– After calculating the totality of effects in the hypothesized model (that is, both direct and indirect effects) of L/L participation on the DV, a somewhat different picture emerged. For non-STEM-focused L/L programs, their significant, negative direct effect on the DV was off-set by a significant, positive indirect effect, yielding zero net influence. STEM-focused L/L programs, which appeared to have had no influence when looking at only their direct effects, evidenced significant, positive indirect effects which made the programs, on balance, at least nominally beneficial.
– As predicted by SCCT, evidence of interest in STEM pursuits, positive outcome expectations, and collegiate self-efficacy, operationalized here as confidence in one’s STEM preparation and college grades, were significantly and positively related to students’ self-reported likelihood to remain in STEM disciplines.
– No relationship was noted between self-efficacy indicators from high school, operationalized here as high school grades and confidence in one’s high school STEM preparation, or parents’ perceived support of a student’s pursuit of a STEM major.
– Unexpectedly, parental education was negatively related to the dependent variable. At least for students in their sample, participation in a STEM-focused L/L program (compared to residence in a traditional residence hall) was not directly related to students’ self-reported likelihood to complete a STEM baccalaureate.
– Participation in a non-STEM-focused L/L program had a direct, negative relationship to the DV, albeit only slightly.
– None of the variables representing key living and learning environments were found to have a direct effect on the DV.
– Both non-STEM- and STEM-focused L/L programs exerted positive, total effects on five of the six key living and learning environments they hypothesized would function as social supports, including: (a) academically-focused peer conversations, (b) socioculturally-focused peer conversations, (c) non-course-related faculty interaction, (d) perceptions of a socially-supportive residence hall climate, and (e) perceptions of an academically-supportive residence hall climate. In turn, these social supports had positive, total effects on other SCCT constructs.