Retention College

8/3/2019 Retention College

1/5

Reta in ing Undergraduate W om en inScience, Ma th ema tics , and Eng in eering

In this research our purpose was to examine the effectiveness of a program inretaining women in science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Wecomparedundergraduate women participating in a support and mentoring program withnonprogram students in terms of their retention in these majors. Thepretest andposttest results over one academic year revealed that theprogram was successful,adding to the callfor support programs or orientation courses directed towardwomen. Thefindings had implications for many young men, as well.

3 4 J O U R N A L a fC O L L E G E S C IE N C ET E A C H IN G

The issue of women's under-representation in science,mathematics, andengineering(SM&E) fields in the UnitedStates, in both education and thework-force (Moore 2001;NSB 2002; NSF2000,2003, 2004a, 2004b), continuesto be a theme in current research. Inspite of substantial gains, gaps still ex-ist between women and men in termsof their college-level enrollment in theSM&E majors. Women are still lesslikely thanmen to choose a career thatinvolves SM&E, and are more likelythan men to earn bachelor's degreesin nonscience and nonengineeringfields. Among those who do choose amajor in SM&E, the majority is stillconcentrated in certain fields such asbiology, psychology, and the socialsciences (NSF 2000, 2004a, 2004b).Among the reform efforts in theUnited States, national initiatives of-ten target K-12 education to encour-age all students, but especially girls(and other disadvantaged groups),to participate more actively in sci-ence education (NRC 1996, 2000;NSF 2003). Although the rationaleunderlying these efforts has been toenhance students' interest in the sci-ences, these efforts are not as visibleat the college level. According toMatyas (1992), few programs in theUnited States directly target femaleundergraduate students.There is a small amount of re-search into the effects ofundergradu-ate research and mentoring programs(Campbell and Skoog 2004), andcourse-based efforts (Atkin, Green,and McLaughlin 2002), suggestingA jda K ah ve ci ([email protected]) i s a n ins tr uc to r of sc ience educa t iona t M a rm ar a U niv er sity in Is ta nb ul, T urk ey .Sherry A. Sou ther land isan assoc iatepro fessorof s cie nc e e du ca tio n a nd P en ny J. G il m er i sprofessor of c he mis tr y a nd b io ch em is tr y a tFloridaState University in Tallahassee,Florida.


2/5

that such programs are successful inincreasingthe representationofwomenin science. However, the bulk of thesestudies are descriptive in nature, andthere is scant comparative informationabout the relative impact of these pro-grams. For instance, Malcom's (1984)evaluation focuses on programs forenhancing K-12 females' access toand achievement in mathematics andscience, and includes identifyingcriteria to assess the exemplariness ofthose programs. By contrast, in thisresearch our focus is on comparingthe retention of undergraduate womenparticipating in an SM&E support andmentoring program with other, closelymatched undergraduate students whoare not in the support and mentoringprogram (nonprogram students). Bycomparing program and nonprogramstudents, our purpose is to examinethe success and effectiveness theseprograms have.The Program for Womenin Science, Engineering,and MathematicsOur research investigated the influ-ence of a living-learning communityestablished to encourage female col-lege students to participate in theSM&E majors. The Program forWomen in Science, Engineering, andMathematics (PWISEM), foundedin 2001 at a research university inthe American southeast, targets un-dergraduates (particularly first-yearstudents) to foster the participationofwomen in these fields, and enhancetheir retention.Students enter the program intheir first year and live together inan on-campus residence hall. Whileall first-year program students arerequired to reside in the hall, aftertheir first year, women can remain inthe program but reside elsewhere. Inaddition to a shared residence, whichprovides students with built-in studypartuers, program students have theopportunity to participate in a varietyof PWISEM activities. The centralformal activity of the program is aone-credit course entitled Women inScience Colloquium, inwhich women

scientists from around the universitycome to the hall and describe their re-search. The program also encouragesSM&E success and retention throughlectures, panel discussions, mentor-

ing, advising assistance, researchinternships, tutoring, and field trips.Thus, the program places a premiumon student interactions with facultyand with other students.TABLE 1Number of PWISEM and HGC students in their intended SM&E majors.Intended majors PWISEM HGC men HGC womenAthletic training/sports medicine 0 0Biochemistry 2 2 2Biology 10 8 11Biomedical engineering 0 0Chemical engineering 2Chemistry 2Civil engineering 0 0Computer engineering 0 0Computer science 0 0Electrical engineering 0Engineering (undecided) 3 3Environmental engineering 0Exercise science 3 0Mechanical engineering 0 3 0Meteorology 3 0 0Nursing 4 0 2Physics 2 2 0Science (undecided) 0 0Undecided 0 7 3Other 0 2 6TOTAL 35 34 29

TABLE 2

Students' interest in SM&E in the beginning and at the end of the year.Pretest Posttest

Mean Sta~d~rd Mean Sta~d~rddeviation deviationPWISEM students

0.336

4.40 0.70 4.36 0.96HGC women students 4.45 1.06 4.17 1.30HGC men students 4.65 0.70 3.85 1.50Significance* N/A N/A.421

* Confidence interval : 95%.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 35


3/5

Research designIn this research we employed the "static-group pretest -posttest design" (Fraenkeland Wallen 2003, p. 273), in which twoalready existing groups are used. Wecompared the PWISEM students withthe Honors General Chemistry (HGC)students over the period of one aca-demic year. HGC students were selectedas a comparison group due to their simi-1arities with PWISEM students; bothgroups were different from the generaluniversity first-year student popula-tion in that they were high-achievingstudents (as determined by their SATscores and high school GPAs), and bothgroups intended to pursue SM&E ma-jors. Their central differences includedthat the HGC group consisted of both

males and females and that PWISEMstudents participated in activities.ParticipantsThere were 35 first-year PWISEMstudents involved in this research.Their ages ranged from 18 to 19, typi-cal for first-year students. There were63 HGC female and male studentswho participated in the study, and theyhad an age range of 17 through 2l.In Table 1, we summarize students'intended majors as self-reported in thebeginning of their freshman year.Data collection and analysisIn this research we compared programand nonprogram students in termsof their

TABLE 3

Students' confidence in SM&Ein the beginning and at the end of the year.Pretest Posttest

Mean Sta~d~rd Mean Sta~d~rddeviation deviationPWISEM students

0.258

3.94HGC women students 4.03HGC men students 4.24Significance*

* Confidence interval : 95%.

0.80 3.94 0.910.68 4.11 0.830.74 4.00 0.65N /A N /A.776

TABLE 4

Crosstabulation of students' major choices in the beginning of the academic year.

PWISEM studentsSM&E NonSM&E Undecided TOTAL

93.5% (29)76.9%(20)86.2% (25)

HGC women studentsHGCmen students

0%(0)11.5% (3)

0%(0)

6.5% (2)11.5% (3)13.8%(4)

100.0% (31)100.0% (26)100.0% (29)

* Confidence interval: 95%, nonsignificant relationship

TABLESCrosstabulation of students' major choices at the end of the academic year.

PWISEM studentsSM&E NonSM&E Undecided TOTAL

90.3%(28)69.2%(18)82.8%(24)

HGC women studentsHGCmen students

3.2% (1)30.8% (8)13.8%(4)

6.5% (2)0%(0)

3.4% (1)

100.0% (31)100.0% (26)100.0% (29)

* Confidence interval: 95%, significant relationship (p = 0.047)

3 6 J O U R N A L a fC O L L E G E S C IE N C ET E A C H IN G

1. interest,2. confidence,3. determination in pursuing one of

the SM&E majors (CIRP 2000),4. views on science and scientists

(NORC 2004),5. interest in and6. understanding of science and tech-nology (NORC 2004),7. GPAs, and8. intended/declared majors.Because the HGC student group in-volvedmale students, itwas possible forus to make cross-comparisons amongthe groups with respect to gender.

