing ACES. We have followed their performance in the Masters program and find that these students are indistinguishable from students who had been admitted to the Masters program in the regular track. The ACES graduates are integrating well with their peers and they are in various different programs including medical schools. 
Conclusions: Interventions at the gateway program level designed to attract and nurture disadvantaged students including URMs can be successful in increasing the number of qualified aspirants to health related professional schools and graduate schools. By opening up the opportunity to all disadvantaged students, we have been able to encourage URM students to pursue their goals. Our five-year data on a small number of students lead us to believe that programs such as ours will go a long way in recruiting qualified candidates to health- related professional schools and graduate schools and will be effective in increasing the number of URMs in these areas. 


Five-year assessment of summer academic enhancement program motivates URM students to pursue gateway programs and entry into health professional schools 

Time has long passed for Black and Latinx elementary youth to be seen as scientists, designers, community planners, and activists. The opportunity for them to be seen as such is rare and when it is afforded to Black and Latinx youth, it is almost exclusively for high school youth. At STEM to the Future, we start this process with elementary youth showing them that age isn’t a prerequisite for creating change. In the summer of 2020, we piloted our Brick by Brick programs, which are student-led initiatives where the students work together to decide on and execute their own projects in the community. They are guided through the process of (1) creating a clear vision for the world they want and deserve and (2) using STEAM to develop projects that support their vision, and (3) connecting with the community and grassroots organizations to implement the projects.Brick by Brick creates a space for students to collaborate with each other and with the community to use STEAM to solve real problems, which they identify themselves in collaboration with the community. Our assumption is students will be more likely to be invested in their communities as they mature if they see the meaningful change they are able to create in their neighborhoods at a young age. We’re cultivating our youth so that are able to appropriate technology and use in the fight for their freedom. You’ll see how girls and non-binary youth in our Build’Em Up Robotics program used coding and robotics to deliver PPE to elders in their communities and see how students in our Building Healthy Communities program are trsting different ways to bring food justice to South Central, Los Angeles. 
Education should be reflective of the world that you live in and seeks to support you in addressing injustice 


Creating STEAM Student Led Learning Experiences Rooted in Justice and Identity

Working Title: You’ve had your first diversity and inclusion meeting – Now what? : A model for sustaining meaningful conversations on diversity and inclusion within STEM training environments

Short Summary of Presentation: In the wake of nationwide movements for racial and social justice, scientists are more aware than ever of the problem of building and sustaining diverse research and training environments. In this presentation, we report on an intervention intended to foster ongoing dialogue about diversity and marginalization in biomedical research science. The data come from the intervention arm of a randomized-controlled trial of a novel coaching intervention consisting of small groups of trainees and faculty coaches. The data reveal how this model was effective in sustaining meaningful dialogue on diversity and building capacity for inclusion practices in biomedical research science. 

Abstract: The events of 2020, including the growing visibility of the Black Lives Matter movement following the murder of George Floyd, catalyzed a movement for racial justice unlike any since the Civil Rights Movement. Across academia, students, faculty, and leaders are increasingly engaging with issues of racial equity and justice. Within the context of STEM training, there has been a dramatic shift in awareness of these issues. Questions like, “Should we talk about race, gender and other differences within mentoring relationships?” evolved into more actionable questions, like: “How do we make these conversations possible?” “How do we accomplish something we have failed to do for decades? “What is the most effective way to build and sustain dialogue about diversity?” Interventions targeting these questions of diversity and inclusion have developed over the past few years. For example, the Culturally Aware Mentoring program (CAM) is a workshop-based approach for teaching faculty and trainees to engage in diversity dialogues in academic science. Studies of CAM have demonstrated its immediate impacts on faculty and administrators, as well as longer-lived impacts on some (1,2). As comprehensive and effective as CAM is in the short-term, it is unlikely that a single-event intervention will be sufficient to initiate the ongoing dialogue required to foster sustainable changes in inclusive insights and practices to eradicate barriers to equity and inclusion in academic science. 

Beginning in 2011, our research team at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine began an experiment involving faculty-led coaching groups, with the long-term goal of increasing and sustaining diversity in biomedical faculty ranks (3,4). The Academy for Future Science Faculty (the Academy) paired groups of ten PhD students with trained faculty coaches from outside of the students’ home institutions. Annual in-person meetings occurred over a period of two to three years and coaching groups continued to meet virtually for about three years following the initial meetings. Coaching groups were heterogeneous, and equally balanced by gender and race/ethnicity to foster conversations across identity groups. The intervention employed a novel, intensive introduction to: 1) social science theories that underpin progression and barriers within social systems, including STEM; and 2) the history of and ongoing realities of how racism and privilege result in differential treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and other minoritized groups. The frameworks introduced to students, and activities of the Academy, allowed them to engage in deep and meaningful discussions of diversity. The study team continues to follow participants through annual in-depth interviews; these interviews have revealed how the Academy affected their perceptions of diversity, discrimination, and the importance of building and sustaining diverse research environments. 

This presentation draws on interviews with Academy participants conducted at least four years after the end of the coaching group virtual meetings. The interviews have captured participants’ lasting memories of and reactions to group-based exposure and dialogue related to diversity and inclusion. In particular, the data reveal how participants continue to apply the social theories introduced in the intervention, such as microaggressions, imposter syndrome, and cultural capital, to make sense of and navigate science as a social system. Similarly, participants continue to recall the group discussions on the meaning and importance of diversity and inclusion. The data reveal strong and lasting impacts for many participants. Some participants reported drawing on their experiences in the Academy to engage in or lead diversity efforts in their current positions. Others have reflected on perspective changes and the importance of sustaining diverse research environments. These impacts occurred among participants from across gender and racial/ethnic groups, and were notable among traditionally well-represented students. Among the many examples of transformative perspective changes are new strategies for navigating and responding to racism, increased engagement in proactive diversity and inclusion efforts, and the ability to observe and name instances of marginalization. For those who elected to continue in academic research science, the impacts of the intervention are likely to be felt in the long-term and allow increased capacity to build and sustain diverse research environments. 

As part of the Deeper Dive discussions, we will explore a number of different designs and approaches groups could adopt, and offer guidance on how to facilitate these groups. Done effectively, such efforts could be effective in reshaping the norms and expectations for cross-cultural understanding so essential for effective mentoring.

References:

1. Byars-Winston, A., Womack, V., Butz, A., McGee, R., Quinn, S., Utzerath, E., Thomas, S. (2018). Pilot study of an intervention to increase cultural awareness in research mentoring: Implications for diversifying the scientific workforce. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2(2), 86-94. PMCID: PMC6191051
2. Womack VY, Wood CV, House SC, Quinn SC, Thomas SB, McGee R, et al. (2020) Culturally aware mentorship: Lasting impacts of a novel intervention on academic administrators and faculty. PLoS ONE 15(8): e0236983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236983 PMCID: PMC7413486
3. Thakore BK, Naffziger-Hirsch ME, Richardson JL, Williams SN, McGee R Jr. The Academy for Future Science Faculty: randomized controlled trial of theory-driven coaching to shape development and diversity of early-career scientists. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Aug 2;14:160. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-160. PMCID: PMC4121509.
4. Williams SN, Thakore BK, McGee R. Coaching to Augment Mentoring to Achieve Faculty Diversity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Acad Med. 2016 Aug;91(8):1128-1135. PMCID: PMC4909583



So you've had your first diversity and inclusion event...Now What?

Introduction

The Biology Scholars Program ("BSP") is an equity and inclusion program at UC Berkeley that aims to support the success of historically underrepresented undergraduates in STEM. BSP has documented student success for over 28 years and continues to cultivate student growth and inclusivity at UC Berkeley for PEER and first-generation science students (Estrada et al., 2019). While UC Berkeley is highly renowned for its prestigious and rigorous academic programs, there still exists institutional barriers that disproportionately negatively affect historically underrepresented students' persistence (Ballen & Mason, 2017). We therefore sought to understand the impact and influence of the Biology Scholars Program on UC Berkeley. In particular, we wanted to understand its influence on members of the campus community (i.e., faculty, staff, and administrators) and its effect on the larger institution. 

Methods

Data were collected via a brief one-time online survey in fall of 2020, which was distributed to participants using Qualtrics, a survey website. Participants were selected based on past attendance to BSP workshops and conferences between 2015 through 2020. Of 172 participants, 38% were staff, 35% faculty, 14% graduate students, 4% administrators and 9% "others" (i.e. alumni, postdocs, program directors). Over half of the sample self-reported as white (57%), hispanic/latinx (12%), black/african american (9%), filipino (3%), asian (3%), chinese (3%), vietnamese (2%), asian indian (2%), japanese (2%), american indian (1%), korean (1%), and declined to state (5%). Respondents self-identified as female (54%), male (34%), transgender (1%), nonbinary (2%), declined to state (1%), and did not answer (8%). The majority of respondents were between 30 - 50 years old. 

Results

The results from the one-time survey provides robust descriptive data to increase understanding of how BSP has impacted UC Berkeley. The first set of questions assessed participants' familiarity with BSP. The data show that over half of participants had experience interacting with members of the BSP community (e.g., BSP faculty and staff [68%] or BSP students [83%]). A subset of questions was dedicated to understanding participants' knowledge of BSP. In terms of correct responses, participants scored relatively high on 5 sections: selection of students (86%), treatment of students (73%), goals of BSP (85%), who participates in the program (65%) and criteria for student success (85%). These data show that participants understand how BSP functions or "works." With respect to BSP's influence on UC Berkeley members, the category most frequently selected by faculty, staff, and administrators was "mentoring" in relation to 1) influence in their own work (28%) and 2) student persistence in STEM (16%). Importantly, 81% of participants agreed that BSP has influenced the minds of UC Berkeley faculty, staff and administrations about growing student talent instead of selecting for it; a key principle of BSP. 

The Biology Scholars Program was also reported to provide a model of how to create a safe and positive environment for UC Berkeley students. In fact, 97% of participants agreed that BSP's scholars created positive "ripple" effects into UC Berkeley and 90% agreed that BSP's Inclusive Excellence Communities of Practice also created positive "ripple" effects into UC Berkeley. A number of questions were also asked about BSP's influence. Seventy-seven percent of participants reported that BSP's presence on campus changed UC Berkeley. More to this point, the program was also reported to have positively influenced perceptions of equity (75%), inclusion (81%) and bias reduction (77%). Lastly, an open-ended question asked participants to describe BSP's greatest impact on UC Berkeley and the top two most frequent descriptions were modeling how to be supportive (19%) and creating a sense of belonging or community (17%) for students.

Conclusions and Discussion

The results of this study provide insight into the experiences and perceptions of faculty, staff and administrators with BSP and its impact on UC Berkeley. Overall, results showed that the Biology Scholars Program has had a positive effect on the members of the UC Berkeley community by modelling successful mentorship, and creation of contexts that provide support, inclusivity and equity for students who develop (rather than arrive with) the skills and preparation necessary to thrive in scientific disciplines. On a larger scale, BSP has had a "ripple" like effect on UC Berkeley, influencing not only individual members of the university, but other programs on campus, that seek to adapt the BSP model to other disciplines. How these "ripples" might extend to other universities is a topic of interest and future research. 

Acknowledgments

The present research was supported by a grant from Howard Hughes Medical Institute ("HHMI") (Internal ID: 25087). We thank Missy Soto and Brook Yu for their contributions to this research.

Understanding the Biology Scholars Program's Impact on UC Berkeley

Introduction. Effective mentoring through research experiences supports student’s learning in science courses and interest in science careers. It also impacts academic performance and success by increasing independent learning (Lopatto, D. (2007). Research improves undergraduate student attitudes towards science including self-reported curiosity, science identity, confidence, it also increases communication skills, creativity and knowledge of scientific content (Laursen, S. et al, 2010). Faculty interactions in this context are particularly relevant, as these promote self-efficacy, scientific identity, and scholarly productivity (Joshi, M., Aikens, M. L., & Dolan, E. L., 2019) While the benefits of undergraduate research are well documented, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) reports that only 19% of students engage in research activities during their undergraduate education, a number that is even smaller for those attending 2-year colleges. 

