Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Graduate School of Child Development and Education
Involving Staff in Undergraduate Support Programs for
African American and Chicano Transfer Students:
A case study exploring perspectives
Masterscriptie Onderwijskunde Universiteit van Amsterdam Naam student: J. Heijnen Studentnummer: 10333487 Begeleiding: Prof. Dr. S. E. Severiens Tweede lezer: Dr. E. J. Kuiper Berkeley, Californië, april 2015
Running head: INVOLVING PROGRAM STAFF IN SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Graduate School of Child Development and Education
Involving Staff in Undergraduate Support Programs for
African American and Chicano Transfer Students:
A case study exploring perspectives
Masterscriptie Onderwijskunde Universiteit van Amsterdam Naam student: J. Heijnen Studentnummer: 10333487 Begeleiding: Prof. Dr. S. E. Severiens Tweede lezer: Dr. E. J. Kuiper Berkeley, Californië, april 2015
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Involving Program Staff in Support Programs 4
Theoretical Framework 7
Perspectives on differences 7
Approaches to student support 9
Research Question 11
Subsidiary Research Questions 11
Motivation Research Questions 12
Method 12
Design 12
Sample 12
Instruments 13
Operationalization subsidiary research questions 1 13
Operationalization subsidiary research questions 2 & 3 14
Data Analysis 14
Data collection procedure 14
Data analysis procedure 15
Findings 16
Findings of Subsidiary Research Question 1: Support Programs 16
Area of operation 21
Targeted population 21
Admission policy 22
Age 23
Funding 23
Findings of Subsidiary Research Question 2: Perspectives on Differences 23
Deficit perspective 24
Opportunity perspective 26
Reflection on analysis of perspectives 27
Findings of Research Question 3: Approach to student support 29
Individual/student-centered approach 30
Structural/institution-centered approach 30
Reflection on analysis of approaches 31
Structural/institution-centered disposition 33
Discussion 36
Limitations 39
Future Research 40
Implications for Practice 41
Conclusion 44
Abstract
The purpose of this case study is to explore programs that support African American and Chicano transfer students in undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics majors. I investigate the perspectives that inform nine support programs at the University of California, Berkeley. Data has been collected from both program staff and program descriptions. Both an academic and a social deficit perspective were found – although the academic deficit perspective appears to be uncommon in the program in
practice. The program staff directly working with the students emphasized a strength
perspective on differences. Moreover, my findings suggest that program staff barely applies a
structural/institution-centered approach. However, they unanimously have a
structural/institution-centered disposition. I argue that this disposition is potentially
underutilized in undergraduate STEM student support programs. Implications for program practitioners include the challenge to transform these dispositions into action. Suggestions for future research on student support programs are intended to persuade academics to utilize the input of the practitioners who work directly with students. Finally, I invite future research to test the hypothesized significance of the institutional/structural-centered disposition.
Involving Staff in Undergraduate Support Programs for African American and Chicano Transfer Students
Equal access to higher education is a global issue, with young people from
low-economic and ethnic minority backgrounds still underrepresented (Clarke & Lunt, 2008). This is also true for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) majors in U.S. higher education (e.g. Chang, Sharkness, Hurtado, & Newman, 2014; Eagan et al., 2013). Bachelor degrees in STEM are awarded to African-American and Chicano1 students at disproportionately lower rates than to White and Asian students – despite the fact that these students are just as interested in STEM fields as their White and Asian American peers (e.g. Eagan et al., 2013).
At the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), in the Spring semester of 2014, 1.1% of all undergraduate STEM students were African American, and 3.8% were Chicano.
African American and Chicano students were also underrepresented in UCB’s STEM bachelor degree attainment rates, namely 1% and 4.1%, respectively, for the 2012-2013 academic year (CalAnswer, 2014). This ethnic representation of degree attainment does not reflect the State of California’s population. The latest census conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau found that, of the people between the ages of 15 and 24 residing in California, 7.5% were African American, and 37.8% were Chicanos. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010).
Scholars have addressed the importance of the community college pathway to a four-year institution to increase representation of African American students in Bachelor degree attainment.. (e.g. Chen, 2015; Jackson, Starobin, & Laanan, 2013). These studies stress the
1
In this article the term “Chicano” is defined as Mexican-American. Some of the referenced sources (i.e. literature, data) use the term “Latino”. This term refers to a broader category that includes Chicanos.
importance of the community college pathway. At UCB, African American and Chicano students in STEM majors are better represented among the transfer2 population than they are in the remaining undergraduate STEM population. In the Spring semester of 2014, 1.8% of STEM transfer students were African American, and 5.4% were Chicano. But research has revealed obstacles for students transferring from a community college to a 4-year institution: e.g. competitive and sometimes hostile institutional climate; insufficient skill set (research skills, analytical skills, etc.); lack of cultural and social capital; culture shock; financial concerns; and adjustment issues (e.g. Gray Davies & Dickmann, 1998; Hughes & Graham, 1992; Rendon, 1995; Laanan 2007; Rhine, Milligan, & Nelson, 2000).
The opportunities, experiences, and support that African American and Chicano students receive after transferring to high-prestige universities influence their STEM bachelor degree attainment rates (Chang, Eagan, Lin, & Hurtado, 2011; Espinosa, 2011). This study endorses the argument made by Chang, Sharkness, Hurtado, and Newman (2014): an immediate task for institutions of higher education is to improve the retention of African American and Chicano undergraduates who enter college, by supporting them in their educational career.
At many institutions of higher education, including UCB, student support programs serve the population of African American and Chicano transfer students in STEM. However, no plenary overview of undergraduate student support efforts for African American and Chicano transfer students in pursuit of a STEM degree at UCB is available. It is self-evident that a comprehensive understanding of the existing programs and their characteristics should precede the investigation of their functioning.
2
In this article “transfer student” is defined as a student who enters a four-year institution at the junior level after acquiring the prerequisites for admission at a community college.
The level at which these so-called student support programs function is subject to investigation; their effectiveness is arguably insufficient. For example, it has been argued that student support programs in STEM are often transitory at best (Fairweather, 2008).Fox, Sonnert, and Nikiforova (2009) argue that STEM programs convey the conceptions and cultural assumptions of those who organize them. The organizers’ perception of the demand for support informs their framework for the program. Similarly, that framework is subject to what the organizers believe can be done to improve the performance and participation of the supported student population.
An important segment of these so-called organizers is the program staff3. Staff perceptions are a crucial source of information to better understand student support efforts in STEM. Among other things, staff members are responsible for coordinating and developing program activities, and they are often in direct contact with the students (e.g. Fox, Sonnert, & Nikiforova 2009; Greene, DeStefano, Burgon, & Hall, 2006). However, it has been argued that the staff’s knowledge is often overlooked by scholars investigating support programs (Bensimon, 2007).
In summary, African American and Chicano students are underrepresented in
undergraduate STEM graduation rates. Community college pathways are especially important for these students in pursuit of a STEM degree. Transfer students face various challenges at four-year institutions. Support programs at institutions issuing STEM bachelor degrees aim to increase graduation rates of African American and Chicano transfer students. A study of perceptions among staff who work directly with students can contribute to a better understanding of these programs. The purpose of this study is to explore programs that
3
In this article I use the terms “program staff”, “practitioner”, “and “program practitioner” interchangeably. These terms refer to people working in Student Support Programs.
support African American and Chicano transfer students in undergraduate STEM majors at UCB; to investigate the perspectives underlying these programs; and to offer suggestions for practice and future research.
Theoretical Framework Perspectives on Differences
Two views offer contradictory perspectives on differences among students from different ethnic, cultural, and economic backgrounds: namely, the deficit perspective and the
opportunity perspective.
Within the deficit perspective, student support programs adhere to a common
philosophy that accepts and emphasizes the dominant institution’s culture (Sleeter & Grant, 1988): such an attitude presumes that support is needed to help students with their burden of “catching up” with the dominant culture. Another example of the deficit perspective is an emphasis on the relationship between minorities’ persistence in STEM majors and minority students’ supposedly low academic self-efficacy (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986; Lent et al., 2001).
The deficit perspective can be further subdivided into academic deficit and
social-cultural deficit. Tinto´s model of institutional integration (1975) provides a theoretical
foundation for this subdivision. Tinto describes that the process of integration takes place within both the social and academic systems simultaneously. Students’ integration into the institution’s social system comprises student interactions with their peers and faculty. Integration into the institution’s academic system comprises the students´ intellectual development and grade performance.
Various studies argue that there is a need for academic support among African American and Chicano students in STEM majors at four-year institutions (e.g. Perna et al., 2009; Slovacek, Tucker, & Whittinghill, 2008; Slovacek, Whittinghill, Flenoury, & Wiseman, 2012; Slovacek et al., 2011), implying a supposed academic deficiency among the targeted
population. The need for social/cultural support among African American and Chicano students in STEM majors at four-year institutions is likewise argued in a variety of studies (e.g. Berger & Milem, 1999; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004; Hurtado, Carter, Spuler, 1996; Locks, Hurtado, Bowman & Oseguera, 2008; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004; Toven-Lindsey, Levis-Fitzgerald, Barber & Hasson, 2015), implying a social/cultural deficiency among the targeted population.
Despite persistent application, scholars have critiqued deficit thinking. For instance, Valancia (1997) reproaches this approach to differences: “Deficit thinking is tantamount to the process of ‘blaming the victim’. It is a model founded on imputation, not documentation” (p. 5). The deficit thinking model has provided a framework for explaining the failure of educational institutions to successfully educate economically disadvantaged and African American and Chicano students. Valancia (1997) argues that this discourse fails to address the true sources of educational inequality and instead offers opportunities to avoid accountability. In line with the opportunity perspective, some support services emphasize a student’s
opportunities rather than the susceptibility to a deficit related to their ethnic, cultural and
economic background. The opportunity perspective can further be subdivided – into diversity
as a resource and diversity as a strength. Diversity as a resource presumes that a diverse
STEM field is desirable. For example, studies reflecting this perspective suggest that ethnic diversity in STEM benefits all students (Wood & Sherman, 2001). Gurin, Nagda, and Lopez (2004) argue that diversity in education bestows democratic citizenship. Other argumentations emphasize the importance of African American and Chicano STEM degree attainment for the national workforce (Espinosa, 2011; Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011). Similarly, George, Neale, Van Horne, and Malcolm (2001) feel that STEM fields must diversify in order to sustain the nation’s productivity and economic strength.
experiences for African American and Chicano students in STEM are determined by external factors. In other words, rather than burdening the student with catching up, the external forces that cause inequality must be confronted. An example of such an external force might be systemic issues such as racial microagressions, campus climate, and the critical race theory (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Maton and Hrabowski (2004) argued that eliminating such systemic issues can create conditions for African American students in STEM that allow these students to succeed at higher rates. These conditions comprise, among others, an inclusive campus climate; faculty accessibility; and supportive peer communities. Sleeter and Grant (1988) referred to the strength perspective as the “difference orientation” which prioritizes student support based on students’ strengths. In their evaluation of the Meyerhoff Program, Maton and Hrabowski (2004) concluded that in order to support minorities in STEM, it is vital to emphasize students’ strengths: Rather than focusing on the need to catch up, programs that build on student capabilities are more fruitful.
Approaches to Student Support
The perspectives underlying support programs can also be studied through their focus on institutional issues versus individual issues, as Fox, Sonnert,and Nikiforova (2009) described. The individual perspective holds that African American and Chicano transfer students’ success in undergraduate STEM education is influenced by individual
characteristics like attitudes, skills, behavior, experience and aptitudes. For example, the students’ self-confidence in mathematics and his/her internal sense of ability or potential for STEM achievement can hinder success in academic and professional STEM careers (Fox, Sonnert, & Nikiforova, 2009). The institutional perspective holds that African American and Chicano transfer students’ success in undergraduate STEM is affected by factors beyond individual characteristics – such as those that emphasize the extent to which students are being included or excluded from certain activities like research groups and social interactions;
students’ access to human and material resources; and different standards of evaluation for different students (Fox, Sonnert, & Nikiforova, 2009).
To elucidate retention issues in Higher Education, Thomas (2002) studied the case of a university in England that managed to successfully diversify its student body. Her study concluded that in order to successfully educate higher education students from low-income backgrounds, a serious commitment on the part of the institution is required. The study suggested that institutions must be willing to revise power structures, and acknowledge the inadequacy of blaming these students for not succeeding in higher education. The
responsibility for change must be the institutions’. It appears expedient to address how and
why our institutions fail these students.
In order to better understand how the institutions’ support their students and why some are more successful than others, Fox, Sonnert, and Nikiforova (2009) studied programs for undergraduate female STEM students in higher education. They created a framework to analyze support programs for underrepresented minority students in undergraduate STEM education. Using data from a quantitative longitudinal study, Fox, Sonnert and Nikiforova selected a sample of the ten most and ten least successful programs out of a total of forty-nine undergraduate STEM support programs nationwide. Subsequently, they studied the program features, organizational choices, strategic approaches, and premises. Their findings suggested that STEM support programs were of two major types: individual/student-centered and
institutional/structural-centered. Programs with an institutional/structural-centered focus are
critical of the institutional environment, and they engage in an ongoing effort to strengthen relationships with other programs and faculty. These programs focus primarily on their ties to faculty and administrators; they are characterized by a tendency to challenge the institutions' organizational values and status quo. In contrast, individual/student-centered programs tend to adopt institutional goals without challenging or considering the institutions’ formulated
missions and organizational values. The individual/student-centered programs stand alongside the institution, characterized by conformity. Unlike the institutional/structural-centered support programs, individual/student-centered programs did not play an active role within the institutions’ organizational structure.
This quest to explore programs that support African American and Chicano transfer students in undergraduate STEM majors is primarily shaped by these two theoretical
parameters: perspectives on differences; approach to student support. The following questions have guided my research in an attempt to understand what types of programs are provided at UCB, and ultimately what underpinning perspectives shape the support efforts.
Central Research Question
What perspectives underpin the undergraduate student support programs at the
University of California, Berkeley that support African American and Chicano community college transfer students in pursuit of a STEM degree?
Subsidiary Questions
1. What types of undergraduate student support programs at UCB support African American and Chicano transfer students in pursuit of a STEM degree?
2. What perspectives on differences – in terms of deficit and opportunity – underpin the identified student support programs?
3. What approaches – in terms of individual/student-centeredness and structural/institution-centeredness – characterize the identified student support programs?
Motivation Research Questions
The first subsidiary research question describes the UCB landscape of available support programs and creates a foundation for subsequent exploration of the remaining research questions. The second and third subsidiary research questions initiate exploration of the research objective. Based on the premises referenced in the theoretical framework, both a
deficit perspective on differences, and an individual/student-centered approach are less desirable discourses for the defined student support efforts. To answer the second subsidiary research question, I will explore how perceptions of differences between African American and Chicano transfer students versus their non-transfer and White peers underpin the
identified support programs. I will utilize the third subsidiary research question to discern the predominant traits of programs with regard to their approach toward support, i.e. student-centeredness or institution-student-centeredness.
Method Design
In this qualitative study, I researched the objective by means of what Yin (2013) calls an “exploratory case study”. I explore the perspectives underlying programs that provide support to African American and Chicano transfer students in undergraduate STEM education. My investigation covers multiple subunits (i.e. support programs) within the institutional boundaries of UCB.
In accordance with what Baxter and Jack (2008) describe as a qualitative case study, my study was designed to use various data sources (i.e. multiple sources of evidence) as well as various lenses. I answer the research question by investigating student support programs on two different levels, or through various data sources: curriculum on paper, and curriculum in practice (van den Akker, 2003). On the one hand, I analyze the “formal-written” program obtained from publicly available program descriptions – i.e. the program on paper. On the other hand, I analyze the “perceived-program” obtained from staff working directly with African American and Chicano transfer students – i.e. the program in practice. I investigate underlying perspectives of the support programs through the dual lenses of the
“deficit-opportunity perspective” and the “student/institution-centered” frameworks.
Sample
African American and Chicano community college transfer students in pursuit of a STEM degree at UCB. They may serve a broader but not more limited population. In this study, these entities of student support are referred to as “programs” (although in actuality some of them self-identify as a “center” or “project”). I identified these programs in various ways – through internet searches, and discussions with program staff via phone, email and informal meetings. I compiled the following list of UCB programs: NERDS, Biology Scholars Program, Center for Engineering Efficient Electronics Science, Center for Access to Engineering Excellence, Academic Achievement Programs, SAGE Scholars Program,
Student Learning Center, Transfer Re-entry and Student Parent Center, Compass Project, and Professional Development Program.
I subsequently contacted all practitioners known within these support programs, meeting with a total of twenty-one practitioners. They participated in a preliminary interview to elucidate their support program as well as their role in it. The preliminary interviews facilitated a purposive sample selection of program staff for formal interviews: I selected those with significant experience with supporting undergraduate African American and Chicano community college transfer students in STEM, and with direct student interactions. Not all program staff working in programs serving this specific population met these
requirements. A total of fourteen program managers and program directors (research objects), in nine different programs (subunits), participated in a formal interview. Publicly available program descriptions for all nine programs were selected. Included in the data is information about the programs’ vision, mission, goals, results, admission requirements, and history.
Instruments
Operationalization research question 1. I made a preliminary selection of identifiers
for six types of program characteristics: Selected identifiers for the area of operation were (1) affiliations with certain departments or collages; specific STEM or STEM field orientation;
lists of enrolled scholars and their majors; and physical locations of centers or offices. The targeted population (2) was identified through, among other factors, the program’s own description of support recipients; dedication to support for a specific population; motivation for providing support; program’s purpose and goals. Indicators for the admission policy (3) were signaled by terms such as enrollment requirements; eligibility; application checklist; and other terms. Indicators for the programs’ age (4) and funding (5) were the founding year and the origin of their financial means. Finally, indicators for program activities (6) were defined by terms such as we provide; the program offers; our services; etc.
Operationalization of research question 2 and 3. I identified four central concepts: deficit perspective and opportunity perspective (research question 2a); individual/student-centered approach and structural/institution-individual/student-centered approach (research question 2b). For
each central concept, I formulated indicators according to the literature discussed in the theoretical framework. Based on these indicators, I formulated interview questions that
steered the responses in a direction that allowed me to identify the central concepts (Figure 1).
Data Analysis
Data collection procedure. With regard to the first subsidiary research question,
publicly available program descriptions of all nine programs were collected from the
programs’ website, leaflets, and brochures. Occasionally, I asked support staff for additional factual information. With regard to the second and third subsidiary research questions, in addition to the collected program descriptions, the selected staff members were approached for an interview. Participants were informed by email about the topic of the study, the nature of the interview, and the scheduled time for the interview. The research questions and the specifics about the theoretical demarcation were not shared with the respondents. This limited the chance of respondents modifying their responses to what they thought was a desired answer. Along with the email, I sent a letter of informed consent that elaborated on the code
of conduct. Prior to starting the interview, the investigator and the interviewee both signed copies of this form. The interviewee was provided with a signed copy. Afterwards,
participants received an email of appreciation and subsequently the interview transcription. Figure 1. Operationalization Research Questions 2 & 3.
Data analysis procedures. In attempting to answer the first subsidiary research
question, I analyzed the program on paper and allocated characteristics to all nine programs. In attempting to answer the second and third subsidiary research questions, I used the
indicators as described in the operationalization paragraph to analyze both the program descriptions (i.e. program on paper) and the interview transcriptions (i.e. program in
practice). I initially applied a pattern matching technique to identify patterns that represented
the central concepts of the initial analytical process (Yin, 2013). I reviewed each transcription and each program description systemically, looking for one central concept at a time. The central concepts (i.e. deficit perspectives, opportunity perspectives,
individual/student-centered approach, and structural/institution-individual/student-centered approach) were matched with the
IQA1: What causes these differences?
IQA2: How does the program approach these differences? IQA3: How do you approach the differences?
IQB1: From your point of view, what do you consider the
most important goals and activities of the program?
IQB2: How would you describe the program’s relationship
with the department/university?
IQB3: Could you tell me something about the way the
larger organization (department/university) facilitates or complicates the program's ability to support African American and Chicano transfer students?
IQB4: Do you have a role in shaping
institutional/organizational features?
IQB5: Does the program get involved in
organizational/institutional policy decisions?
Opportunity perspective: Emphasis on the abilities and
opportunities of student population. Students bring with them a valuable skillset.
Deficit perspective: Emphasis on the need to catch up.
Students are behind and need extra support to succeed at UCB.
Individual/student-centered approach: 1) Focus on
addressing individuals and on helping these students succeed in their educational career. 2) Uncritically adopting the universities’ status quo.
Structural/institution-centered approach: 1)
comprehension of the dynamics of its surroundings (the institution and it characteristics and features). 2) Challenging the university’s organization and its conventional approaches. 3) Concerned with expanding and maintaining a network outside the program.
Opportunity perspective Deficit perspective
Individual /student-centered approach Structural/institution-centered approach
Indicator s
Interview Questions Central Concepts
identified patterns. This process was repeated a couple of times. I subsequently copied all the patterns and summed them up in an attempt to understand the overall case. Convergence of the data was ensured to guarantee an analysis of the entire unit of analysis within the boundaries of the predetermined context, avoiding data analysis confined to the subunits. Findings have been subjected to critical reflection and a continuous retrospective process of analyzing has been applied. I reveal new analytical lenses, and look for suitable ways to extend and deepen the analysis.
Findings
Findings of Subsidiary Research Question 1: Support Programs
I studied a wide variety of support programs: patterns of similarity between the acquired data are not discovered easily. In an attempt to draw a clear picture of the explored entities, I formulated concise descriptions of the selected subunits (i.e. support programs).
Program 1 aims to serve non-traditional students (i.e. ethnically underrepresented, economically disadvantaged, first-generation) in their pursuit of a STEM degree in a particular STEM field, and operating within a particular department. Program 1 seeks to enhance peer group interaction; it fosters the development of leadership qualities and innovative problem-solving skills. It provides student support through various efforts in the form of sub-programs focusing on research experience; complementary courses/seminars; professional development workshops; financial support; and the development of research presentation skills. A unique characteristic is that it deviates from a conventional, grade-based admission policy: Instead, Program 1 selects students based on characteristics such as
resilience, inclination to seek and give help, persistence, and authenticity. Program 1 was founded over two decades ago by the same people who are now still acting as program director and faculty/student advisor. Program 2 aims to supports high achieving and low-income undergraduate students in developing their academic and professional skills. The
targeted students are not limited to the STEM departments, and it operates campus-wide. Students work with experts and leaders in their field through professional training, mentoring/coaching, guided research, paid internships, networking opportunities, and workshops. Program 2 connects participants to a faculty-coach in their own department, and to an external professional-coach. Besides bridging the gap between students and the
professional world, Program 2 accommodates the participants by providing them a refuge, a peer community, and counseling services. Program 2 collects application documentation for low/income students from the admission office to recruit students prior to their arrival on campus. The applicants admitted are those with limited financial means and a minimum GPA of 3.0 during the previous semester. This program was founded about 15 years ago by the same person who remained active as the executive director until 2014.
Program 3 envisions a more diverse constellation of the STEM field. It attempts to prepare students across the entire campus and from non-traditional backgrounds for success in STEM careers. Its direct goal is to strengthen the STEM pipeline from high school to graduate school, keeping in mind the student’s professional success. Program 3 maintains a merit-based admission policy. It provides courses, workshops, and opportunities for internships in order to help students gain skills to successfully navigate the transition between academic college culture and the professional world. In collaboration with the Mathematics Department and with the help of graduate student instructors, students work together to solve complex problems and build the solid math foundations needed for STEM expertise. Furthermore, this program is engaged in developing professional skills for high school teachers, and in
improving Math curriculum and problem-solving skills. Program 3 was founded over three decades ago.
Program 4 supports undergraduate and graduate STEM students in their academic and professional career preparation across the entire campus. It fosters a strong community among
its diverse student population, and facilitates a student center referred to as a “home away from home”. Support services are designed for “non-traditional” students (i.e. ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, socio-economic status, first-generation, veterans, language, etc.). Program 4 provides a wide variety of services such as math and physics tutoring; summer research opportunities; leadership training; science writing training; advising; scholarships; assistance for graduate school and fellowship applications; research conference travel; and research presentation training. In addition, the program provides eight STEM research programs: seven undergraduate research programs and one for graduate students. The program applies a merit-based admission policy. Program 4 was founded over a decade ago by the person who still operates as the programs director.
Program 5 has a campus-wide scope that fosters students’ academic excellence in all departments through peer tutoring. Program 5 emphasizes STEM-related academic services by providing support in math and statistics, science, science writing, study strategies, and pedagogical skills for students who want peer tutoring. Moreover, the center offers a special service for transfer students, preparing them for upper-division courses and facilitating them in the transition process to UCB. The transfer student initiative goes beyond mere academic support and aims to help students in the process of acclimating to the university and
establishing their identity as a scholar. Program 5 was founded over four decades ago and serves approximately 8,500 students annually. This program applies an open admission policy.
Program 6 aims to diversify a specific section of the STEM community and supports traditionally underrepresented students in that field (especially women, Chicano, African American, Native American, and LGBTQ students) in becoming innovators and leaders in the service of the society. Program 6 is open to all undergraduates within the College of Engineering. Program 6 provides academic support services like peer tutoring for all entry
level engineering courses, study groups and workshops. Furthermore, it provides a one-year program in which transfer students and freshman students are given the opportunity to feed their altruistic drive and commitment to social justice for underserved communities.
Participating students take classes on cultural issues and social justice, while developing their own product to contribute to the community. Additionally, Program 6 offers an 8-day
program in the summer prior to the students’ first semester at UCB. This 8-day program facilitates the transition to UCB for non-traditional students (from a low-income background, first-generation, non-traditionally aged, parents, and veterans) through community building, workshops on social issues, resources, network building, and information on available
resources. This support effort is offered in two different versions: one is specifically designed for transfer students and the other for freshman. Aside from the eight days, students engage in group-study projects during the subsequent first semester. Program 6 opened its doors in 2013.
Program 7 aims to stimulate, but is not limited to, students from diverse backgrounds (underrepresented ethnicities, women, first-generation, and veterans) in a specific STEM field. Program 7 offers research internship programs, summer research programs, community college outreach program (research experience for community college students), and summer fellowships for community college teachers. Program 7 operates in a couple STEM
departments, emphasizing professional development to prepare students for graduate school. One of their services is specifically designed for transfer students and admits students based on their grades for the STEM courses they took at their community college. Program 7 is funded by the National Science Foundation and was founded 5 years ago.
Program 8 promotes academic excellence for undergraduates at UCB. It aims to support student populations defined as first-generation students, low-income students, and/or students from underrepresented groups. Program 8 operates with a campus-wide scope.
Support is provided through four sub-programs, one of which is specifically aimed at community college transfer students. This program provides a scholarship and stipend to students who have transferred from a community college to UCB. The students are given the opportunity to do research and develop leadership skills through community service projects, under the guidance of faculty. Besides the undergraduate research and community service projects, Program 8 offers the opportunity to work with a mentor; to participate in weekly sessions to improve study skills and prepare for graduate school; and to attend social gatherings, allowing students to connect with peers. The program enrolls low-income and first-generation college students who have transferred from a Californian community college to UCB. Students are accepted based on their potential leadership skills, academic excellence, and their determination to ameliorate the situation for the community. Program 8 was founded almost two decades ago.
Program 9 aims to improve undergraduate education in a specific STEM field and emphasizes the goal of increasing retention and professional development among students from populations typically underrepresented. It is an initiative of a group of students and is run by graduate and undergraduate students alike. The creation of a diverse and collaborative student community is central to this program’s objective. Program 9 operates within a
particular STEM department. Both academic and social support are provided through services such as transfer student courses; research lecture series; mentoring; and a summer program. This program has a somewhat unorthodox stance, ambitiously challenging the dominating conventional pedagogy and trying to change its structure. Program 9 is open to every undergraduate student in the relevant department, regardless of its emphasis on support for non-traditional students. The program was founded over five years ago.
for all the predetermined types of program characteristics (with the exception of “activities”). An overview is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Categorized Program Characteristics per Program.
Program Area of
operation
Targeted population
Admission
policy Age Funding
1 specific
departments non-traditional
non-traditional requirements 20+
public funding, private donors, corporate donors
2 campus-wide non-traditional merit-based 10+ private donors, corporate donors 3 all STEM non-traditional merit-based 30+ private donors, corporate donors 4 all STEM non-traditional merit-based 10+ private donors
5 campus-wide undergraduates open to all 40+ private donors, corporate donors 6 specific college undergraduates open to all 5- university support, corporate donors 7 specific
departments undergraduates merit-based 5- public funding 8 campus-wide transfer students
(non-traditional) merit-based 10+
public funding, university support, private donors
9 specific
departments non-traditional open to all 5+ university support, private donors
Area of operation. The areas in which the studied programs operate can be classified
into three distinct categories: those that support students campus-wide (33%); those that support students in all STEM departments across campus (22%); and those that support students in specific STEM departments (44%).
Targeted population. None of the selected programs publicly support African
American and Chicano community college transfer students in pursuit of an undergraduate STEM degree. Neither do any of these programs target only this specific population. California state legislation4 prohibits programs from targeting students based on ethnic background. Nonetheless, for many support programs the diversification of science, the workforce or the campus is their raison d’être. Unofficially, this often includes ethnic diversity. Among other unofficial targets, ethnic diversity reverberates throughout statistics published on programs’ webpages. For example, programs present the ethnic diversity of their student population in terms of their successful results: “Over the past 20 years, of the 2,080
4
Proposition 209 was passed in 1996. This proposition amended the California Constitution to prohibit public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity. For more information see: http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/html/BP/209text.htm
[program] graduates, 60% have been underrepresented minorities (African American,
Hispanic, and American Indian), 70% women, and 80% from low-income backgrounds and/or the first in their family to attend college.” This unofficial target is also revealed in
conversations with support staff, who expressed their intention to ethnically diversify the STEM field: “… we see the lack of diversity as a problem because we want students to be exposed to diverse opinions and diverse life experiences and perspectives.”
The majority of the studied programs (56%) officially targets populations defined as: first-generation college students, students from low-income families, (single) parent students, non-traditionally aged students, (illegal) immigrant students, veteran students, and transfer students (often referred to as non-traditional students). Others offer their support services to all students in their area of operation (33%). Thus, although the emphasis may be on
supporting non-traditional students, no students are discouraged to enroll. One program (11%) aims its support specifically at community college transfer students.
Admission policy. In some cases, the admission policy cannot be derived directly
from the programs’ targeted population. Sometimes admission requirements are not identical to the characteristics of the targeted student population. For example, Program 9 specifically prioritizes to diversify the field of science and therefore targets students with non-traditional characteristics. However, Program 9 maintains an open admission policy, i.e. all students in their area of operation are admitted upon application. Program 2 maintains a selective
admission policy, demanding traditional admission requirements (i.e. minimum GPA), while targeting students with non-traditional characteristics. Similarly, another program executes a selective admission policy, but instead of a high GPA they demand alternative requirements from their applicants. According to an interviewed practitioner this program vindicates the selection process by emphasizing altruism as a valued characteristic: “I am looking for individuals who like myself and yourself are really concerned about equity and service and in
making the world a better place, and not just trying to make the most money as you can." I categorize these student support programs into three types defined by the admission policy they execute: programs that do not deny admission to anyone in their area of operation (33%); programs that apply a selective admission policy demanding traditional requirements similar to that of the university i.e. grades, leadership skills, etc. (56%); and programs that apply a selective admission policy demanding non-traditional requirements (11%).
Age. The oldest program was founded in 1973 (Program 5). The youngest program
was founded in 2012 (Program 6). Programs are categorized into three categories: founded within the last 10 years (33%); older than 10 years but younger than 20 (33%); and older than 20 years (33%).
Funding. Four types of funding were identified. Generally, programs receive multiple
types of funding simultaneously. Some of the studied programs receive: public funding (22%) from the State or Federal budget; some rely on resources provided directly by corporations, or indirectly from institutions created by one or more corporations to apply influence on their field of interest (67%); some programs receive funds from either the university’s budget, or the budget of a specific college or department (33%); and some programs receive private donations from individuals like professors, professional sympathizers, and small local businesses (87%).
Findings of Subsidiary Research Question 2: Perspectives on Differences
Evidence for a deficit perspective was found in almost all on paper as well as in almost all in practice programs. Evidence of the opportunity perspective was found in all
programs in practice and in about half of the programs on paper. Examples of evidence that
match a deficit perspective are presented in Table 2, examples of evidence for an opportunity perspective are presented in Table 3.
academically inferior to UCB (a). Publicly available program descriptions echoed an academic deficit perspective by emphasizing their goals to help students overcome their academic deficiency (b). Moreover, program descriptions revealed an academic deficit perspective by emphasizing activities like: academic tutoring, undergraduate research, workshops developing study skills (c).
The social/cultural deficit perspective, among others, presupposes that transfer students often do not know where to find the available resources (d). Another way this
perspective was exposed was in the emphasis on the underrepresentation of African American and Chicano students among faculty and peers. Practitioners point to students’ feelings of isolation which are supposedly caused by a deficit of community on campus (e). According to some support staff, transfer students often misinterpret expectations regarding the institutional culture at UCB (f). Transfer students enter UCB with cultural capital shaped by a community college environment. Non-transfer students come in as a blank slate, and have no experience in higher education. Instead they have two years of lower-division experience ahead to figure it all out, i.e. to explore the possibilities and their options. This line of reasoning demonstrates the assumption that substitution of lower-division experience at UCB with the community college experience results in a social/cultural deficit (g). Some support staff and some program descriptions revealed a deficit perspective through emphasizing the increased likelihood that African American and Chicano transfer students will have a larger gap between the cultures in home and institutional environment. In other words, their cultural capital is less likely to be compatible with the mainstream culture at UCB than that of their white non-transfer peers (h). Publicly available program descriptions also disclosed similar perspectives when presenting their activities supporting social/cultural integration (i). Finally, programs appeared to focus regularly on phenomena that potentially impede African
(j).
Table 2. Examples of Quotes Indicating a Deficit Perspective.
Academic deficit perspective
program in practice (a)
“The rigor between UC Berkeley and maybe the local Peralta community colleges is night and day. The academic rigor, the student make up, what the students experiences are, their backgrounds, the amount of critical thought that is going on, curriculum, plus this is a research institution so the faculty, I mean our faculty write textbooks, they are creating knowledge that the rest of the world is using, top corporations are using, this information, there is almost no comparison between the community colleges and UCB.”
program
on paper (b)
“The […] program looks to assist students in their transition from their general education courses to doing extensive research in their field of study.”
program
on paper (c)
“Scholars participate in weekly sessions on study skills, time management, undergraduate research, and graduate school preparation, and they attend social gatherings with previous […] scholars. Furthermore, they receive ongoing academic support and advising from [our program’s] staff.”
Social/cultural deficit perspective
program in practice (d)
“And so I find with transfer students that the services that they often need is more sort off guiding them to what is going to be available to them, so whether it is something like a tutoring center or like we have here, or the health center, they know these things exist, they just don't necessarily know how and where they exist on campus, where to find them”
program in practice (e)
"When they enter a classroom often they are the only African American students or they are one of only a couple. […] they don't see someone who looks like them [...] and so that can sometimes be very daunting because they feel very isolated. […] especially for those who are [transfer students], because they have less time to build that community"
program in practice (f)
"[..] the biggest difference [..] is [transfer students] expect it to be like community college, they might expect the rigor and the difficulty of the classes to be higher but they don't necessarily expect the culture to be so different. uhhmm, and then I think because they are only going to be here for two years, they also sometimes need a little bit more community building than freshman do[…]. And so I think there is a social aspect that transfer students need a little bit more help with."
program in practice (g)
“There is huge cultural differences in their family values. Their outlook on education maybe totally different than probably that of their white student counterparts. […] African Americans and Latinos students often come from more working, lower-class communities. Especially the once that go through the community college route, those neighborhoods are very aggressive because there is not a lot of opportunity. You have to be very aggressive to survive in a lot of these neighborhoods. So when you come here, this aggressiveness is not taken the same way, to where as you need that in our communities to get what you need in the store or different things dealing with people, here is taken in a totally different way.”
program
on paper (h)
“This is of particular concern for students who don’t have family members who have been to college and who may not be well-equipped to anticipate and deal with these challenges constructively […]
program
on paper (i)
[The program] creates a strong, welcoming community in order to help confront these challenges. By joining a network of mentors, peers, and friends, [the program’s students] find the knowledge and support they need to succeed in college.”
program in practice (j)
"[Students from low-income backgrounds] feel the imposture syndrome to a greater extent, they feel like ‘ooh my god, they let me in by mistake, I am not good enough to be here’ ”.