In order to measure these con-structs, we developed a questionnairewith insight from two different instru-ments (CIRP 2000; NORC 2004).Each of these two instruments haveestablished validity and reliabilitymeasures, which refer to the ability of"drawing correct conclusions based onthe data obtained from an assessment"(Fraenkel and Wallen 2003, p. 158),and "the consistency of the scoresobtained" (p. 165). The questionnaireincluded 23 items, which reflectedthe constructs described above, to berated on Likert scales. In addition, wecollected student demographic data inorder to ensure that the same studentstook the pre- and posttests. Amongthese data were students' intended ordeclared majors. Data for which wedid not have a pre/post pairing werediscarded. We administered a pretest atthe outset of the fall semester to bothgroups and the posttest was adminis-tered at the end of the academic year.

In our analysis, we recognized thatthere were three distinct groups withinPWISEM and HGC: (1) the PWISEMstudents, (2) the HGC women students,and (3) the HGC men students. Tocompare the similarities or differencesacross the three groups, we performedone-way ANOVA (analysis of vari-ance) for mean differences across thegroups in the pretest, and then per-formed it again for the posttest. Herewe used inferential statistics "to makejudgments of the probability that anobserved difference between groupsis a dependable one or one that might


4/5

have happened by chance" (Trochim2000, p. 381).FindingsThe response rate of PWISEM stn-dents for the pretest was 100% (all ofthe program stndents completed thesurvey). HGC stndents had a responserate of 64%, meaning that 63 out of99 students completed the survey.For the posttest, the response rate forPWISEM stndents was 94.3% (33 outof35 stndents completed the survey).HGC stndents had a response rate of60.3% (38 out of the 63 stndents whohad completed the pretest completedthe posttest). To increase the responserate of HGC students, we used anelectronic version of the survey forthose who did not return the hard-copy version or were absent in classduring the distribution.

According to the results of thepre- and posttests, the three groupsofundergraduate stndents-programwomen, nonprogram women, andnonprogram men-embodied nosignificant differences in terms ofinterest, confidence, and determina-tion to pursue one of the SM&E ma-jors. They had significantly differentscores on some of the items aboutviews of science and scientists, aswell as on select items that measuredtheir interest in and understandingof science and technology. The mostprominent difference among thegroups was in their responses to theitem asking for intended/declaredmajors in the posttest.Similarity in interest,confidence,views of scientistsIn terms of their interest and confi-dence in pursuing one of the SM&Emajors, there were no significant dif-ferences either in the pretest or theposttest (Tables 2 and 3). Stndentswere asked to rate their "currentlevel of interest" and "current levelof confidence" in pursuing a major inscience, mathematics, or engineeringon a 5-point scale, 1 being "low" and5 being "high." All stndents acrossthe three groups expressed almost thesame level-4 out of 5-of interest

and confidence both in the beginningand the end of the academic year.Although the difference in terms ofinterest among the groups was notsignificant, as seen in Table 2, therehad been a decline in the interest meanscores of all three groups from thepretest to the posttest. The decline ofinterest was consistent for all groupsand might indicate important implica-tions, which we discuss later.

We obtained students' cumula-tive GPA records for the academicyear during which this research tookplace from the Office of Admissionsand Records at the university. Therewas no significant difference in GPAacross the three groups. All of thegroups had GPA means above 3.30(on a 4-point scale), an indication oftheir academic success.

In terms of their views of scienceand scientists, the three groups ofstndents again were similar. However,there were differences regarding sev-eral items. For example, in the begin-ning of the academic year, PWISEMstndents were significantly more likely(confidence interval: 95%) to disagreethat "scientists are apt to be odd andpeculiar people;' whereas HGC menstudents were more likely to agree[F(2, 95) =5.53,p =0.005]. Regardingthis item on the posttest, stndents hadsimilar responses, and tended to dis-agree. Also, PWISEM stndents weresignificantly more likely to disagreethat "scientists are not likely to be veryreligious people" than the HGC menstndents in the beginning [F(2, 95) =4 .05 , p =0.021]; however, there wasno difference at the end.

Regarding interest in and under-standing of science and technology,in general, all students were alike.The only exception was in their in-terest in "issues about the use of newinventions and technologies." HGCmen stndents were significantly morelikely to be "very interested" in theseissues than the HGC women group inthe beginning of the academic year[F(2, 95) = 4.55, p = 0.013]. At theend of the academic year, all stndentsexpressed similar interest in the use ofnew inventions and technologies.

Differences in major choiceAlthough students were similar interms of their GPA scores and interestin, confidence, and views of scienceand scientists, they were different interms of major choice. According tothe results of crosstabulation and aChi -square test performed for stndents'intended/declared majors in the begin-ning of their freshman year, there wasno statistically significant relationshipamong the groups (Table 4).

In the beginning of the academicyear, the majority of stndents fromall three groups intended to pursue anSM&E major (93.5% of the PWISEMstudents, 76.9% of the HGC womenstudents, and 86.2% of the HGC menstndents). Noticeably, at the beginningof the year there were no studentsfrom either the PWISEM or the HGCmen student groups who wanted anonSM&E major, while 11.5% ofthe HGC women students were inthis category.

However, at the end of the sameacademic year, there were more stn-dents deciding for a nonSM&E major,and this was particularly true for thenonprogram women group (Table 5).Moreover, according to the results ofthe crosstabulation and Chi-square test,the relationship among the groups andtheir declared majors was significant,[x2(4 , N = 86) = 9.618,p = 0.047]. Atthe end of the academic period, a con-siderable number ofHGC women stn-dents (30.8%) and HGC men stndents(13.8%) declared a nonSM&E major.

Also, compared with the begin-ning of the academic year, therewere fewer stndents in the undecidedcategory from both the HGC womenand HGC men groups. Namely, morestudents from these groups decidedon the major they wanted to pursue,but most of these students decidednot to have an SM&E major. In otherwords, after one year, significantlymore PWISEM students remainedin the SM&E fields than stndents ineither of the HGC groups.ConclusionsThe women support and retentionprogram at the center of this study

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER2006 37


5/5

(PWISEM) was successful in retain-ing female students in their intendedSM&Emajors. When compared withnonprogram students, program stu-dents were more likely to choose anSM&E major. This difference is in-teresting given that there was no sig-nificant difference among the groupsin terms of their interest, confidence,or academic potential (as measuredby SAT and GPAs). In other words,all of the undergraduates involvedin this study were interested andconfident in pursuing SM&E, theyhad similar views about science andscientists, and similar interests inand understandings of science andtechnology, but more program stu-dents decided to remain in SM&Eafter their first year at college. Thus,this research adds to the call for sup-port programs or orientation coursesdirected toward women.There is clear indication thatfactors other than interest or confi-dence playa major role in students'decisions to be involved in SM&E. Asother research has reported, supportiveenvironments, close student-faculty/scientist relationships (Meyer 2002),opportunities forresearch experiences,mentoring, and academic networking(Atkin, Green, and McLaughlin 2002;Campbell and Skoog 2004; Down-ing, Crosby, and Blake-Beard 2005),and teacher attitudes (Cutler 2004;Friedman 1999),may be fundamentalfactors in PWISEM's success. Thesefactors are also among the three suc-cesscriteria-strong academic empha-sis, multiple strategies, and a systemsapproach-developed by Stage et al.after their evaluation of such programs(Stage et al.'s study, as cited in FraserandWalberg 1995).Further research inexamining and assessing programs de-signed for undergraduate women maysuggest other criteria and strategies fordevelopment and improvement.The profile of students involvedin this study suggests that there isneed for concern about the retentionof both men and women in SM&Emajors. The consistent decline in theinterest of all students (Table 2) is an-other aspect that brings into question

3 8 J O U R N A L of C O L LE G E S C I E N CE T E A CH IN G

the SM&E culture itself. As Seymoursuggests, "some aspects of the learn-ing environments in which manywomen feel most comfortable-par-ticularly those which are interac-tive, cooperative, experiential, andlearner-focused-are also congenialto many young men" (1995, p. 470).Seymour also suggests that chang-ing the pedagogy from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered ap-proach promises to reduce the loss ofboth women and men students fromthe SM&Emajors. Ifwe are to reducethe loss of potential talent in SM&E,we need to establish programs suchas PWISEM as first-aid interventionsaswe work toward transforming sci-ence teaching itself. _ReferencesAtkin, A.M., R. Green, and L.McLaughlin. 2002. Patching theleaky pipeline. Journal of College

Science Teaching 32 (2): 102-08.Campbell, A., and G. Skoog. 2004.Preparingundergraduatewomen forscience careers. Journal of CollegeScience Teaching 33 (5): 24--26.Cooperative Institutional ResearchProgram (CIRP). 2000. Survey ofincoming first-year freshmen andtransfers. Florida StateUniversity:Office of the Vice President forStudent Affairs.Cutler, A. 2004. Mommy love andthe sciences. Journal of CollegeScience Teaching 34 (3): 8-9.Downing, R.A., F.I Crosby, and S.Blake-Beard. 2005. The perceivedimportance of developmental rela-tionships on women undergradu-ates' pursuit of science.PsychologyofUfJmen Quarterly 29: 419-26.

Fraenkel, IR., and N.E Wallen. 2003.How to design and evaluate re-search in education. 5th ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.Fraser, B.I, and H.I Walberg, eds.1995. Improving science educa-tion. Chicago: The National Soci-ety for the Study of Education.Friedman, D.L. 1999. Science, yes!-A program to excite the scientistin the teacher. Journal of CollegeScience Teaching 28 (4): 239-44.

Malcom, S.M. 1984.Equity and excel-lence: Compatible goals. Washing-ton, DC: American Association fortheAdvancement of Science.Matyas, M.L. 1992. Promoting under-graduate studies in scienceandengi-neering. In Science and engineeringprograms: On targetfor women? eds.M.L.MatyasandL.S.Dix.Washing-ton, DC: NationalAcademy Press.Meyer, G.M. 2002. Encouragingfemale undergraduate students:What can a science departmentdo? Journal of College ScienceTeaching 32 (2): 98-l0l.Moore, R. 2001. The "pretty redhead"who changed science education.Journal of College Science Teach-ing 31 (3): 194-96.

National Opinion Research Center(NORC). 2004. General socialsurvey. University of Chicago.www.norc.uchicago.edulprojects/gensoc.asp.National Research Council (NRC).1996. National science educationstandards. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press.NRC.2000.Inquiry and the national sci-ence education standards. Washing-ton, DC:NatioualAcademyPress.National Science Board (NSB). 2002.Science & engineering indica-tors-2002. Arlington, VA. www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/ start.htm.National Science Foundation (NSF).2000. Women, minorities, and per-sons with disabilities in science andengineering: 2000. Arlington, VA.NSF. 2003. New formulas for Amer-ica s workforce: Girls in scienceand engineering. Arlington, VA.NSF. 2004a. Science and engineeringdegrees: 1966-2001. Arlington,VA.

NSF.2004b.UfJmen,minorities, andper-sons with disabilities in science andengineering: 2004. Arlington,VA.Seymour, E. 1995.The loss ofwomenfrom science, mathematics, andengineering undergraduate majors:An explanatory account. ScienceEducation 79 (4), 437-73.Trochim, WM. 2000. The researchmethods knowledge base. http://trochim. human. cornell. edu/kb/contents.htm.
http://www.norc.uchicago.edulprojects/http://www.norc.uchicago.edulprojects/

Documents

Retention College