Students from backgrounds underrepresented (URM) in STEM fields show larger gains than other students when engaging in research experiences (Lopatto, D. (2007). The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted the availability of research experiences for undergraduates, and data shows that this has particularly impacted URM and first generation students (Barber, P. H. et al, 2021). Therefore, the development of programs that engage URM students in remote research experiences is a priority. Here we describe an intervention that engages 2- and 4-year college students in biology-related research and present a preliminary assessment of their experiences.


Goal of Research: In an effort to support research experiences for undergraduates at 2- and 4-year colleges and to increase opportunities to engage community college students in research, an interdisciplinary undergraduate research experience was developed by two professors at the City University of New York. This pilot intervention had the goal of providing STEM undergraduates from mostly URM backgrounds with research opportunities during the 2020 distance modality period of instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Methods. Students from a 2-year and a 4-year college that had expressed interest in participating in research were recruited at both schools. A total of 15 undergraduates worked on research projects during the spring and summer semesters of 2020. The experience was designed as an interdisciplinary collaborative research project in which students of both schools worked together. The students and professors met periodically via Zoom to participate in theoretical lectures, experimental analysis of data, peer reviewed paper discussions, and hands-on activities. The students also scheduled meetings with their research partners independently of the planned overall group meetings, students were asked to organize these considering the progress and needs of their project, and their time availability. The preliminary findings of the research were presented in shared meetings, and also students submitted abstracts to local and national conferences. 

The assessment of the student experiences was performed qualitatively by the use of a 9-question open survey that evaluated the implementation of the intervention and identified strengths and areas in need of improvement. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. 12 of the participants provided responses. It is important to highlight that there are limited qualitative studies discussing close mentoring research engagement of URM students in STEM. In order to achieve depth and intersubjectivity in the data analysis, the analysis was carried out in various temporal instances. In the first stage, the data corpus was coded and analyzed based on its content using grounded theory. In a second stage, units of meaning were created, the research team categorized, filtered and reorganized based on the research objectives. In a third moment, and after the systematic reading of the codes and their context, a selection was made of the categories that specifically accounted for students' experience during the research intervention. 


Results. A total of 15 students participated in this intervention, 14 of which are URM in STEM (either African American or Hispanic). The group had 9 (60%) females students and 6 (40%) male students. The students worked in pairs with specific research projects, and met independently and with the overall group throughout the intervention period with similar frequency. As the intervention progressed, student-only research meetings were more common than whole group meetings. A total of 12 students participated in local and/or national conferences during the summer and within the 6-month period following the intervention. 

In the qualitative assessment, the students highlighted a (1)new understanding of the research process in which they understood the times and movements of the process, a (2)development of personal, academic and professional skills, and an (3)increase in their confidence. The latter resulted from their engagement in activities of different kinds. The students also expressed the importance of having a community during the COVID-19 pandemic, they expressed a (4)higher sense of belonging that prevented isolation as a result of participating in the intervention.Students expressed satisfaction with their ability to manage several projects at the same time, with limited free time and working through weekends. They also provided suggestions for future interventions, in areas where they considered there could be improvement, which included the availability of financial support and the planning of more frequent sessions. 


Conclusions and Discussions. Our intervention adds to other available evidence that indicates remote undergraduate experiences are possible and can support learning for undergraduate students (Tripepi, M., & Landberg, T. 2021; Jensen-Ryan, D. et al, 2021). This work also shows that interventions of this kind can promote remote interactions between students and faculty, as well as among students impacting positively the college experience for undergraduates. We found that students build on skills beyond the realm of the academic and professional world, with gains in personal development as well. We also think it will be important to more critically explore the impact of the overwhelming and hyperproductive academic lifestyle and how this model, which instructors share and students reproduce, can be damaging to long-term sustainable interaction with research and learning (Enciso Dominguez, G. et al 2021). Because URM STEM students already faced multiple structural barriers, to provide successful models of success requires us to further explore this dynamic to ultimately enhance interventions at the undergraduate level that aim to increase their numbers in these fields.

Supporting STEM students through remote interdisciplinary collaboration in undergraduate research

The two-semester sequence of General Chemistry is a challenging course too many first-year students. One goal I have is for students to become better problem solvers, able to apply material they learn to synthesize solutions to new and challenging problems. To help develop problem solving skills I have restructured class time to allow for collaborative problem-solving sessions. I have also restructured weekly one-hour recitations associated with the course to include collaborative problem-solving sessions. I have trained a cohort of Learning Assistants (LAs) to help facilitate these in both lecture and recitations. Students who have successfully completed the General Chemistry sequence, return to the class to help as near-peer mentors. 
I want students to leave General Chemistry as better problem solvers, as this skill goes beyond just General Chemistry, this is a skill that will help students in any course or any career. During my first year of teaching, I observed that many students who struggle in General Chemistry, struggle because of the math-based problem solving. This was clear from the assessments that were done throughout the semester. This was also a compounding problem because students who struggled with math-based problem solving within the first semester of General Chemistry, but passed first semester, and struggled even more the subsequent semester. 
To help students become better problem solvers, and to help students solve math-based problems, I restructured class time to allow for mini-problem sessions. Sessions where students are presented with a problem and allowed to work on the problem with students in their area for 4-6 minutes. The LAs circulate through the room, with me, helping to facilitate the group work. Students are then polled on their response to the problem, and we review the problem with a methodical, step-by-step approach. 
Associated with the General Chemistry lecture is a weekly, one-hour recitation section that is run by a Teaching Assistant (TA). To give students extra practice with problem solving, I redesigned the entire structure of recitation. Recitation became a mandatory part of the course that counted toward the overall course grade. I designed structured problem sets for each weekly recitation section to reinforce the content that was covered in lecture. These problem sets were designed in the structure of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) to help create a structure for group work. Each TA is given the same module for the week, ensuring that content is uniform across all recitation sections.

Developing and Implementing a Learning Assistant Program for Introductory General Chemistry

"Introduction

The Biology Scholars Program (""BSP"") is an equity and inclusion program at UC Berkeley that aims to support the success of historically underrepresented undergraduates in STEM. BSP has documented student success for over 28 years and continues to cultivate student growth and inclusivity at UC Berkeley for PEER and first-generation science students (Estrada et al., 2019). While UC Berkeley is highly renowned for its prestigious and rigorous academic programs, there still exists institutional barriers that disproportionately negatively affect historically underrepresented students' persistence (Ballen & Mason, 2017). We therefore sought to understand the impact and influence of the Biology Scholars Program on UC Berkeley. In particular, we wanted to understand its influence on members of the campus community (i.e., faculty, staff, and administrators) and its effect on the larger institution. 

Methods

Data were collected via a brief one-time online survey in fall of 2020, which was distributed to participants using Qualtrics, a survey website. Participants were selected based on past attendance to BSP workshops and conferences between 2015 through 2020. Of 172 participants, 38% were staff, 35% faculty, 14% graduate students, 4% administrators and 9% ""others"" (i.e. alumni, postdocs, program directors). Over half of the sample self-reported as white (57%), hispanic/latinx (12%), black/african american (9%), filipino (3%), asian (3%), chinese (3%), vietnamese (2%), asian indian (2%), japanese (2%), american indian (1%), korean (1%), and declined to state (5%). Respondents self-identified as female (54%), male (34%), transgender (1%), nonbinary (2%), declined to state (1%), and did not answer (8%). The majority of respondents were between 30 - 50 years old. 

Results

The results from the one-time survey provides robust descriptive data to increase understanding of how BSP has impacted UC Berkeley. The first set of questions assessed participants' familiarity with BSP. The data show that over half of participants had experience interacting with members of the BSP community (e.g., BSP faculty and staff [68%] or BSP students [83%]). A subset of questions was dedicated to understanding participants' knowledge of BSP. In terms of correct responses, participants scored relatively high on 5 sections: selection of students (86%), treatment of students (73%), goals of BSP (85%), who participates in the program (65%) and criteria for student success (85%). These data show that participants understand how BSP functions or ""works."" With respect to BSP's influence on UC Berkeley members, the category most frequently selected by faculty, staff, and administrators was ""mentoring"" in relation to 1) influence in their own work (28%) and 2) student persistence in STEM (16%). Importantly, 81% of participants agreed that BSP has influenced the minds of UC Berkeley faculty, staff and administrations about growing student talent instead of selecting for it; a key principle of BSP. 

The Biology Scholars Program was also reported to provide a model of how to create a safe and positive environment for UC Berkeley students. In fact, 97% of participants agreed that BSP's scholars created positive ""ripple"" effects into UC Berkeley and 90% agreed that BSP's Inclusive Excellence Communities of Practice also created positive ""ripple"" effects into UC Berkeley. A number of questions were also asked about BSP's influence. Seventy-seven percent of participants reported that BSP's presence on campus changed UC Berkeley. More to this point, the program was also reported to have positively influenced perceptions of equity (75%), inclusion (81%) and bias reduction (77%). Lastly, an open-ended question asked participants to describe BSP's greatest impact on UC Berkeley and the top two most frequent descriptions were modeling how to be supportive (19%) and creating a sense of belonging or community (17%) for students.

Conclusions and Discussion

The results of this study provide insight into the experiences and perceptions of faculty, staff and administrators with BSP and its impact on UC Berkeley. Overall, results showed that the Biology Scholars Program has had a positive effect on the members of the UC Berkeley community by modelling successful mentorship, and creation of contexts that provide support, inclusivity and equity for students who develop (rather than arrive with) the skills and preparation necessary to thrive in scientific disciplines. On a larger scale, BSP has had a ""ripple"" like effect on UC Berkeley, influencing not only individual members of the university, but other programs on campus, that seek to adapt the BSP model to other disciplines. How these ""ripples"" might extend to other universities is a topic of interest and future research. 

Acknowledgments

The present research was supported by a grant from Howard Hughes Medical Institute (""HHMI"") (Internal ID: 25087). We thank Missy Soto and Brook Yu for their contributions to this research."

"STEM, medicine, and other STEM-intensive health professions are disciplinary areas (referred to here as STEM+) that lack diversity, undoubtedly reflecting many underlying issues in these disciplines as well as in society. Perhaps most important are disparities in access to high quality pre-college STEM education, since they lead to deep and persistent societal inequities. These disparities are especially evident in the STEM+ disciplines and are exacerbated by the strongly hierarchical organization of knowledge and practice in these fields. A strong foundation in pre-collegiate education provides a significant advantage, enabling strong performance in undergraduate programs, which in turn facilitates successful application into highly competitive graduate and professional STEM+ programs. There are many shortfalls in every stage of this pathway that impact the success of minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. 

The consequences of the lack of diversity in the STEM+ fields are wide-ranging and significant. Students who are educated in low-resource, underperforming K-12 environments often cannot access STEM curricula that are based on best pedagogical practices and face extraordinary challenges during the early years of their undergraduate education trying to catch up to their peers who had stronger pre-college STEM educational experiences. Students who come from under-resourced backgrounds often have few opportunities to glimpse the transformative advantages of a STEM+ career, leading to the perpetuation of significant societal inequities. The lack of diversity also directly impacts the STEM+ disciplines in several negative ways. The STEM+ practitioner community in the workforce is affected by an insufficient variety of lived experiences and is unable to draw upon the wealth and breadth of knowledge possessed by people who identify as having different cultural, racial, linguistic, religious, gender and sexual identity, and socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result, the perspectives brought to bear on problems may be too narrow in scope. There is ample evidence that suggests that scientific productivity is negatively impacted when a research team lacks diversity, as measured by publication data (Freeman & Huang, 2015). In addition, outreach to disadvantaged communities and efforts to provide assistance to them may not be optimally designed, or even appropriately prioritized (Page, 2008). 

Here, we focus on the mechanisms that assist STEM+ students to overcome socioeconomic and educational disadvantages. We emphasize the importance of mentoring in diverse and inclusive learning communities since our underlying rationale is that diverse populations of successful undergraduates are essential for creating professional diversity in the future STEM+ workforce. 
"

Long-term Impacts of STEM Enrichment Programs on Under-represented Minority Students

Downloads

Next from 13th Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

Similar lecture

Building optimal support programs: Evidence from a randomized field experiment

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

Long-term Impacts of STEM Enrichment Programs on Under-represented Minority Students

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

Next from 13th Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

Similar lecture

Building optimal support programs: Evidence from a randomized field experiment

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES

Downloads