Diversity in Education
Diversity in Education
  • Overview
  • K-12 Integration, Desegregation, and Segregation Archive
  • K-16 STEM Archive
  • Browse
    • By Method of Analysis
    • By Unit of Analysis
    • By Data Type
    • By Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation
    • By Keyword
    • By Methodology
    • By Region
    • By Research
    • By Scholarship
    • By Sample Type
  • Help
  • Contact Us

Filter

  • Sort by

  • Filtered Search Term

  • Archive

  • Keywords

  • Research Designs

  • Analysis Methods

  • Researchers

2013 - Supporting Future Scientists: Predicting Minority Student Participation in the STEM Opportunity Structure in Higher Education

Attribution: Figueroa, Tanya, Hughes, Bryce, & Hurtado, Sylvia
Researchers: Bryce HughesSylvia HurtadoTanya Figueroa
University Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles
Email: tfigueroa.wisc@gmail.com
Research Question:
Researches STEM persistence by identifying the educational experiences and institutional contexts that contribute to student access and involvement in the opportunity structure. The STEM opportunity structure are extracurricular and co-curricular activities that boost performance within STEM majors.
Published: Yes
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: N/A
Journal Entry: N/A
Year: 2013
Findings:
  1. Students who are non-native English speakers utilize supplemental instruction more frequently than native English speakers; no other demographic characteristics are significant.
  2. Participating in supplemental instruction is not explained by attendance at different types of institutions.
  3. Students who are more satisfied with the courses in their major, have a higher sense of belonging, have more positive cross-racial mentorships, and receive higher levels of faculty mentorship tend to more frequently engage in supplemental instruction.
  4. Multiracial students appear to have less frequent mentorship activity from faculty than their White peers.
  5. Students majoring in engineering and mathematics have less frequent mentoring and support from faculty than their peers who switch to non-STEM majors.
  6. Students who report greater satisfaction with the racial/ethnic diversity of the student body and with the courses in their major field tend to enjoy more frequent mentoring from faculty.
  7. Students from higher SES backgrounds are more likely to participate in an internship program.
  8. There are no differences by race or gender in the likelihood of participating in an internship program.
  9. Black students are much more likely than White students to participate in undergraduate research programs.
  10. The most reoccurring college experience that was detrimental to students’ ability to participate in the opportunity structure is working full-time while attending school.
  11. Entering college with higher degree aspirations set the stage for future engagement in the opportunity structure.
  12. Pre-college academic achievement is not a consistent positive predictor of participation in the opportunity structure.
  13. High achieving college students (as measured by overall college GPA) are notably more likely to participate in an internship program or an undergraduate research program and more frequently receive faculty mentorship and support.
  14. When all else is held constant, demographic variables in the final models did not seem to have a consistent and large predictive role in determining whether or not, or the extent to which students participated in various activities within the educational opportunity structure.
  15. Private institutions and more selective institutions are better positioned to promote participation in internship programs.
Scholarship Types: Unpublished Institutional Report (e.g.Keywords: Extracurricular ActivitiesOpportunity StructureSTEMSupplemental InstructionRegions: NationalMethodologies: QuantitativeResearch Designs: Secondary Survey DataAnalysis Methods: Descriptive StatisticsHGLMHierarchal Logistic Regression Sampling Frame:Undergraduate Students
Sampling Types: Nationally RepresentativeAnalysis Units: StudentData Types: Quantitative-Longitudinal
Data Description:
  • The authors draw from frameworks regarding goal setting, social capital, and institutional context to investigate the factors that promote and reduce a student’s likelihood of engaging in different experiences within the opportunity structure during college.
  • Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) 2004 Freshman Survey and follow-up 2008 College Senior Survey (CSS). The CIRP was administered to first-semester freshmen in college while the CSS was administered in the Spring of their fourth year in college. The final analytic sample included 4,046 students attending 212 institutions who indicated that they aspired to a STEM major at the start of their undergraduate studies.
  • This study analyzes five dependent variables: 1) participated in an internship program, 2) participated in an undergraduate research program, 3) joined a club or organization related to one’s major, 4) had instruction that supplemented coursework; and 5) frequency study received faculty mentorship and support. For dependent variables one through three, students had the option of marking yes or no to indicate whether they participated in the respective activity. For the fourth dependent variable, students marked how often they had instruction that supplemented coursework (not at all, occasionally, or frequently). The faculty mentorship and support construct measured the extent to which students and faculty interacted in relationships that fostered mentorship, support, and guidance, in both academic and personal domains. Responses were on a three-point scale: not at all, occasionally, and frequently.
  • The authors added variables in conceptually related, temporally sequenced blocks. First, they included student demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, racial/ethnic background, and socioeconomic status) in the models. Next, they added several pre-college measures (e.g., prior academic preparation, high school activities, and degree aspirations) to the models to see if any observed differences between groups could be accounted for by differences in these areas. Third, they added students’ college experiences and attitudes. Finally, institution-level variables were added in the last block, and these measures included structural characteristics of the institution such as size, selectivity, and control.
  • The CSS had a relatively low longitudinal response rate (23%), and thus the extent to which their results can be generalized to a larger group of students may be limited.
Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:Factors Related to STEM Readiness
Archives: K-16 STEM Abstracts
Skip to toolbar
  • Log In