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.
