creating a stem identity: investment with return

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-IndianapolisJune 17, 2014

IntroductionThis 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.

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

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?

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)

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. E. Seymour (2001). Tracking the progress of change in US undergraduate education in science and mathematics, engineering and technology. Science Education, 86, 79-105.

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…

STEM Enrollment Growth Fall 06 – Fall 13Boise State University

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.

Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2,063 2,161 2,238 2,421 2,757 3,004 3,348 3,655

STEM BSU

Enro

llmen

t %

STEM enrollment grew 77% since Fall 06

19,657 19,04217,36017,34916,69616,417

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

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…

A: Faculty Engagement/

LevelStage

DescriptorCommunity

0 Autonomous Faculty work independently on coursework, �projects, etc. Little to no discussion on pedagogy, course outcomes, etc.

Individual efforts in departments� No central STEM Integration�

Faculty recognize need for and begin �communication within the department to improve courses, pedagogy within a course

Limited, if any, interaction with constituent �departments.

Building/ Individuals reach across departments for �specific projects

Connecting Constituents consulted�

STEM education research a university focus� Extensive integration and �development of STEM student success programs

Policies and strategic plans deliberately �include STEM

Interdisciplinary STEM faculty learning �communities are commonplace

Learning outcomes span courses �and departments

Specify data to measure STEM outcomes� We, the faculty, a collaborative effort�STEM faculty engage on curricular, co-�curricular, scholarly work, policies

Curriculum and learning �outcomes integrated across STEM departments

University systems enable STEM goals�

STEM center seen as resource for faculty �success

Students identify with STEM as a �community

Resources allocated in a way that �recognizes STEM goals and strategic plan

Integrated STEM first-year curriculum� University systems deployed, if �needed, for integration

2 Specific curricular and co-�curricular projects (such as math success) are undertaken

University leaders join ownership of STEM �grants or initiatives

3Collaborating /Unifying

4 Integrated

B: STEM Curricular/Co-Curricular Activities

C: University Leadership/ Systems

1 Exploring Departments try diffusing their �successes to other departments

Task forces and initiatives that recognize �STEM needs

Development of Integrated STEM Efforts

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

Case 2: Math integration with other STEM departments, from 0 to 3

A: Faculty Engagement/

LevelStage

DescriptorCommunity






STEM education research a university focus�

Interdisciplinary STEM faculty learning �communities are commonplace We, the faculty, a collaborative effort�STEM faculty engage on curricular, co-�curricular, scholarly work, policies


Integrated STEM first-year curriculum�

2


4 Integrated

1 Exploring

• [0] 2005-6: who you took/what you learned – avg pass rate in 05 for Calc I was 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

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

LevelStage

Descriptor

0 Autonomous No central STEM Integration�

Building/

Connecting


Specify data to measure STEM outcomes�



2University leaders join ownership of STEM �grants or initiatives


4 Integrated


1 Exploring Task forces and initiatives that recognize �STEM needs

• 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.

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, andgraduation in STEM disciplines,” and “Build select doctoral programs with a priority in professional and STEM disciplines.”

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

LevelStage

Descriptor

0 Autonomous No central STEM Integration�

Building/

Connecting


Specify data to measure STEM outcomes�



2University leaders join ownership of STEM �grants or initiatives


4 Integrated


1 Exploring Task forces and initiatives that recognize �STEM needs

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

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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 Sona Andrews (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.

[email protected]

Questions?

[email protected]

STEM Identity DevelopmentA: Faculty Engagement/

LevelStage

DescriptorCommunity


Individual efforts in departments� No central STEM Integration�





STEM education research a university focus� Extensive integration and �development of STEM student success programs


Interdisciplinary STEM faculty learning �communities are commonplace

Learning outcomes span courses �and departments

Specify data to measure STEM outcomes� We, the faculty, a collaborative effort�STEM faculty engage on curricular, co-�curricular, scholarly work, policies

Curriculum and learning �outcomes integrated across STEM departments



Students identify with STEM as a �community


Integrated STEM first-year curriculum� University systems deployed, if �needed, for integration

2 Specific curricular and co-�curricular projects (such as math success) are undertaken

University leaders join ownership of STEM �grants or initiatives


4 Integrated

B: STEM Curricular/Co-Curricular Activities


1 Exploring Departments try diffusing their �successes to other departments

Task forces and initiatives that recognize �STEM needs

creating a stem identity: investment with return

Documents