Kevin Eagan & Jessica Sharkness Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA

1. A Strong Start in the Sciences:Factors Influencing Minority Students’ Academic and Social Engagement Kevin Eagan & Jessica Sharkness Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA 28th Annual Conference on the First Year Experience Orlando, FL February 2009

2. Background • Demographic shifts: • Increasing numbers of underrepresented minority (URM) students entering college • Improved representation of URM students entering science, technology, engineering, and math fields as first-year students (Astin & Astin, 1993; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997) • National call for increased number of research scientists - Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2005); America Competes Act (2007) • New focus on undergraduate scientific training • Undergraduate research programs • Emphasis on more engaging pedagogy in science classrooms

3. Issues & Challenges • URMs remain severely underrepresented in STEM fields • ‘Leaky’ STEM pipeline – more likely to leave STEM fields compared to White/Asian American peers (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; NSF, 2003). • Black, Latino, and Native American students’ representation in STEM fields is significantly lower than their share of the US population and college-going population • Goal of this project: Identify factors that facilitate and/or hinder URM students’ progression toward research careers in STEM fields.

4. Previous Project Research Findings • Differences in student support structures across and within institutions • Sources of student support have different implications for student success • Key linkage during first year between academic adjustment and sense of belonging • URM science students have unique adjustment processes over the first year of college

5. Current Study • What are the nature, quality, and context for engagement of URM biomedical and behavioral science (BBS) students with peers and faculty? • How are engagement and access to resources linked with participation in campus programs (e.g., undergraduate research, living-learning communities, first-year seminars)? • How similar are the patterns of academic and social engagement across racial groups?

6. Why study the development of student and faculty support networks? • Faculty support networks • Alleviate URM students’ sense of isolation • Improve academic achievement (Cole, 2008; Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Cole & Jackson, 2005) • Lead to higher levels of satisfaction with academics and overall campus environment (Cole & Jackson, 2005; Endo & Harpel, 1982) • Student support networks • Contribute to students’ sense of social integration, which is tied to persistence/degree completion (Bean, 1980; Tinto, 1993) • Enhance satisfaction with college environment (Cole & Jackson, 2005)

7. Theoretical frameworks on support networks and social support • Perception of respect, esteem, and network membership (Cobb, 1976) • Fulfillment of social needs/desires through interaction (Kaplan, Cassel, Gore, 1977) • Social capital as derived from information-sharing networks and relationships based on trust and reciprocity (Coleman, 1988)

8. InstitutionalCharacteristics CollegeExperiences SupportNetworks Pre-collegecharacteristics (controls) Conceptual model BackgroundCharacteristics(demographics) Participationin first-year programs CollegeCharacteristics Faculty andstudent supportnetworks HSAcademics CollegeAcademics College SocialActivities HSSocial activities

9. Data & Sample • Data source: • HERI’s 2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP) Freshman Survey • Your First College Year (YFCY) administered at the end of the freshman year (Spring 2005) • Missing values imputed • Sample: • 3,218 students in 160 institutions broken into two groups: • URM science majors (1,796 cases) • White/ Asian science majors (1,422 cases)

10. Analysis Plan • Descriptive Statistics • Creation composite variables (factors) representing student support networks and faculty support networks • Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to control for the sequential nature of students’ development of support networks and identify indirect effects

11. Student Support Networks Factor • Student Support Networks measured by a composite variable composed of: • Frequency of interaction with close college friends • Self-assessment of success at developing close friendships with students • Frequency with which students study with other students • Frequency with which students receive advice from juniors or seniors • Frequency with which students received advice from other freshmen

12. Faculty Support Networks • Faculty Support Networks measured by a composite variable composed of: • Frequency of interaction with faculty during office hours • Frequency of interaction with faculty outside of class or office hours • Frequency of receiving advice from faculty about students’ educational program • Frequency of receiving emotional support and encouragement from a professor

13. Descriptive findings • White and Asian American BBS students had higher levels of faculty support, lower levels of student support and lower levels of cross-racial interactions when compared to URM BBS peers • Students attending MSIs (White/Asian American and URM) reported significantly higher levels of faculty and student support than students at PWIs • Students from both samples reported stronger faculty and student support networks at private institutions compared to peers at public institutions

14. Significant factors directly promoting student support networks

15. Significant factors Indirectly promoting student support networks

16. Notable non-significant effects

17. Significant factors directly promoting faculty support networks

18. Significant factors Indirectly promoting faculty support networks

19. Notable non-significant effects

20. Discussion of findings • Positive effect of cross-racial interactions on development of student support networks indicates potential increase in level of trust and respect • Frequently socializing with friends helps meet need for meaningful interactions with significant others (Kaplan, Cassell, & Gore, 1997) • Attending Minority-Serving Institution provides better opportunity for URM students to connect with “own-group” peers (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997)

21. Discussion of findings • Positive relationship between negative feedback and development of faculty support networks parallels earlier research (Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). • Interacting regularly with faculty (through advising, research, and/or mentoring) augments students’ sense of support from faculty (Kuh & Hu, 2001) • Conducting research signifies since of trust passed from faculty to student, which appears to contribute to stronger support network, particularly for URM students (Coleman, 1988)

22. Implications and Conclusions • Importance of trust and reciprocity in developing support networks • Student and faculty support networks as intermediate outcomes • Strong social networks may lead to increased persistence likelihood (Tinto, 1993) • Connecting with faculty and peers positively linked to improved satisfaction (Cole & Jackson, 2005; Endo & Harpel, 1982) • High satisfaction and sense of support connected with academic achievement (Cole, 2008; Cole & Espinoza, 2008) • Higher levels of achievement, increased satisfaction, and commitment to degree help prevent “leaks” from the science pipeline (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997)

23. Questions and Discussion • What opportunities, resources, and structures are in place on your campuses to facilitate the development of faculty support networks? • What formal programs do your campuses offer to encourage the development of strong peer support networks?

24. Contact Information • Kevin Eagan – mkeagan@gmail.com • Jessica Sharkness – jsharkness@ucla.edu • Project web site: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/nih • Acknowledgments: This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Number 1 RO1 GMO71968-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsor.