Creating a STEM Identity: Investment with Return

1. Creating a STEM Identity: Investment with Return Janet Callahan, Associate Dean, Engineering Patricia Pyke, Director of STEM Station Susan Shadle, Director Center for Teaching and Learning Eric Landrum, Professor of Psychology Boise State University, Idaho ASEE-Indianapolis June 17, 2014

2. Introduction This presentation is focused on the development and utilization of a framework for characterizing the development of Integrated STEM Efforts – with the aim of using it for guidance in terms of increasing our performance as institutions of higher learning that prepare STEM professionals.

3. Think • Take a minute to think about a particular best practice, or co-curricular project (e.g. a summer bridge program) that leads to increased STEM student success • This could be something you’ve spent some time developing or implementing • Aim for something that is being undertaken at some level (in your course, in your department, college-wide, university-wide) at your institution; some undertaking worth widespread adoption

4. Why think about integrated STEM Efforts (…a “STEM Identity”? • The need, with a focus on STEM student success, was initially motivated by lessons learned: ESWI, 2003-2008 • Various barriers to student success were revealed, mostly involving what was going on in the lower division curriculum • Grant-focused efforts aimed on pedagogically reforming entry coursework in mathematics and science in order to prepare students for success in engineering and in follow-on science and math coursework • Lots of brown bag seminars, recommendations to departments and university administrators • Can you guess what happened next?

5. Lesson Learned“Organically diffusing pedagogy reform…” • Disseminating “best practice curricular materials … to other faculty does not work” (1) • Even high levels of awareness of innovative engineering education practices does not translate into high levels of adoption (2) • Essentially: good ideas supported by convincing evidence of efficacy…does not spread naturally (3) C. Henderson, A. Beach and N. Finkelstein (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practice: an analystic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 48(8), 952-984. M. Borrego, J.E. Froyd, T.S. Hall (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: a survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education. 99(3), 185-207. E. Seymour (2001). Tracking the progress of change in US undergraduate education in science and mathematics, engineering and technology. Science Education, 86, 79-105.

6. Take Away from ESWI • There cannot be a “we” vs. “them” approach to student success; rather there needs to be a shared mission • A shared sense of mission or interventions and alliances through all levels of university systems is needed • The bigger picture at Boise State University…

7. STEM Enrollment Growth Fall 06 – Fall 13Boise State University 16,417 16,696 17,349 17,360 19,657 19,042 STEM enrollment grew 77% since Fall 06 Looking back five years, university enrollment grew by 15%, from 16,417 to 19,401. But STEM enrollment grew by 63% in the same time frame, from 2238 to 3655. More than half (55%) of the university’s growth was in STEM.

8. This Work • Following the Hewlett Foundation ESWI grant, we have had ~25 initiatives or grants that have moved the university toward an integrated STEM identity, over ten years of rapid growth • This STEM education focused environment provided research teams with many successes and failures to observe and opportunities to build on factors that emerged for cultivating a STEM identity

9. This Work, cont. • Observations on projects were made, in reflection, on three general areas: • Faculty engagement/community • STEM curricular/co-curricular activities • University leadership/systems • We categorized stages, or levels, in a series of five sequential stages…

10. Development of Integrated STEM Efforts

11. The Framework • Using five cases, we scaffolded the levels with descriptive phrases to generalize the results. • Our paper describes, in detail, the five cases. • To illustrate the process, two will be discussed here

12. Case 2: Math integration with other STEM departments, from 0 to 3 • [0] 2005-6: who you took/what you learned – avg pass rate in 05for Calc Iwas 51%; Limited discussion about what students should be able to do, following a course • [2] Math instructor taught ENGR 120 in 05; Calc III and Diff. Eq.; constituents consulted; ERC professor • [3] Planning funds from the Provost; faculty learning communities; program transformation grant. • Note: Klingbeil& ENGR 120

13. The terminology to describe and the methodology to measure facets of STEM were needed (STEP, I^3)) • Formal “STEM” definitions • Measurements of STEM student enrollment and degree attainment were conducted, showing we lagged behind our peers in % of students majoring in STEM • Because of regional and national needs, the Provost made the case in 2011 for making STEM a university priority. Case 5: STEM as an official university definition, from level 0 to 3.

14. STEM • In the university’s strategic plan for 2012-2017, the one-page summary of university strategies identifies STEM as the only group of academic majors called out specifically for attention: • “Increase student recruitment, retention, andgraduationin STEM disciplines,” and “Build select doctoral programs with a priority in professional and STEM disciplines.”

15. Case 5: STEM as an official university definition, from level 0 to 3.

16. Discussion • The formation of a fully formed, organization-level STEM identity remains a work in progress on our campus – but we are a team • The recognition that organizational identity formation spans these hierarchical levels is at the heart of a new endeavor by the WIDER team to apply a specific change model to propagate evidence-based instructional practices across the STEM curriculum

17. Framework Uses • Think back to your best practice/co-curricular activity • Where, in the framework, is it situated ? • Look at the next level to help illuminate a next step • E.g. a university-level initiative? A proposal that emerges across multiple colleges and with opportunities for many to engage? • I cannot emphasize enough, how important the funding from NSF and from the Provost’s office was in moving us from levels 0/1 to higher levels of integration. The involvement of the deans (advisory board meetings, etc.) was also instrumental. Advocacy. JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu

18. Future Work • We will continue to improve our faculty engagement, our STEM curricular and co-curricular activities, and our university leadership/systems at Boise State University • We are interested in working with other universities and groups to determine how this framework might be further developed or used. JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu

19. Acknowledgments • This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation, under Grant Nos DUE-0856815 (Idaho STEP) and DUE-0963659 (I^3) and DUE-1347830 (WIDER). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. • The authors also acknowledge the foundational support provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s Engineering Schools of the West Initiative • We also acknowledge the leadership and administrative support provided by Provost Martin Schimpf, Associate Provost Sharon McGuire, former Provost SonaAndrews (Provost, PSU), former Dean of Engineering Cheryl Schrader (Chancellor, MUST), Deans Amy Moll and Tony Roark, and the input provided by Donna Llewellyn, Georgia Tech. JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu

20. Questions? JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu

21. STEM Identity Development