Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 107
Appendix D Developing Supportive STEM Community College to Four- Year College and University Transfer Ecosystems Alicia C. Dowd* Associate Professor, Rossier School of Education, and Co-Director, Center for Urban Education University of Southern California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Two-year to four-year college and university transfer pathways in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are too narrow and must be expanded to meet the social and economic demand in the United States for a greater number and a more diverse membership of scientists, engineers, and technicians. Faculty members have a critical role to play in expanding STEM transfer pathways. The value of struc - tural, informational, and policy solutions, such as state and institutional articulation agreements, transfer information websites, state longitudinal data bases, and the accountability reporting made possible by such data, should be strengthened through initiatives to change the “culture of sci- ence” in ways that will foster culturally inclusive pedagogy and practices. Any form of cultural and deep-seated organizational change requires a concerted effort over an extended period of time. Such an effort requires thought leaders, strategic communications, dedicated “change agents,” and a growing perception that norms are changing for the good. Promi- nent STEM scholars and educational leaders have recently provided a blueprint for change in comprehensive national reports, including the National Science Board’s Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing our National Human Capital and the National *With valuable research assistance provided by Svetlana Levonisova, Raquel Rall, Cecilia Santiago, Misty Sawatzky, and Linda Shieh. 107
OCR for page 108
108 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE Academies’ Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. The recommendations of these reports emphasize the need for greater access for all students to academic excellence in STEM and the necessity of improving talent assessment systems in order to identify currently overlooked abilities. Transfer admissions in general and in STEM in par- ticular are particularly hampered by poor signaling of student talents and accomplishments because the quality of the community college cur- riculum is viewed with suspicion by university and liberal arts faculty. To address this problem, the National Science Board’s recommendation to foster a supportive ecosystem is paramount. Creating a supportive ecosystem for transfer students requires the formulation of new incen - tives and rewards for college faculty in all sectors as well as professional development in teaching, curriculum development, and collaboration. Such professional development activities will be well received if they are accorded prestige and allocated time and resources for the production of new knowledge through research, design experiments, and inquiry, which is the systematic use of data, reflection, and experimentation to improve professional practices. Taking into account the prestige associated with success in STEM fields and the generally separate nature of faculty networks in different sectors and disciplines, this report endorses the following recommendations: (i) Create Evidence-Based Innovation Consortia (EBICs), involv- ing STEM faculty, deans, and department heads in geographic and market-based groupings of two-year and four-year colleges and universities to review, invent, experiment with, and evalu- ate innovative curricula, pedagogies, and assessments of student talents and learning. (ii) Devote institutional, private, and federal funds to STEM-specific work-study awards and transfer scholarships for transfer stu- dents and charge EBICs with the recruitment and selection process. (iii) Develop a pool of eligible cohorts of students at community col- leges through jointly administered two-year and four-year col- lege learning communities and bridge programs, recruiting and retaining a diverse group of students using holistic admissions and assessment criteria developed through the EBICs. (iv) Accord prestige to EBIC membership and the recipients of the transfer work-study awards and scholarships through high- profile communications and selection procedures.
OCR for page 109
109 APPENDIX D CREATING MORE ROBUST STEM TRANSFER PATHWAYS: NATIONAL CONTEXT No single data source provides a comprehensive estimate, but the available evidence suggests two-year to four-year college and university transfer in STEM fields is small relative to the need for a greater number of STEM-educated citizens, workers, and professionals in the United States. The barriers and potential solutions to increasing access through transfer to STEM bachelor’s and graduate degrees for transfer students are the subject of this report. This consideration takes place in a broader national context. In May 2010, as mentioned above, the National Science Board (NSB) issued its comprehensive report entitled Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our National Human Capital, and in 2011, the National Academies issued Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. The three keystone recommendations of the Next Generation report (National Science Board, 2010) and several of its policy actions deserve particular attention when examining the evolving rela - tionships between community colleges and four-year colleges and univer- sities for the purpose of broadening STEM transfer pathways. These are (1) NSB Keystone Recommendation #1: Provide opportunities for excellence (2) NSB Keystone Recommendation #2: Cast a wide net (a) Policy Action: Improve talent assessment systems (b) Policy Action: Improve identification of overlooked abilities (3) NSB Keystone Recommendation #3: Foster a supportive ecosystem (a) Policy Action: Professional development for educators in STEM pedagogy These particular recommendations and policy actions, excerpted from among others in the NSB’s Next Generation (2010) report, are highlighted here because the challenges of (1) providing quality science and math- ematics teaching to all students (i.e., “opportunities for excellence”), (2) improving assessment and talent identification, and (3) creating support - ive ecosystems through professional development for STEM educators are particularly central to the challenge of creating more robust STEM transfer pathways. They are also essential in light of the urgency articulated in the Crossroads report (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2011) to substantially increase the racial-ethnic diversity of participation in STEM fields. The dimen- sions of these problems are cultural as well as structural; yet prevailing attempts to improve transfer, such as articulation agreements, curriculum alignment through common course numbering, and policies guaranteeing transfer of credits, have most often been structural. However, to improve
OCR for page 110
110 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE transfer in STEM, it will be necessary to consider the cultural character- istics of STEM learning environments and those who have traditionally succeeded in them in formal educational systems in the United States. Before discussing the culture of science and how it pertains to the issue of the improvement of transfer access to STEM bachelor’s and grad - uate degrees (see section III below), I first present statistics to provide a sense of the potential supply of STEM transfers and sources of data to estimate the number of transfers in STEM fields (section I). Then, I briefly review the barriers and potential solutions to improve transfer access from community colleges (section II). The report then concludes with discussion of recommendations to create Evidence-Based Innova- tion Consortia (EBICs) as place- and market-based entities with a focus on improving STEM transfer pathways (section IV). I. POPULATION AND TRENDS IN THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL STEM TRANSFER STUDENTS Data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) include the total number of credential-seeking undergraduates, distin - guishing those enrolled in subbaccalaureate programs from those enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs. In 2007-2008, the subbaccalaureate popu - lation numbered 9,822,000, with 6,383,000 classified as enrolled in career education, 2,361,000 enrolled in academic education, and the remainder undeclared (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.-b). Career edu - cation includes some technical fields such as agricultural and natural resources, computer and information services, engineering, and health services, as well as non-STEM fields such as business management, com - munication and design, and legal and social services. Vocational degrees such as cosmology and protective services are also included. Academic education includes general education courses in science and mathematics. These numbers represent students in public two-year colleges (commu- nity colleges) and in for-profit, proprietary colleges combined. In the very broadest terms, these nearly 10 million students represent the total poten- tial pool of transfer students. In Fall 2008, the count of students enrolled in community colleges for credit numbered 7.4 million (Mullin, 2011). However, many of these students are strictly seeking vocational train- ing, do not aspire to transfer, and earn certificates in short-term programs rather than associate’s degrees (Mullin, 2011). The growing interest in applied baccalaureate degrees (Ruud and Bragg, 2011) notwithstanding, the nearly two-to-one ratio of students in career education versus aca - demic education reflected in the figures above indicates that the majority of students enrolled at the subbaccalaureate level are earning credits in vocational courses that would not count toward a bachelor’s degree.
OCR for page 111
111 APPENDIX D The American Association of Community Colleges reports on degrees awarded by public two-year institutions. In 2009-2010, approximately one million degrees and certificates were awarded, including 630,000 associate’s degrees (Mullin, 2011, p. 6). Of these, 40 percent were classi- fied as degrees in the liberal arts and sciences or humanities, which align with a general education focus within a transfer-directed curriculum. The number of associate’s degrees awarded by community colleges rep - resents an overall increase of 86 percent from two decades earlier, but growth rates were much higher for Hispanics (383%), blacks (204%), and Asian-Pacific Islanders (APIs, 230%) (Mullin, 2011, pp. 17-18). Currently, Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and African Americans all earn associate’s degrees at higher rates than white and Asian-Pacific Islander students. For example, in 2007-2008, 36 percent of degrees earned by Hispanics and 30 percent earned by blacks were associate’s degrees, compared to 23 percent for whites and 19 percent for APIs. Conversely, bachelor’s degree completion rates were lower, with only 11 percent of Hispanics in the 25-29 year age group having at least a bachelor’s in 2008 and 17 percent of blacks. These figures compare with 33 percent of whites and 60 percent of APIs in the same age group (Aud, Fox, and KewalRamani, 2010). NCES (2011) reports that 14.4 percent of all students who began their studies in public two-year institutions earned an associ - ate’s degree within the six-year period of 2004-2009. Certificates were awarded at community colleges for programs rang- ing from less than one year to four years in duration. The increase in certificates was much greater than the growth in associate’s degrees, growing 776 percent and 338 percent for Hispanic and black students, respectively (Mullin, 2011, pp. 17-18). This trend mirrors the increases in degrees and certificates awarded by for-profit postsecondary institutions, which has been the fastest growing sector of higher education over the past decade, with enrollments doubling from 192,000 to 385,000 from 2000 to 2009 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). These numbers are significant because they show a shift in demand for subbaccalaureate education away from community colleges toward the for-profit sector. Some attribute the rise of the for-profit sector to the inability of public colleges to meet the demand for higher education (Lee and Ranson, 2011). A notable part of the changing STEM education landscape is the growing number of students earning associate’s degrees at for-profit institutions and the growth in the number of short-term certificates awarded in both sectors. Data from the NCES indicate that nationally the most popular STEM-related career education fields of study at the associate’s degree level in 2007-2008 were health sciences, enrolling 1,627,000 students (and 21% of the total); engineering and architecture, enrolling 396,000 (6.7%); computer and information services, enrolling 336,000 (3.8%); and agri -
OCR for page 112
112 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE culture and natural resources, enrolling 50,000 (.7%) (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.-c). The number of associate’s degrees awarded in the health sciences in 2008-2009 represents a 77 percent increase over 1998-1999. Computer and information sciences also saw overall growth of nearly 34 percent during that time period, but nevertheless experienced a loss of 27 percent in the number of degrees awarded to women. Engi - neering and engineering technologies experienced a decline in degrees awarded of nearly 8 percent for men and women combined, but of 24 percent for women (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.-a). Agri- culture and natural resource fields experienced a decline among both men and women, with a nearly 14 percent loss overall. These trends mirror declining proportions of women in engineering and computer sciences at the bachelor’s degree level (National Science Foundation, 2011). Hardy and Katsinas (2010) investigated a longer period of time by analyzing institutional data captured by the annual snapshot of higher education in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). They compared the number of associate’s degrees awarded over three decades (1985–1986, 1995–1996, and 2005–2006), focusing on broad STEM codes including engineering, engineering technologies/techni - cians, biological and biological sciences, mathematics and statistics, physi- cal sciences, and science technologies/technicians. The article focuses on gender, in particular, and shows that although the overall number of asso- ciate’s degrees awarded in STEM is increasing, the percentage awarded to women is not. Contested but Inadequate Transfer Rates The estimation of transfer rates is contested (Horn and Lew, n.d.). Depending on how broad or restrictive the denominator is, the deter- mination of who “counts” in estimating the rate and the length of time allowed for transfer to take place, transfer rates vary widely. A broad- based national estimate of the proportion of community college stu- dents who transfer to a four-year institution is 25 percent (Melguizo and Dowd, 2009). However, this number varies by state, socioeconomic status (SES), and students’ demographic characteristics. Students from higher SES households are more likely to transfer than those from lower SES households, with a difference of 45 percentage points between the 10 percent transfer rate for low-SES students and the high end at 55 percent (Dougherty and Kienzl, 2006). Using a broad denominator of Latinos entering community colleges in California, Ornelas and Solorzano (2004) report an analysis of California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) data indicating that only 3.4 percent of Latinos transfer to a Cali- fornia four-year public institution.
OCR for page 113
113 APPENDIX D Another point of contention is whether transfer students experience a penalty in their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree from starting at a commu - nity college. Utilizing statistical models to compare students of equivalent characteristics and qualifications, some find that there is a “diversion effect” (e.g., Cabrera, Burkum, and La Nasa, in press), by which transfer students become diverted from bachelor’s degree attainment. Others find a “democratization effect,” meaning that the open access community col- lege ultimately democratizes access by providing an effective pathway to the bachelor’s degree (Melguizo and Dowd, 2009). Arbona and Nora (2007), analyzing National Longitudinal Educa- tional Survey data of a sample initially collected in 1988 (NELS: 88), found that among those Latino students who first attended a community college, only 7 percent had obtained at least a bachelor’s degree by 2000. Similarly, an estimate obtained from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longi - tudinal Study (BPS:96/01) showed that although 25 percent of Hispanic students who attended a two-year college initially intended to transfer to a four-year institution and obtain a bachelor’s degree, six years after first enrolling in community colleges only 6 percent had been awarded a bach- elor’s degree (Hoachlander, Sidora, and Horn, 2003). Notwithstanding these debates, few analyses conclude that transfer rates are high enough to fulfill the potential of community colleges to provide first generation, low-income, and underrepresented racial-ethnic minority group students with a satisfactory chance of earning a bachelor’s degree. An Initial Profile: Latina and Latino STEM Bachelor’s Degree Holders Who Transferred None of the studies and reports above provides estimates of the num- bers of community college transfer students in STEM fields, revealing that further research is needed to produce such estimates. In this subsection, I present a brief profile of Latina and Latino STEM transfers based on a study conducted by the Center for Urban Education at USC with fund- ing from the National Science Foundation to begin to fill this research gap. Transfer is of particular importance for increasing Latina and Latino participation in STEM because Latinas and Latinos are disproportionately enrolled in community colleges (Adelman, 2005), particularly in populous states with growing Latino populations, such as California, Florida, and Texas. Estimates vary, but roughly 60 percent of Latino students enrolled in postsecondary education attend a community college (Arbona and Nora, 2007; Snyder, Tan, and Hoffman, 2006). Expanded transfer access is necessary because although Hispanic participation in STEM fields has risen, it has not kept pace with His - panic population growth. Growth in the number of bachelor’s degrees
OCR for page 114
114 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE awarded to Hispanic students has occurred primarily in nonscience and engineering fields. From 1998 to 2007, there was a 64 percent increase in the number of nonscience and engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic students, as compared to an increase of only 50 percent in science and engineering degrees awarded to Hispanic students. Further, the proportion of STEM doctoral degrees awarded to Hispanic students (estimated at less than 5 percent) severely lags the proportion of Hispanics in the U.S. population (around 15%). Analyses conducted by Lindsey Malcom (2008a) and Alicia Dowd (Dowd, Malcom, and Macias, 2010) of the NSF’s National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG:2003) present a portrait of the fields of study of Latina and Latino STEM1 bachelor’s degree holders who transferred from community colleges with associate’s degrees, based on a sample of students who earned bachelor’s degree in 2003. The analyses examine the fields of study in which Latino STEM bachelor’s degree hold- ers earned their degrees, comparing degrees awarded at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and those at non-HSIs. Degrees awarded at HSIs (which are defined by enrollment of His- panic students equal to or exceeding 25% of full-time students) and non- HSIs were differentiated because only 10 percent of institutions in the United States enroll the majority (54%) of Latino undergraduates (Horn, 2006). HSIs tend to be less selective nonresearch colleges and universi - ties. Traditionally they have received less federal funding than research universities and selective institutions. Although nearly 40 percent of bach- elor’s degrees awarded to Latinas and Latinos in all fields of study are granted by HSIs (Santiago, 2006), that figure shrinks to 20 percent when the analysis is limited to STEM degrees (Malcom, 2008a; Malcom, Dowd, and Yu, 2010). This indicates that HSIs do not do as well at retaining Lati - nos in STEM fields as in other fields. Our analysis of the NSCRG data, in which transfer students were defined as those who had first earned an associate’s degree, showed that most transfer students who ultimately earn bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields major in the social and behavioral sciences. This is true at HSIs, where these majors account for 60 percent of STEM baccalaureates, as well as at non-HSIs, where the share is 70 percent. There is one critical area of study in which HSIs graduate a substantially larger percentage of STEM transfers than non-HSIs. Of Latino STEM baccalaureates who gradu- ate from HSIs, 18 percent earn their degrees in computer science and mathematics compared with only 5 percent of STEM transfer graduates 1The definition of STEM fields employed by the National Science Foundation includes computer science, mathematics, life sciences, physical sciences, behavioral and social sci - ences, and health-related fields.
OCR for page 115
115 APPENDIX D at non-HSIs. On the other hand, HSIs appear to be lagging behind non- HSIs in terms of awarding bachelor’s degrees to Latinos in the biological, agricultural, and environmental sciences (3% as opposed to 11%) and in engineering (1% as opposed to 7%). These statistics present a portrait of Latino STEM transfer in which we see that (1) transfer pathways from community colleges are narrow; (2) the majority of degree holders who earned an associate’s degree before earning a bachelor’s degree in STEM earned their degrees in social and behavioral sciences, rather than in computer science, mathematics, bio - logical, agricultural, and environmental sciences, engineering, physical science, or in fields designated as science and engineering related; (3) Latino students had a better chance of earning a STEM degree outside of the social and behavioral sciences if they did not earn an associate’s degree first. These figures would change if we used a different definition of transfer students (for example, those who transferred after the equiva- lent of one year of study, or 30 credits), but they illustrate that certain pathways to STEM bachelor’s degrees are not as readily accessible for students who start out in community colleges. Clearly, similar portraits must be created for other groups of students. However, given that HSIs are typically nonselective four-year institutions and that Latino students are the fastest growing demographic group, this portrait of Latino transfer in STEM provides a good starting point for gaining an understanding that STEM transfer pathways are not nearly as robust as they need to be. Latino community college transfers who first earn associate’s degrees have lower access to STEM bachelor’s degrees at academically selective and private universities than their counterparts who do not earn an associate’s degree prior to the bachelor’s. Available studies of transfer trends, in which the analyses were not restricted to STEM fields or to Latinos, suggest that transfer has become more lim - ited to selective institutions while fluctuating and leveling off in non- selective institutions during the 1980s and 1990s (Dowd, 2010; Dowd and Melguizo, 2008; Dowd et al., 2006). These results are not based on the most current data, but the forces that likely diminished transfer during those decades are still active today, including intensive demand for elite education that make transfer applicants less attractive to selective institu - tions (Dowd, Cheslock, and Melguizo, 2008). The loss of transfer access to selective institutions is of concern in regard to STEM graduate degree production because the competitive, “top 100” STEM research universi- ties are the main gateways to STEM doctoral and professional degrees. As long as selective institutions restrict transfer access, the challenge of creating more robust transfer pathways in STEM for community college students will fall largely to nonselective institutions.