Opportunity perspective. One way in which the strength perspective occurs is in the
UCB straight out of high school (a). A program staff member explained that the disruptive life paths, which transfer students are more likely to follow, provide them with remunerative attributes (b). The presumption that transfer students have developed a distinguishable level of maturity is widespread among the interviewed practitioners. They point to a variety of strengths: self-knowledgeable, more focused, more resourceful, better study skills, more clarity of their own goals, and a better sense of direction (c).
The diversity as a resource perspective is the belief that transfer students bring with them a set of experiences which could benefit the non-transfer population (e). Some programs incorporate the view that community college students are a neglected talent pool for the workforce (f). The supposition that the academic STEM field can benefit from some of the features that the targeted populations bring with them is shared among several of the investigated programs (g).
Table 3. Examples of Indicators for Opportunity Perspective
Strength perspective
Program in
practice (a)
"Community College students typically come with a lot more life experience than freshman. […] Students who have gone to community college have not typically had sort of a straight line path to higher education, they have done many other things and continue to do many other things while in school. They have split responsibilities and that plays out in their lives in a very big way. Responsibilities, finance, family, and many many other things. And so, community college students, I would say, have a better sense of life beyond the books then do students who come straight out of high school into Berkeley."
Program in
practice (b)
"The fact that Freshman students can come straight from high school and not via the community college. There is not complete chaos going on. Whereas a lot of our transfer students that I have [worked with], […] the reason that they did the other route, there is sometimes a lot going on, some of them dropped out of school. Some of them are homeless for a while, you know all kinds of crazy situations where they had to face and overcome those situations before they could go on and get back to community college. So I think for these transfer students there can be a lot more challenging circumstances that they had to face more on their own. Whereas the freshman, they've had challenging circumstances, but they had still had their families. Or typically, at least in some form. [..] they just typically have a less ordinary life path. [..] they have really overcome a lot, and they can bring a lot to the table in that sense"
Program in
practice (c)
"I see Transfer students as much more mature and oftentimes they are [ethnically] non-traditional students. […] Obviously they are […] significantly older than the Freshman coming in, and that leaves them with a lot more maturity. […]Some of them are parents. […] They tend to be a lot more self-knowledgeable. […] And how they operate and navigate through life as a whole. […] They have a better sense of what they want, you know, what they wanna do, what they are here [for]. And so they are really focused.”
Program in
practice (e)
“There is a lot the community college student can give to the younger naive student. And I say this quit bluntly to a lot of the students.
Program in
practice (f)
"I really belief that community colleges are where we are going to find our diversity, uhm, our workforce."
Program in
practice (f)
"And what types of individuals, what types of professionals will they be in the future? The doctor who comes from privilege, the doctor who has never had to work a day in her life? A doctor who is always used to getting is going to be a very different doctor than the doctor who maybe at 30 goes to medical school and had to scramble all of his life, yeah? That is going to be a very different doctor who comes from that sort of background. And he is gonna have a very different perspective around patients and equity and inclusion, you know, health disparities, those sorts of things."
Program on
paper (g)
“Diversity among the ‘practitioner’s of science is essential at all levels because the unique experiences of each scientist contribute to the range of ideas within the scientific community.”
Reflection on analysis of perspectives. A critical evaluation of the predetermined
theoretical framework is warranted. My framework has led to an analysis that exposes two sides of the same coin; emphasizing differences between student populations inevitably exposes a deficit perspective. The following response is a blatant example of this limitation. Rather than emphasizing the opportunities for transfer students, this practitioner suggested that non-transfer students oftentimes have a deficiency. In other words, setting a
standard/norm inevitably results in a deficit and opportunity simultaneously.
[Non-transfer students] are just not as resourceful… many of [them] are lucky
enough to come from upper middle class, or upper class income standards. Never had to do their own laundry, never had a balance check book, barely can read a bus schedule.
The predetermined framework seems incapable of describing the practitioners’ nuanced understanding of differences between student populations. For example, support staff tend to be aware of both advantages and disadvantages that come with being a transfer student in STEM: “Academically you could see it as a disadvantage but not a disadvantage completely. There are some positive things about being a transfer student.”
Despite this limitation, analysis through my initial lens exposed meaningful entry points for a deepened analysis, one of which is rooted in the question: differences between
students in STEM major as a group with shared characteristics; they appeared to be well aware of the caution that is required when addressing differences between student populations.
Race does matter, gender matters, and all the stereotypes play out. It depends upon how you set up the situation, either of self-fulfilling prophecies or not, around utter performance or not, all that sort of stuff and I am really cautious.
Acknowledgement of the complications that come with generalizing on the basis of ethnicity is expressed by the vast majority of the interviewed support staff. Another example
demonstrates the practitioners´ hesitation for ethnic generalization. This practitioner explained the influence of the socio-ecological context (i.e. academic level of parents, class,
neighborhood of upbringing, age, financial situation, etc.):
I will not, I can't generalize about groups, but I know about the interactions of groups with their social environment, and the institutional environment and so on. And so, I am not avoiding your question, but what I am is, I am placing your question in a more ecological, socio-ecological context.
Almost all interviewed program staff members share the presumption that the students’ socio-economic environment is a better predictor for need of support than their ethnicity. A
practitioner responded: “Cultural differences? Again that is really less specifically depending on [...] ethnicity, it is more the community you lived in.” Another example demonstrates the prevalent presumption that demand for support exceeds ethnic boundaries: “[…] white students have told me that because they are in a classification of […] poor students, they are the minority, so they have experienced some exclusion because of that.”