OCR for page 116
116 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE Generating Portraits of Transfer in STEM for Other Groups How would the figures presented above change if the focal group of interest changed from Latina and Latino students to white and Asian stu- dents or to African Americans, Native Americans, women, students with disabilities, or other underrepresented groups? Replicating the results presented above for other groups of interest using the NSRCG data would be one way to answer this question. Arbona and Nora (2007) have ana- lyzed the NELS database to examine transfer of Latino students; other researchers might conduct similar analyses, although they might encoun - ter difficulties in estimation due to small sample sizes. Wang (2011) has valuably proposed to examine transfer pathways in the new Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS) data, which will pro- vide more current estimates disaggregated by a variety of demographic groups of interest. The ELS monitors a nationally representative cohort of students in their sophomore year of high school. In 2006, data about this sample were collected regarding the colleges the students applied to, the financial aid they received, and their postsecondary enrollment, among other information. In 2012, members of the cohort will be interviewed again to learn about their outcomes, including persistence and experience in higher education, and/or transitions into the labor market. Another, more specialized dataset may be especially useful for examining student pathways to and within engineering. The MIDFIELD database is a lon - gitudinal database containing information from 11 public institutions for 226,221 students that have ever declared engineering as a major from 1988 through 2009. It includes data regarding student behaviors, including the majors they change to, and the major students subsequently graduate in. It contains student demographic information, history of courses taken, and grades received, as well as degrees awarded. Consequently, this data- set is a resource for mapping the types of paths students take after matric- ulating in engineering. It holds potential use for studying choices taken by students leaving engineering, and whether this group disproportionately comprises members of underrepresented student populations. In addition to information on first-time students admitted to college engineering pro- grams, the MIDFIELD database also includes information regarding the pathways of transfer students who are admitted to engineering programs. II. STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO STEM TRANSFER AND PROMINENT SOLUTION STRATEGIES Before moving into a discussion of cultural barriers to STEM transfer, it is important to acknowledge structural barriers to transfer and take stock of the most prominent contemporary strategies to broaden trans- fer pathways. The primary curricular barriers are lack of articulation of
OCR for page 117
117 APPENDIX D coursework in the two-year and four-year sectors; lengthy remedial, basic skills course sequences (particularly in mathematics); and the separa- tion of special programs from the core curriculum. Challenges students encounter in financial aid and advising include “sticker shock” when contemplating four-year college and university prices, lack of information about the multiple sources of financial aid, poor access to counselors, and the lack of participation of faculty members in transfer advising. Transfer and Articulation Policies Are Insufficient to Improve STEM Transfer Access The goal of establishing curriculum “articulation” and alignment between the community college and four-year college and university cur- ricula has been a policy focus for several decades. Although Zinser and Hanssen (2006), based on an analysis of national data from the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, conclude that articulation agree- ments for the transfer of two-year technical degrees to baccalaureate degrees are valuable, other analyses of secondary databases indicate that state-level articulation agreements have statistically insignificant effects on the likelihood that community college students will transfer (Anderson, Alfonso, and Sun, 2006; Anderson, Sun, and Alfonso, 2006; Kienzl, Wesaw, and Kumar, 2011). These results indicate that articulation agreements are not likely to be effective on their own in substantially broadening STEM transfer path - ways. California’s recent experience in the early stages of implementing a guaranteed transfer degree, legislated in Fall 2011, illustrates some of the challenges in state policies intended to improve curriculum alignment. The new law stipulates that community colleges offer associate’s degrees for transfer that the California State University (CSU) campuses would be obliged to accept. The mandated degree is 60 credits, including 18 credits in an area of academic focus that should provide a transfer student access to a similar major field of study at the university. The adoption of this law led to a process of negotiations between community college and univer- sity curriculum committees to identify articulated degree programs. By December of 2011, 16 associate’s degrees were approved for transfer and priority admissions, but only two of these were in STEM fields (math- ematics and physics) and about a third of the CSU campuses had yet to confirm availability of a matching degree program in those fields. States have had varying success in using postsecondary policy to improve transfer pathways in STEM. Malcom (2008a, 2008b) illustrated this through analysis of the share of Latina and Latino STEM baccalaure- ates in NSF’s 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) who earned associate degrees. Examining the five states with the larg -
OCR for page 124
124 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE (Malcom, Dowd, and Yu, 2010). The available evidence suggests that affordability is a concern for potential STEM transfers, that working off campus may detract from a focus on coursework (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2011), and that aspirations for professional and doctoral degree attain- ment are dampened due to concerns about debt. III. PRESTIGE AND THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE Engineering, the sciences, whether physical, biological or techni- cal, and computing all require mathematical knowledge, reasoning, and skills. These are fields in which epistemic knowledge, which is to say knowledge viewed as objective, rational, and value-neutral, is highly val - ued (Greenwood and Levin, 2005; Polkinghorne, 2004). Academic disci - plines have distinctive cultures and norms (Becher, 1989), in part derived from epistemological paradigms. In academic typologies, STEM fields are considered “hard-pure” (e.g., mathematics and physics) or “hard applied” fields (e.g., engineering), in contrast to “soft-applied” fields (e.g., education and social work) at the other end of the continuum (Austin, 1990). In the hard-pure sciences “knowledge is cumulative and the goals are discovery, explanation, identification of universals, and simplifica - tion” (Austin, 1990, p. 64). The hard-applied fields apply such universal knowledge through various forms of engineering, research, and techni - cal design. Despite the fact that engineering, for example, is inherently concerned with social contexts and the public good, these aspects of the engineer’s professional responsibilities and identity have become dimin- ished in modern society (Vanasupa, Stolk, and Herter, 2009). The abstract and generalized truths of hard-pure fields are produced through certain ways of knowing, learning, and thinking, which are called “rational.” Success in STEM fields holds prestige in ways that success in other fields does not, because rational knowledge is currently accorded status in U.S. society as an elevated form of knowledge held by experts (Polkinghorne, 2004). Scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, therefore, have a strong identity as rational thinkers. They are also acknowledged survivors or victors who have prevailed in competitive learning environ - ments where producing correct answers and earning high grades are valued. The importance of persistence in the face of repeated error in the inevitable trial and error of scientific research is less clearly acknowl - edged. Scientific identities are forged in a distinctive “culture of science,” with its “gatekeeper” courses and competitive grading (Hurtado et al., 2011). The science culture also promotes ongoing reidentification and association with the scientific community (Austin, 1990; Bergquist and Pawlak, 2008).
OCR for page 125
125 APPENDIX D It is important to recognize that when scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are asked to invest their professional energies in develop- ing new pedagogies, teaching strategies, and curricula, or to engage in inquiry about the effectiveness of their educational practices, they are being asked to elevate their attention to those aspects of their professional knowledge that are typically accorded less prestige. Education, like social work and counseling, is a soft-applied field, where “knowledge is holistic, and the emphasis is on understanding, interpretation, and particulars” (Austin, 1990, p. 64). In fact, expertise in these fields is defined by one’s ability to draw on an extensive repertoire of “particularized” cases and unconsciously select appropriate responses to meet the needs of stu- dents or clients. The hallmark of an expert in these fields is the ability to examine an “indeterminate situation,” where generalized practices are ineffective in particular cases, and to function effectively under condi - tions of ambiguity. Educational practice is inherently ambiguous because the teaching-learning relationship is made up of dynamic interactions between teacher and learner (Polkinghorne, 2004) Without introducing an expectation of adopting reduced academic standards, the Keystone Recommendations of the Next Generation report emphasize that the standards of instruction, assessment, and selection into STEM have become too narrow. “Grading on the curve” and the use of “weed out” and “gatekeeper” courses have failed to ensure “opportu - nities for excellence” or high-quality learning environments for all stu- dents across the educational spectrum. Although such practices may be viewed as academically rigorous and necessary by many of those within the STEM professions, researchers have highlighted their negative effect on racial-ethnic minority students and on women (Hurtado et al., 2007, 2009; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). Subject content and learning environ - ments viewed as value-neutral and objective to some are experienced as “racialized” (Martin, 2009; McGee and Martin, 2011), unsupportive (Lester, 2010), and alienating (Pascarella et al., 1997; Starobin and Laanan, 2008) by others. It may seem paradoxical to individuals steeped and suc - cessful in the science culture that the pursuit of scientific knowledge and learning are not neutral and objective activities, experienced in universal terms independent of one’s ascribed racial and gender characteristics. Yet, numerous studies (e.g., Howard-Hamilton et al., 2009; Hurtado et al., 2007, 2011; McGee and Martin, 2011) and reports (Institute for Higher Education Policy, n.d.; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2011; Sevo, 2009; Steinecke and Terrell, 2010) provide evidence that students of color and women experience formal STEM postsecondary learning environments as dis- criminatory, hostile, and alienating. There is now a long history of calls for cultural change in STEM and increased diversity, but the incremental
OCR for page 126
126 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE changes have not been sufficient. As observed in the Crossroads (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2011) report, the number of African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans in certain STEM fields would need to double, triple, or even quadruple to reach parity with the representation of these groups in the U.S. population. Therefore, programs that do not address the funda- mental problem of the negative racial climate in STEM fields are unlikely to have a substantial impact to increase diversity. At this juncture, it is important to note why these considerations are of particular importance when considering strategies to expand STEM transfer pathways between two-year and four-year institutions. First, it is due to the fact that the status differences among fields of study are compounded by the status differences between two-year and four-year college and university faculty. Second, the “chilly climate” of STEM is only harsher for students experiencing the initial “shock” of transfer. Third, students of color are found in community colleges in numbers disproportionately larger than their enrollment in postsecondary educa - tion as a whole, which means that efforts to broaden transfer pathways in STEM will have positive equity implications. The status differences between the two-year and four-year sectors introduce distrust of the quality of the community college curriculum among faculty and administrators who serve on the admissions and cur- riculum committees of four-year institutions. As a result, the curriculum is poorly aligned and collaboration among faculty is rare (Dowd, 2010; Gabbard et al., 2006; Stanton-Salazar et al., 2010). The negative impact of these poor relationships on students is exacerbated when it comes to transfer in STEM because of the sequential nature of the curriculum. SECTION IV: EVIDENCE-BASED INNOVATION CONSORTIA Recent studies of curricular and pedagogical reforms in STEM fields provide evidence that strategies that involve the use of inquiry, reflec - tive practice, and faculty professional development networks are the most promising approaches to bringing about cultural and organiza - tional change (Borrego, Froyd, and Hall, 2010; Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein, 2011). The dissemination of “best,” innovative practices can bring about awareness, but is less effective in leading those on the receiv - ing end of an innovation to the final stage of Rogers’ model of diffusion and adoption. These findings are consistent with theories of organiza- tional learning and professional development that emphasize professional knowledge, academic norms, and expertise (Bensimon, 2007; Dowd and Tong, 2007; Kezar and Eckel, 2002; Polkinghorne, 2004; Schein, 1985). They also resonate with models of individual and organizational change, particularly in a situation where professionals are being asked to act
OCR for page 127
127 APPENDIX D as institutional agents to bring about change in their own settings (Seo and Creed, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Consequently, recognition of the importance of collective, faculty-based responses to bring about change are growing (Asera, 2008; Kezar, 2012). Therefore, this report introduces a proposal for the creation of Evi- dence-Based Inquiry Councils (EBICs), adapted from Dowd and Tong (2007), with a focus on creating effective STEM transfer pathways through the use of inquiry, professional development, and networks. EBICs, as proposed and renamed here as Evidence-Based Innovation Consortia to place the emphasis on innovation, would provide an organizational structure to support five institutional roles described in the Crossroads report and to foster the “supportive ecosystem” called for in the NSB’s Next Generation report. To move deliberately in creating STEM learning environments in which a greater number and a more diverse body of stu- dents are successful, the Crossroads report charged institutions with five roles: leadership, creating a campus-wide commitment to inclusiveness, self-appraisal of the campus climate, plans for constructive change, and ongoing evaluation of implementation efforts. The EBIC design supports these goals. It also tackles the problem that the transfer structures are not sufficient to support robust transfer path- ways in STEM in the absence of interpersonal relationships and shared cultural norms across sectors. Professional development for faculty and college administrators in STEM pedagogy and culturally inclusive prac - tices (Dowd et al., in press) are needed to create such an ecosystem. Such professional development activities will be well received only if they are accorded prestige and provide resources for the production of new knowledge through research, design experiments (Penuel et al., 2011), and inquiry, which is the systematic use of data, reflection, and experimenta- tion to improve professional practices. The following Keystone Recommendations for the EBIC design are based on those of the Next Generation (2010) report: (1) Keystone Recommendation #1: Provide opportunities for excellence (i) Create prestigious research and design centers, called Evidence Based Innovation Consortia, involving STEM faculty in geo - graphic and market-based clusters of two-year and four-year colleges and universities to: 1. Invent, experiment with, and evaluate innovative ap- proaches to teaching adults foundational mathematics skills and knowledge 2. Invent, experiment with, and evaluate innovative ap- proaches to active and applied learning (ii) Create more intentional mechanisms for diffusion of innovative practices in use in special and supplemental programs to the core curriculum
OCR for page 128
128 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE (iii) Create a STEM transfer research work-study program through the HEA Reauthorization (for details, see Malcom, 2008a, 2008b) and involve industry in identifying mechanisms to provide work-study positions in collaboration with academic institutions (iv) Create public (federal and state) and privately funded STEM transfer scholarships and allocate these to STEM transfer stu - dents enrolled in learning communities at the community col- lege and the four-year institution. (2) Keystone Recommendation #2: Cast a wide net (a) Policy Action: Improve talent assessment systems (i) Create prestigious research and design centers involving STEM faculty in geographic and market-based clusters of two-year and four-year colleges and universities to develop and validate new forms of diagnostic assessment, student learning assessment, and testing. (b) Policy Action: Improve identification of overlooked abilities (i) Ensure that students who are successful in special STEM programs find a place in a STEM program and receive nec- essary mentoring, institutional supports, and opportunities for undergraduate research under the guidance of a faculty member (ii) Provide greater investment in the development of a more diverse faculty and administrative workforce in postsec- ondary education (iii) Replace “weed out” and gatekeeper assessments of student learning with talent development assessments (3) Keystone Recommendation #3: Foster a supportive ecosystem (a) Policy Action: Professional development for educators in STEM pedagogy (i) Support the development, dissemination, and use of as- sessment instruments that support deliberate processes of self-appraisal focused on campus climate in STEM learning environments (ii) Develop and disseminate models of Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies in STEM (iii) Involve STEM educators and educational researchers in joint design and implementation of design experiments, developmental evaluation, and summative evaluation (iv) Develop and offer a STEM deans and directors’ Leadership Academy and teach participants principles of inquiry and strategies for effective collaboration and institutional self assessment. (v) Enroll participants through a three-year membership with staggered terms so that newcomers and experienced mem- bers overlap.
OCR for page 129
129 APPENDIX D REFERENCES Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town—and moving on: The community college in the lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Aguirre, J. (2009). Increasing Latino/a representation in math and science: An insider’s look. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 697-704. Anderson, G.M., Alfonso, M., and Sun, J.C. (2006). Rethinking cooling out at public commu - nity colleges: An examination of fiscal and demographic trends in higher education and the rise of statewide articulation agreements. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 422-451. Anderson, G.M., Sun, J.C., and Alfonso, M. (2006). Effectiveness of statewide articulation agreements on the probability of transfer: A preliminary policy analysis. Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 261-291. Arbona, C., and Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on Hispanic college degree attainment. Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 247-269. Asera, R. (2008). Change and sustain/ability: A program director’s reflections on institutional learn- ing. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., and Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remedia - tion. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 887-924. Aud, S., Fox, M., and KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Blanco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., et al. (2011). The condition of education 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Austin, A.E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (vol. 68, pp. 61-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bahr, P.R. (2010). Preparing the underprepared: An analysis of racial disparities in postsec - ondary mathematics remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 209-237. Bailey, T., and Morest, V.S. (Eds.). (2006). Defending the community college equity agenda. Bal- timore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK; Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Bensimon, E.M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship of student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469. Bensimon, E.M., and Dowd, A.C. (2009). Dimensions of the “transfer choice” gap: Experi - ences of Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways. Harvard Educa- tional Review, 79(4), 632-658. Bensimon, E.M., Dowd, A.C., Alford, H., and Trapp, F. (2007). Missing 87: A study of the “transfer gap” and “choice gap.” Long Beach and Los Angeles: Long Beach City College and the Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California. Bergquist, W.H., and Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borrego, M., Froyd, J.E., and Hall, T.S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innova - tions: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, July, 185-207. Bragg, D.D. (2011, December 9). Two-year college mathematics and student progression in STEM programs of study. Paper presented at the Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape, Washington, DC. Brown, R.S., and Niemi, D.N. (2007). Investigating the alignment of high school and community college assessment in California (No. 07-3). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
OCR for page 130
130 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE Cabrera, A.F., Burkum, K.R., and La Nasa, S.M. (in press). Pathways to a four-year degree: Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: A formula for student success. Westport, CT: ACE/Prager. Carlone, H.B. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1,187- 1,218. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2008). Strengthening pre-collegiate education in community colleges: Project summary and recommendations. A report from Strengthening Pre-collegiate Education in Community Colleges (SPECC). Stanford, CA: Author. Cataldi, E.F., Green, C., Henke, R., Lew, T., Woo, J., Shepherd, B., et al. (2011). 2008-2009 Bac- calaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:08/09): First look . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Cejda, B.D. (1998). The effect of academic factors on transfer student persistence and gradu - ation: A community college to liberal arts case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(7), 675-687. Cejda, B.D. (2000). Use of the community college in baccalaureate attainment at a private liberal arts college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 279-288. Cole, D., and Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science technology engineering and mathematics majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300. Crisp, G., Nora, A., and 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. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924-942. Dougherty, K.J., and Kienzl, G.S. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452-487. Dowd, A.C. (2008). The community college as gateway and gatekeeper: Moving beyond the access “saga” to outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-419. Dowd, A.C. (2010). Improving transfer access for low-income community college students. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in postsecondary education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture (pp. 217-231). New York: Routledge. Dowd, A.C., and Coury, T. (2006). The effect of loans on the persistence and attainment of community college students. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 33-62. Dowd, A.C., and Melguizo, T. (2008). Socioeconomic stratification of community college transfer access in the 1980s and 1990s: Evidence from HS&B and NELS. Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 377-400. Dowd, A.C., and Tong, V.P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of “best practice.” In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of higher education (vol. 22, pp. 57-119). New York: Springer. Dowd, A.C., Bensimon, E.M., Gabbard, G., Singleton, S., Macias, E.E., Dee, J., et al. (2006). Transfer access to elite colleges and universities in the United States: Threading the needle of the American dream. Lansdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Dowd, A.C., Cheslock, J.J., and Melguizo, T. (2008). Transfer access from community colleges and the distribution of elite higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 442-472. Dowd, A.C., Malcom, L.E., and Bensimon, E.M. (2009). Benchmarking the success of Latina and Latino students in STEM to achieve national graduation goals. Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California.
OCR for page 131
131 APPENDIX D Dowd, A.C., Malcom, L.E., and Macias, E.E. (2010). Improving transfer access to STEM bach- elor’s degrees at Hispanic-serving institutions through the America COMPETES Act . Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California. Dowd, A.C., Sawatzky, M., Rall, R.M., and Bensimon, E.M. (in press). Action research: An essential practice for Twenty-First Century assessment. In R.T. Palmer, D.C. Maramba, and M. Gasman (Eds.), Fostering success of ethnic and racial minorities in STEM: The role of minority-serving institutions. New York: Routledge. Fries-Britt, S. (1998). Moving beyond black achiever isolation: Experiences of gifted black collegians. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(5), 556-576. Gabbard, G., Singleton, S., Macias, E.E., Dee, J., Bensimon, E.M., Dowd, A.C., et al. (2006). Practices supporting transfer of low-income community college transfer students to selective institutions: Case study findings. Boston and Los Angeles: University of Massachusetts and University of Southern California. Greenwood, D.J., and Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of universities through action research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grubb, W.N., Boner, E., Frankel, K., Parker, L., Patterson, D., Gabriner, R., et al. (2011). Un- derstanding the “crisis” in basic skills: Framing the issue in community colleges . Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education. Hagedorn, L.S., and DuBray, D. (2010). Math and science success and nonsuccess: Journeys within the community college. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineer- ing, 16(1), 31-50. Hardy, D., and Katsinas, S.G. (2010). Changing STEM associate’s degree production in public associates’ colleges 1990 to 2005: Exploring institutional type, gender, and field of study. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 16 (1), 7-30. Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984. Hoachlander, G., Sidora, A., and Horn, L. (2003). Community college students: Goals, academic preparation, and outcomes (Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports No. 2003-164). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Horn, L. (2006). Placing college graduation rates in context: How 4-year college graduation rates vary with selectivity and the size of low-income enrollment (No. 2006-184). Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Horn, L., and Lew, S. (n.d.). California community college transfer rates: Who is counted makes a difference. MPR Research Brief #1. Howard-Hamilton, M.F., Morelon-Quainoo, C.L., Johnson, S.D., Winkle-Wagner, R., and Santiague, L. (Eds.). (2009). Standing on the outside looking in: Underrepresented students’ experiences in advanced-degree programs. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hughes, K.L., and Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing developmental assessment in community colleges. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Hurtado, S., Han, J.C., Sáenz, V.B., Espinosa, L.L., Cabrera, N.L., and Cerna, O.S. (2007). Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Minority biomedical and behavioral sciences. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 841-887. Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Arellano, L., and Espinosa, L.L. (2009). Diversifying science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research program. Re- search in Higher Education, 50(2), 189-214. Hurtado, S., Pryor, J., Tran, S., Blake, L.P., DeAngelo, L., and Aragon, M. (2010). Degrees of success: Bachelor’s degree completion rates among initial STEM majors . Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.
OCR for page 132
132 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE Hurtado, S., Eagan, M.K., Tran, M.C., Newman, C.B., Chang, M.J., and Velasco, P. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interaction with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553-579. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (n.d.). Diversifying the STEM pipeline: The Model Replica- tion Institutions Program. Washington, DC: Author. Johnson, A.C. (2007). Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of color. Science Education, 91(5), 805-821. Jones, M.T., Barlow, A.E.L., and Villarejo, M. (2010). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 82-115. Kezar, A. (2012). The path to pedagogical reform in the sciences. Liberal Education, 40-45. Kezar, A., and Eckel, P.D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 436-460. Kienzl, G.S., Wesaw, A.J., and Kumar, A. (2011). Understanding the transfer process. Washing- ton, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Kirst, M. (2007, Winter). Who needs it?: Identifying the proportion of students who require postsecondary remedial education is virtually impossible. National CrossTalk, 15, 11-12. Laanan, F.S. (1996). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of com - munity college transfer students. Community College Review, 23(4), 69-84. Laanan, F.S. (2003). Degree aspirations of two-year college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 495-518. Lee, J.M., and Ranson, T. (2011). The educational experience of young men of color: A review of research, pathways, and progress. New York: The College Board. Lester, J. (2010). Women in male-dominated career and technical education programs at com- munity colleges: Barriers to participation and success. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 16(1), 51-66. Levin, H.M., and Calcagno, J.C. (2008). Remediation in the community college: An evalua - tor’s perspective. CCRC Working Paper. Community College Review, 35, 181-207. Malcom, L.E. (2008a). Accumulating (dis)advantage? Institutional and financial aid pathways of Latino STEM baccalaureates. Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern Califor- nia, Los Angeles. Malcom, L.E. (2008b). Multiple pathways to STEM: Examining state differences in community col- lege attendance among Latino STEM bachelor’s degree holders. Presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November, Jacksonville, FL. Malcom, L.E., and Dowd, A.C. (2012). The impact of undergraduate debt on the graduate school enrollment of STEM baccalaureates. Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 265-305. Malcom, L.E., Dowd, A.C., and Yu, T. (2010). Tapping HSI-STEM funds to improve Latina and Latino access to STEM professions. Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California. Martin, D.B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 295-338. McGee, E., and Martin, D.B. (2011). “You would not believe what I have to go through to prove my intellectual value!” Stereotype management among academically successful black mathematics and engineering students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1,347-1,389. Melguizo, T., and Dowd, A.C. (2009). Baccalaureate success of transfers and rising four-year college juniors. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 55-89. Melguizo, T., Hagedorn, L.S., and Cypers, S. (2008). Remedial/developmental education and the cost of community college transfer: A Los Angeles County sample. Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 401-431. Mullin, C.M. (2011). The road ahead: A look at trends in the educational attainment of community college students. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
OCR for page 133
133 APPENDIX D National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Students attending for-profit postsecondary institutions: Demographics, enrollment characteristics, and 6-year outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-a). Table A-40-1: Number of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting institutions, percentage of total, number and percentage awarded to females, and percent change, by selected fields of study: Academic years 1998-99 and 2008-09. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/index. asp?LEVEL=COLLEGE [January 25, 2012]. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-b). Table P45: Percentage distribution of credential- seeking undergraduates, by sex, race/ethnicity, age, credential goal, and curriculum area: 2007- 08. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/index.asp?LEVEL=COLLEGE [January 25, 2012]. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-c). Table P46: Percentage distribution of credential- seeking undergraduates in career education, by sex, race/ethnicity, age, credential goal, and career field of study: 2007-08. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/index. asp?LEVEL=COLLEGE [January 25, 2012]. National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our national human capital. Arlington, VA: Author. National Science Foundation. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011 (No. NSF 04-317.) Arlington, VA: Author. Ornelas, A., and Solorzano, D.G. (2004). Transfer conditions of Latina/o community col - lege students: A single institution case study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 233-248. Packard, B.W.-L. (2011). Effective outreach, recruitment, and mentoring into STEM pathways: Strengthening partnerships with community colleges. Paper presented at the Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape, Washington, DC. Packard, B.W.-L., Gagnon, J.L., LaBelle, O., Jeffers, K., and Lynn, E. (2011). Women’s experi- experi- ences in the STEM community college transfer pathway. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(2), 129-147. Pak, J., Bensimon, E.M., Malcom, L.E., Marquez, A., and Park, D. (2006). The life histories of ten individuals who crossed the border between community colleges and selective four-year colleges. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Parsad, B., Lewis, L., and Greene, B. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecond- ary institutions in Fall 2000. (No. NCES 2004-010.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Pascarella, E.T., Whitt, E.J., Edison, M.I., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L.S., Yeager, P.M., et al. (1997). Women’s perceptions of a “chilly climate” and their cognitive outcomes during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 38(2), 109-124. Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Cheng, B.H., and Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337. Polkinghorne, D.E. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-based practice of care. Albany: State University of New York Press. Reyes, M.-E. (2011). Unique challenges for women of color in STEM transferring from com - munity college to universities. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 241-263.
OCR for page 134
134 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE EVOLVING STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE Rutschow, E.Z., and Schneider, E. (2011). Unlocking the gate: What we know about improving developmental evaluation. New York: MDRC. Ruud, C.M., and Bragg, D.D. (2011). The applied baccalaureate: What we know, what we learned, and what we need to know. Champaign: Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Santiago, D. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): The basics. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Schein, E.H. (1985). Understanding culture change in the context of organizational change. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 244-310. Seo, M.G., and Creed, W.E.D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222-247. Sevo, R. (2009). The talent crisis in science and engineering. Available: http://www.engr.psu. edu/AWE/ARPResources.aspx [February 1, 2009]. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.C. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sci- ences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Snyder, T.D., Tan, A.G., and Hoffman, C.M. (2006). Digest of education statistics, 2005. Wash- ington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status youth. Youth and Society, 42(2), 1-44. Stanton-Salazar, R.D., Macias, R.M., Bensimon, E.M., and Dowd, A.C. (2010). The role of institutional agents in providing institutional support to Latino students in STEM . Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Starobin, S., and Laanan, F.S. (2008). Broadening female participation in science, technol - ogy, engineering, and mathematics: Experiences at community colleges. In J. Leaster (Ed.), Gendered perspectives on community college (pp. 37-46). Wilmington, DE: Wiley Periodicals. Steinecke, A., and Terrell, C. (2010). Progress for the future? The impact of the Flexner Report on medical education for racial and ethnic minority physicians in the United States. Academic Medicine, 85(2), 236-245. Strenta, A.C., Elliott, R., Adair, R., Matier, M., and Scott, J.W. (1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35(5), 513-547. Townsend, B.K., and Wilson, K. (2006). “A hand hold for a little bit”: Factors facilitating the success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439. Vanasupa, L., Stolk, J., and Herter, R.J. (2009). The four-domain development diagram: A guide for holistic design of effective learning experiences for the twenty-first century engineer. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 667-680. Wang, X. (2011). Modeling student entrance into STEM fields of study at community colleges and four-year institutions: Towards a theoretical framework of motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. Proposal submitted to Association for Institutional Research. Weissman, E., Butcher, K., Schneider, E., Teres, J.J., Collado, H., and Greenberg, D. (2011). Learning communities for students in developmental math: Impact studies at Queensborough and Houston Community Colleges. New York: National Center for Postsecondary Re- search. Zinser, R., and Hanssen, C. (2006). Improving access to the baccalaureate: Articulation agreements and the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education program. Community College Review 34(1), 27-43.