The interviewed practitioners argue that the victims of competition are in the first place sentenced to their disadvantages by their environments. A practitioner explains:
from more working, lower-class communities, especially the ones that go through the community college route”. The vast majority of support staff emphasized that class is an adequate indicator for inequality. However, support staff seemed aware of the obstacles that African American and Chicano students encounter: “Students that are underrepresented, so the Hispanic, Native American, African American, I think that they have more pressure put on them because […] they are trying to prove that they belong and that they are smart enough to be here.” While support staff almost unanimously mentioned the probability that African American and Chicano students might feel like impostures, feel excluded, and lack the feeling of belonging, only a few addressed racism specifically: "Sometimes people look at [African American students] in a distressful way like ‘what are you doing here?’, they are expecting them to misbehave." Some support staff mentioned the devastating reality that African American and Chicano students are sometimes forced to deal with. One practitioner shared a story about one of his/her students: "He was working in lab at night and walking down the hall and somebody reminded him that the garbage needs to be emptied."
Findings of Research Question 3: Approach to student support
In most responses, the interviewed support staff revealed an
individual/student-centered approach. In all programs on paper (with the exception of one) this approach was
identified. Evidence for the structural/institution-centered approach were only found in a few cases. Analysis of the programs in practice identified evidence for a
structural/institution-centered approach in two out the nine programs. Analysis of the programs on paper
identified evidence for this approach in three the programs. Subsequently, an overview of the most commonly found evidence are presented. Examples of these common types of evidence are presented in Table 4 and Table 5.
Individual/student-centered approach. Program staff often revealed an
individuals coping with the institution’s dominant culture (a). Program descriptions frequently revealed individual/student-centered approaches in similar ways (b). Programs on paper and
in practice revealed this type of approach regularly by exposing the program’s goals (c).
Table 4. Examples of Quotes Indicating an Individual/Student-Centered Approach Program in
practice (a)
“[…] most important thing is to make the students comfortable with thinking of themselves as young researchers and not just as students.”
Program on
paper (b)
“[We support students] through internships and professional development workshops”.
Program in practice (c)
“The main goals would be retention, graduation, helping them to achieve high GPA’s or as high as possible so the door is open for grad school and then the research experience.” And: “most important thing is to make the students comfortable with thinking of themselves as young researchers and not just as students.”
Structural/institution-centered approaches. Evidence for a structural/institution-centered approach also occurred in both program on paper and program in practice, in the
form of expressed goals (a). Similarly, some of the programs discuss activities that echo a
structural/institution-centered approach, an example of which is portrayed by a practitioner
who refers to conscious efforts to modify the institution (b). This example simultaneously offers another form of evidence: ongoing efforts to strengthen relationships with other programs and faculty (c). Finally, structural/institution-centered approaches are exposed by expressed critique of the institution’s status quo. The quote presented in Table 5 is a rare example of a practitioner who engages in student support on a strategic level (d).
Table 5. Examples of Quotes Indicating a Structural/Institution-Centered Approach Program in
practice (a)
"I’m gonna try to make more of the institution like [this program]."
Program in
practice (b)
“Gentle subversion means that you can change without yelling at people. You get on committees; you get to know what makes it tick. Then get your opportunity to get coffee with someone like this and explain why you do what you do, why you think that the students are important and the focus should be on them. You appreciate the problems that administrators or faculty might have, but you are trying to overcome some of the preconceived notions that should be opposed.”
Program in
practice (c)
"We call it mentoring the institution. [We], staff as well as faculty, are on policy making committees […]. We get invited to be on task forces, we get invited to look at policy white papers to give feedback."
Program in
practice (d)
"There is whole set of expectations of what [transfer students] know. What they really do know is they know their institution, their sending institution. They don't know UC Berkeley, and so the fact that we haven't really acknowledged the difference in institutional cultures and the fact that this assumed knowledge, you know, all these assumptions that we make about [...]. I think there is attitudinal barrier, OK?! Based on assumptions, based on maybe a simplistic notion of really what does it take to succeed in academics: ‘all you need to do is to have the prerequisites and know the material and then you are ready for upper division work’. It is much more complicated than that. Again, there is a whole a sort of a socio-ecological context that has to be considered and we don't do that."
Reflection on analysis of approaches. Despite the fact that the majority of the
investigated programs seemed to reveal a structural/institution-centered approach, no significant structural/institution-centered activities take place. For example, various practitioners exposed a dedication to interaction and even collaboration with others across campus. On a superficial level, this seems to indicate a structural/institution-centered approach. However, a closer look demonstrates that many of these interactions are characterized by coordinated support for individual students.
We work with multiple disciplines basically, uhhm, the relationship is that when we get all the applications in we contact the faculty members and they talk to their students and then they say: “here is the list of applicants that we think are the top applicants” and then they go through and decide who they wanna work with throughout the summer.
The exposed divergence of identified evidence and activities led me to explore beyond the initial framework. Initially, I labeled the approaches according to the appearance of indicators, neglecting to discriminate the indicators’ origin. Some indicators were found in objective, while others were found in expressed desires, and still others were exposed by proclaimed, actual support activities. Exploration of these cases revealed the significance of discriminating between the origins of the identified indicators. Indicators for a
structural/institution-centered approach were found in at least one-third of the analyzed
program descriptions. Only one of the analyzed, publicly available program descriptions mentioned an actual activity. At the same time, further exploration revealed an almost
unanimous desire among support staff to direct efforts towards a
structural/institution-centered approach.
I wish there was more communication between faculty. But just time wise, their issues, what they are dealing with, it's mainly just that I am letting them know that I am here to support transfer students in their courses. And that is probably the most general type of communication I have with most of the faculty.
Support staff provided various reasons for not being able to steer their efforts in the desired direction. Many referred to limited financial resources. This quote typifies the perception of many respondents:
I am under-sourced so most of my time is literally dealing, making myself available. I mean it is even harder for me to find staff that have the type of experience to really deal with [students] who might be 3 times the average undergrad’s age. I
pretty much work outside of my job duty to have these meetings. Lot of the work, lot of the additional work I do in my own time.
Another example along this line is demonstrated in the quote from a practitioner who revealed the obstacle of having to spend time to apply for funding:
I mean at some point it would be nice, once I can get some kind of funding, and that is another thing I have to work on is getting funded. I would love to have a lot more hands and that could put me more in the role of coordinator, where I can actually go to certain meetings and operate on more political policy level. To bring this voice to the
table.
Besides finance, support staff addressed organizational structures and policy to describe the limitations on desirable improvements. An example is demonstrated by a practitioner who addressed the legislative restrictions on race-specific services:
