View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

STEM Climate Survey Developed through Student-Faculty Collaboration

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: STEM Climate Survey Developed through Student-Faculty Collaboration
Language: English
Authors: De Grandi, Claudia (ORCID 0000-0002-7998-1563), Smithline, Zachary B., Reeves, Philip M. (ORCID 0000-0003-2684-604X), Goetz, Teddy G., Barbour, Nathaniel, Hairston, Erika, Guo, Joyce, Muraina, Fadeke, Bervell, Joel A., Chambers, Lauren M., Caines, Helen (ORCID 0000-0002-1595-411X), Miranker, Andrew D. (ORCID 0000-0003-2267-0630), Mochrie, Simon G. J. (ORCID 0000-0002-7243-8111)
Source: Teaching in Higher Education. 2021 26(1):65-80.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: STEM Education, Undergraduate Students, College Faculty, Test Construction, Identification (Psychology), College Environment, Student Diversity, Racial Differences, Administrator Role, Classroom Environment, Student School Relationship, Minority Group Students, Academic Advising, Majors (Students), Gender Differences, Sexual Identity
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1636219
ISSN: 1356-2517
Abstract: This paper presents a survey tool for assessing undergraduate STEM environments at institutions of higher learning. Such surveys typically appear in methodology sections of focused, hypothesis-driven papers written by and for education studies specialists. We sought to compose a different kind of survey tool, one that enables STEM instructors, nonspecialists in educational research, to probe undergraduate STEM climate at their institutions in broad, exploratory terms. We accomplished this goal by assembling a diverse research team of students and faculty, those who directly shape and experience undergraduate STEM climate. We supplement our paper by including a preliminary analysis of the data from the first administration of the survey at our institution. Our goal here is chiefly pedagogical: to suggest an approach to data analysis for those implementing our survey. In sum, our project invites college STEM instructors to enter into a discussion that, though often marginalized, plays a central role in shaping their capacity to teach inclusively.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1282377
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGUM2Fg7xPlzfBRY5sXju4JAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDF9sSI24mDKiG9C-BwIBEICBm8qtugkWlm1S041wVB6NYocRGMIpVHeG0UKN8UiokXPzoQ8bspM7OzqGOKJJzMzrZQ3vuwouXXyaEvSUAyK5u56WoYn1SPdTvF9vWNpmkHyKzgM8apYI8VKo1gqmErTcLD__Fgy2zTIe2T8pBqLqcAVw2J0TOC3j7dMPQA7kh-xwyUsqc8zhH1ShticPVEEDqshDfr1t6v5nUw5k
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0147965486;thd01jan.21;2021Jan09.02:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0147965486-1">STEM Climate survey developed through student–faculty collaboration </title> <p>This paper presents a survey tool for assessing undergraduate STEM environments at institutions of higher learning. Such surveys typically appear in methodology sections of focused, hypothesis-driven papers written by and for education studies specialists. We sought to compose a different kind of survey tool, one that enables STEM instructors, nonspecialists in educational research, to probe undergraduate STEM climate at their institutions in broad, exploratory terms. We accomplished this goal by assembling a diverse research team of students and faculty, those who directly shape and experience undergraduate STEM climate. We supplement our paper by including a preliminary analysis of the data from the first administration of the survey at our institution. Our goal here is chiefly pedagogical: to suggest an approach to data analysis for those implementing our survey. In sum, our project invites college STEM instructors to enter into a discussion that, though often marginalized, plays a central role in shaping their capacity to teach inclusively.</p> <p>Keywords: STEM climate; student-faculty collaboration; Likert scale; diversity and inclusion</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In fall 2015, racial controversies erupted across a number of American college campuses, including our own. Tension continued to mount during the weeks that followed the initial events, as students of color voiced their concerns about discrimination.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] These protests, however, had far-reaching effects that went beyond issues of race.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] They led to discussions about other forms of discrimination, including those pertaining to gender and sexuality. They also led to discussions about the ways personal identity functions in field-specific contexts, such as in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Nonetheless, at least at our institution, such discussions had within STEM contexts often excluded professors. Why was this the case? Why did our STEM faculty by and large appear unmoved by the situation unfolding around them?</p> <p>Perhaps some of our STEM instructors overlooked the workings of personal identity in their classrooms because they presumed their fields to operate 'objectively.' Others may have acknowledged personal identity to operate within their fields, but nonetheless believed the issue to lie beyond the purview of their responsibilities, thereby obviating any need to respond. Yet others may have acknowledged both the social dynamics of their fields, as well as their responsibility to consider – and even to work to allay – the systemic asymmetries entrenched by these processes. But, these instructors, like many faculty and staff at other institutions of higher education (e.g. Tomalin [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref3">60</reflink>]), may not have known how to respond to issues that, by their very nature, prove not only difficult to resolve but also difficult to articulate in the first place.</p> <p>This paper, which presents a tool for assessing undergraduate STEM climate, emerged from a desire to respond to these instructors. Although a specific context in the United States motivated the present work, we expect it to be relevant to any institution in which there is an urge, within STEM, to establish a dialogue on personal identity between students and faculty that addresses instances of racism (Jessop and Williams [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]; Le Roux [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]; Luckett [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]) and to foster belonging of minority students (Carter et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]). In the following sections of this paper, we outline the design of our tool, which measures the perceptions and experiences of STEM undergraduates along axes of race, gender, and sexuality.</p> <p>To our knowledge, all of the recent survey-based literature on undergraduate STEM climate is written for specialist audiences and seeks to pursue specific research problems, asking such questions as how social belonging (Wilson et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref8">69</reflink>], which is part of a longer-term study summarized in Floyd-Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]) or the behavior of STEM faculty and peers (Plett and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]) correlates with student engagement in the classroom; or what bolsters persistence in STEM educational programs (Eris et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]). There thus exists a simultaneous audience-based and content-based gap in the literature, as none of these earlier survey tools are expressly designed for STEM instructors and administrators without training in educational psychology, and none are suited to assessing undergraduate STEM climate in broad, exploratory terms. In order to build a survey that fills these lacunae, we assembled a diverse team of researchers – STEM students and instructors, whose races, genders, sexualities, and academic backgrounds varied greatly –, and employed a collaborative methodology (Snowball and McKenna [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref12">52</reflink>]). The diversity of our research team enabled us to construct an expansive survey tool, one simultaneously rigorous, yet tailormade for STEM faculty who hope to understand the sentiments of <emph>all</emph> of their students, yet lack experience with educational research.</p> <p>After developing our survey, we solicited responses from all undergraduates at our institution. In addition to discussing how we built the survey, below we also present an analysis of these responses. Our approach to data analysis is not meant to be all-encompassing. Rather, it is meant to serve as a pedagogical purpose: to function as a model and a starting point for those hoping to implement our survey. Nonetheless, despite the preliminary nature of our analysis, we believe that our data suggest that much work needs to be done to improve the national STEM climate for female, racial minority (underrepresented minority, URM)[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>], and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (LGBQ)[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>] students. Such improvements must inevitably start at the institutional level.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-3">Context overview and method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0147965486-4">Survey design</hd> <p>The questions on the survey were initially written by eight undergraduate students as part of the newly-introduced 'Being Human in STEM' course. This course was first developed at Amherst College by chemistry professor Sheila Jaswal with the purpose of identifying issues with the STEM environment on campus, and developing interventions to help ameliorate these problems.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]</p> <p>Those enrolled in the course were a racially and sexually diverse group of junior or senior students majoring, or double majoring, in a STEM field. Their disciplines ranged from physics and computer science, to biology and premedical studies, to African American Studies and Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies; each student was also involved in extra-curricular activities such as supporting the LGBQ community, promoting resources for students with disabilities, and building support networks for women in STEM and students of color in STEM. The 'Being Human in STEM' course was led by three STEM faculty members and a postdoctoral teaching fellow. The goals of the course were to create an open, honest and informal dialogue between science faculty and students; to design and implement interventions to improve the climate in STEM at the university; to, ultimately, help the university to properly support all STEM students, irrespective of race, gender, sexual identity, socio-economic status, etc. In order to begin to address these goals, the students recognized the need to better understand the current climate at the university and to provide information to university stakeholders that could be used to design interventions and instigate change. The survey presented in this study was designed to gather this evidence.</p> <p>The undergraduate students enrolled in 'Being Human in STEM' collaboratively brainstormed numerous potential categories to include in the survey. Starting the design process with students allowed the instrument to more accurately reflect the student experience when compared to previous surveys. Students considered their personal experiences and those that their friends and classmates had voiced while designing the survey. The potential questions were discussed and revised with the faculty involved in the course. Additional feedback was provided by graduate students in the social sciences. The concepts that the survey was designed to focus on were: support from STEM professors; approachability of administrators; STEM classroom environment; students' sense of belonging in STEM; major support; and first-year STEM advising.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-5">Support from STEM professors</hd> <p>Students' belief that STEM professors care about their well-being outside of the classroom and take personal interest in their success has been widely demonstrated to positively impact undergraduate retention and experience, particularly for underrepresented minorities. A high degree of faculty–student contact has been related not only to retention (Braddock [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]; Gregerman et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]; Love [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]), but also to academic performance (Nettles, Thoeny, and Gosman [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]) for underrepresented racial minority students. Faculty support for female students has also been shown to improve their success and retention in STEM (Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]; Zeldin and Pajares [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref21">71</reflink>]). Prior studies have also shown that one of the main reasons students leave STEM fields was the draw of other fields, which were judged to have better teaching and professors who cared more (Strenta et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref22">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-6">Approachability of administrators</hd> <p>The ability to seek advice outside of the classroom, which may include reaching out to the department chair, the director of undergraduate studies, or other administrators, is an important component of students' success. In a secondary school context, good school leadership is fundamental for positive learning experiences (Leithwood, Sun, and Pollock [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]). Similarly, at the university level, it is expected that the approachability of departmental officers and the departmental culture that they promulgate are key determinants of the student experience. For example, a high degree of faculty accessibility – the situation in which students have easy access to faculty for advice and guidance and feel they can talk openly and honestly about their concerns – has been shown to be directly related to student retention and success in engineering programs (Vogt [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref24">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-7">STEM classroom environment</hd> <p>Classroom climates are very important for students. Positive experiences with peers in STEM classroom settings have been shown to promote overall positive student experiences in a course (Galanes and Carmack [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]). Student success has also been tied to positive interpersonal relationships with peers (Tschannen-Moran, Parish, and DiPaola [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref26">61</reflink>]) and with more collaborative teaching models (Watkins and Mazur [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref27">67</reflink>]). Collaborative teaching methods have been demonstrated to promote retention (Lau [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). By contrast, competitive classroom environments and a perceived 'weed-out' culture have been cited as important reasons for undergraduates leaving STEM fields (Strenta et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref29">57</reflink>]; Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref30">51</reflink>]). These aspects of the culture of STEM education have been shown to have a particularly detrimental impact on retention and success of female students (Adelman [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]; National Science Foundation [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref32">37</reflink>]; Seymour [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref33">50</reflink>]; Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref34">51</reflink>]). Male-normed STEM classrooms have been shown to have a negative impact on female retention in STEM fields (Seymour [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref35">49</reflink>]; Vogt, Hocevar, and Hagedorn [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref36">64</reflink>]), and research suggests women experience STEM classroom environments as being more competitive than their male classmates do (Strenta et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref37">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-8">Students' sense of belonging in STEM</hd> <p>Social belonging, the sense of feeling welcomed by others and being able to positively relate to them, is a fundamental factor contributing towards well-being and productive cognitive processes (Baumeister and Leary [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]). In academic settings, belonging uncertainty (Walton and Cohen [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref39">65</reflink>]) is particularly damaging for minority students.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-9">Major support</hd> <p>Feeling a sense of belonging in a department and receiving support within a major are important for retention of first-year students (Morrow and Ackermann [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref40">35</reflink>]). Overall institutional multiculturalism and diversity have also been shown to promote retention, particularly for underrepresented groups (Lau [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]). For students of color, having a diverse student body and a diverse faculty have been linked to both superior mentoring experiences and greater academic success (Jacobi [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]; Wells-Lawson [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref43">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-10">First-year STEM advising</hd> <p>Academic advising is comprised of the communications among faculty and students that provides the guidance and mentorship that students need during their undergraduate life to make the best decisions regarding their courses, majors, and careers. Numerous studies have shown that academic advising is a potent factor for undergraduate retention, persistence, and long-term success, particularly during the first year of college (Drake [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]; Kuh et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]; Lau [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref46">27</reflink>]; Seidman [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref47">48</reflink>]; Veenstra [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref48">62</reflink>]). This connection goes beyond retention, as perceived advisor accountability and academic support for first-year student retention has been shown to be related to academic success, particularly for racial minority students (Young-Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref49">70</reflink>]; Cole [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]). Academic advising is particularly important in STEM fields and careers. For example, it is known that students with exposure to engineering early in their studies are more likely to major in engineering (Lichtenstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]). Thus, having faculty members offer information and support for STEM students early on in their college careers could mitigate differences in prior experiences and preparation.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-11">Statistics</hd> <p>In the remainder of this paper, the administration and analysis of the survey is described. The structure of the survey is evaluated and presented to provide initial validity evidence. The survey results also highlight the current climate at the university.</p> <p>The disseminated survey included 74 questions, including demographic interviews, optional write-in questions, and options for double-majors. Questions were either drop-down menus (for example, to specify major), 5 point Likert-type response items from strongly disagree to strongly agree (for climate and experience questions), or write-in boxes (for qualitative information). In total, there were 52 Likert-type response items with answers ranging between +2 and −2, with positive numbers relating to a positive response. (A few questions had to be reverse-coded accordingly). This survey format has been previously utilized in similar studies that focused on narrower aspects of STEM climate (Floyd-Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]; Plett and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]; Wilson et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref54">69</reflink>]). Because a number of the questions could be considered sensitive, demographic information was collected at the end of the survey to reduce the likelihood that stereotype threat or similar phenomena would influence students' responses (Giles and Feild [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]). The entire set of questions is available in the supplemental material.</p> <p>The survey was distributed to the entire undergraduate student body at a research university in New England by email, with an invitation to participate. Inviting all students to take the survey allowed the research team to also collect responses from students that were initially in a STEM field but later dropped out. Responses were voluntary, and recorded anonymously. 766 undergraduate students submitted complete responses to the survey (out of 5,446 total undergraduates; corresponding to a 14.0% response rate). For the analysis, responses are separated by race into over-represented (White and/or Asian) in STEM and under-represented in STEM. Racially, the students who responded to the survey were of a similar profile to that of the school as a whole, though slightly more diverse (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Survey participants by race.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td>Survey Participants (including international students)</td><td>College Overall (excluding international students)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>URM</td><td>American Indian or Alaska Native</td><td char=".">1.6%</td><td char=".">0.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td char=".">9.4%</td><td char=".">7.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td char=".">7.1%</td><td char=".">13.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander</td><td char=".">0.7%</td><td char=".">0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Latinx</td><td char=".">5.0%</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Non-URM</td><td>Asian</td><td char=".">23.6%</td><td char=".">19.4%</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td char=".">43.2%</td><td char=".">51.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Two or More Races<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">7.5%</td><td char=".">6.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Prefer not to respond/Unknown</td><td char=".">1.8%</td><td char=".">0.7%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*No institutional data on Latinx students are available. <sups>a</sups>'Two or More Races' contains both URMs and non-URMs. Respondents who selected White/Asian, White/Mixed, or Asian/Mixed were recorded as non-URMs; all others were recorded as URMs.</p> <p>With respect to gender, the population who responded was overrepresented in cisgender women and transgender individuals, and underrepresented in cisgender men, compared to the university as a whole (Table 2). In this paper we limit consideration of gender to cisgender women and cisgender men, to maintain anonymity of transgender students. The number of complete responses, omitting transgender students, was 733; 13.4% of student body.</p> <p>Table 2. Survey participants by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Survey Participants</td><td>College Overall</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cis (not trans) Man</td><td char=".">37.7%</td><td>50.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Cis (not trans) Woman</td><td char=".">58.4%</td><td>49.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Non-binary</td><td char=".">1.7%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Trans Man</td><td char=".">0.2%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Trans Woman</td><td char=".">0.5%</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Prefer not to respond</td><td char=".">1.7%</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147965486-12">Analysis</hd> <p>A series of exploratory factor analyses (EFA) based on a polychoric correlation matrix were conducted to both identify and group questions that measure similar concepts (Costello and Osborne [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref56">10</reflink>]; Garrido, Abad, and Ponsoda [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]; Spearman [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]; Spearman [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref59">55</reflink>]; Thompson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref60">59</reflink>]) and to provide validity evidence related to internal structure (AERA [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>]). Items were eliminated to improve reliability and the factor structure resulting from the instrument. Questions related to social belonging did not load satisfactorily and were therefore eliminated from further consideration. The fifteen questions included in the final analysis are presented in Table 3. The items within each factor were summed to create scale scores. Descriptive statistics of these scaled scores are presented in Table 4. Eigenvalues are presented in Table 5. The standard error scree test supported the five factor solution (Watkins [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref62">66</reflink>]; Zoski and Jurs [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref63">72</reflink>]), which aligns with the five broad concepts on which the survey was developed, as discussed in the survey design. The factor analysis was conducted using a direct, oblimin rotation with a 0.4 item-to-factor criterion. The five factor solution explained 67.90% of the variance. Rotated factor loadings are presented in Table 6.</p> <p>Table 3. Five factors and corresponding questions in the survey.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Factor Label</td><td>Question Number</td><td>Question</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Support from STEM professors</td><td>1</td><td>Overall, STEM professors care about their students' wellbeing outside the classroom (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Overall, STEM professors are accessible outside of class (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Overall, STEM professors are tolerant of circumstances related to mental health (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Overall, my STEM professors have taken a personal interest in my success (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>Approachability of administrators</td><td>5</td><td>If I felt personally uncomfortable with something in a STEM class, I would feel comfortable approaching someone else in the department (for example, the DUS) (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>If I felt personally uncomfortable with something in a humanities/social science class, I would feel comfortable approaching someone else in the department (for example, the DUS) (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>STEM classroom environment</td><td>7</td><td>Over the last year, I've generally feel confident and comfortable in my STEM classes (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Introductory STEM classes are designed to weed out students (−1)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>STEM classes are often taught to only a certain portion of the class (−1)</td></tr><tr><td>Major support</td><td>10</td><td>I feel like I had/have students to look up to within my major (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>I know many faculty at this institution who are working to make my major a more inclusive field (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>My fellow classmates in my major make up a supportive community (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>I am proud to be studying within my major (+1)</td></tr><tr><td>First year STEM advising</td><td>14</td><td>A lack of STEM advising for first-years impacted my choice to major in STEM (or to not major in STEM) (−1)</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>I worry that a lack of STEM advising for first-years will impact my opportunities post- graduation (−1)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>(−1) indicates that the question was reverse coded DUS stays for Director of Undergraduate Studies, i.e. the departmental undergraduate advisor.</p> <p>Table 4. Descriptive statistics by factor.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Factor</td><td># of Questions</td><td>N</td><td>Mean*</td><td>SD</td><td>CI of the mean lower bound</td><td>CI of the mean upper bound</td><td>Cronbach's α</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Support from STEM professors</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">733</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">0.28</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">0.81</td></tr><tr><td>Approachability of administrators</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">733</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">1.98</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">0.24</td><td char=".">0.70</td></tr><tr><td>STEM classroom environment</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">733</td><td char=".">−0.64</td><td char=".">2.64</td><td char=".">−0.83</td><td char=".">−0.45</td><td char=".">0.72</td></tr><tr><td>Major support</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">733</td><td char=".">2.35</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">2.12</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">0.62</td></tr><tr><td>First year STEM advising</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">733</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">2.11</td><td char=".">−0.14</td><td char=".">0.16</td><td char=".">0.67</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*the range of each item was from −2 to + 2. Multiply the item range by the number of questions in each factor to obtain the total possible range.</p> <p>Table 5. Explained variance based on eigenvalues.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Order</td><td>Eigenvalue</td><td>Standard Error</td><td>Proportion of Variance Explained</td><td>Cumulative Proportion of Variance Explained</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td char=".">4.49</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">0.30</td><td char=".">0.30</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td char=".">1.79</td><td char=".">0.21</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">0.42</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td char=".">1.52</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.52</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.61</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.68</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>7</td><td char=".">0.62</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>8</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>9</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>10</td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>11</td><td char=".">0.48</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>12</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>13</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>14</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>15</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 6. Rotated factor loadings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Question</td><td>Support from STEM professors</td><td>Approachability of administrators</td><td>STEM classroom environment</td><td>Major support</td><td>First year STEM advising</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold><bold>.</bold><bold>873</bold></td><td char=".">−0.058</td><td char=".">−0.012</td><td char=".">−0.007</td><td char=".">0.002</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>821</bold></td><td char=".">0.010</td><td char=".">−0.006</td><td char=".">−0.063</td><td char=".">0.018</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>713</bold></td><td char=".">0.092</td><td char=".">−0.006</td><td char=".">0.029</td><td char=".">0.004</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>612</bold></td><td char=".">0.019</td><td char=".">0.071</td><td char=".">0.156</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td char=".">0.143</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>693</bold></td><td char=".">0.162</td><td char=".">0.063</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td char=".">−0.066</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>861</bold></td><td char=".">−0.085</td><td char=".">−0.024</td><td char=".">0.017</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td char=".">0.081</td><td char=".">0.020</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>505</bold></td><td char=".">0.103</td><td char=".">0.119</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td char=".">0.015</td><td char=".">−0.049</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>620</bold></td><td char=".">−0.067</td><td char=".">0.033</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td char=".">−0.022</td><td char=".">0.024</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>627</bold></td><td char=".">0.023</td><td char=".">0.050</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td char=".">−0.011</td><td char=".">−0.035</td><td char=".">−0.127</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>662</bold></td><td char=".">0.130</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td char=".">0.089</td><td char=".">0.013</td><td char=".">−0.053</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>571</bold></td><td char=".">−0.025</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td char=".">−0.017</td><td char=".">0.002</td><td char=".">0.085</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>645</bold></td><td char=".">−0.030</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td char=".">−0.002</td><td char=".">0.065</td><td char=".">0.115</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>594</bold></td><td char=".">−0.076</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td char=".">0.037</td><td char=".">−0.021</td><td char=".">0.071</td><td char=".">0.002</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>748</bold></td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td char=".">−0.020</td><td char=".">0.036</td><td char=".">−0.022</td><td char=".">0.002</td><td char="."><bold>0</bold>.<bold>765</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To demonstrate the survey in practice, subsequently, a number of additional analyses were conducted on these five factors with the goal of characterizing local STEM climate issues, communicating them to the university community, and encouraging local STEM faculty to become involved in discussions of campus and STEM classroom climate. Specifically, we examined how gender, race, and sexual orientation impact perceptions of climate for students within STEM majors.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-13">The role of gender, race and sexuality in STEM</hd> <p>The analysis of the responses for students in STEM fields is now presented. A STEM student is here defined as a student enrolled in a STEM major and/or a premedical student. For students majoring in STEM fields (526 respondents), student responses were compared based on gender (male or female), race (underrepresented minorities, URMs, or non underrepresented minorities, non URMs), and sexuality (LGBQ or non-LGBQ). A 2x2x2 MANOVA was conducted with all of five factors identified in the survey, but interactions were not included in the statistical model due to small sample sizes in several groups (i.e. URMs sexual minorities) that reduced statistical power (Table 7). Cohen's <emph>d</emph> is presented as the effect size. Effect sizes of 0.20 are considered small, 0.50 are considered medium, and 0.80 are consider large (Sawilowsky [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref64">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 7. Descriptive statistics for STEM students on each factor by gender, race, and sexuality</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td /><td>Support from STEM professors</td><td>Approachability of administrators</td><td>STEM classroom environment</td><td>Major support</td><td>First year STEM advising</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>N</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td><td>Mean (SD)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Male</td><td char=".">222</td><td char=".">1.32 (3.18)</td><td char=".">0.51 (2.07)</td><td char=".">0.37 (2.65)</td><td char=".">2.53 (2.87)</td><td char=".">0.50 (2.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td char=".">304</td><td char=".">0.17 (3.67)</td><td char=".">−0.30 (1.91)</td><td char=".">−1.01 (2.66)</td><td char=".">1.83 (3.23)</td><td char=".">−0.33 (2.12)</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>non URM</td><td char=".">387</td><td char=".">0.78 (3.41)</td><td char=".">0.07 (2.01)</td><td char=".">−0.22 (2.73)</td><td char=".">2.17 (3.00)</td><td char=".">0.11 (2.15)</td></tr><tr><td>URM</td><td char=".">139</td><td char=".">0.30 (3.78)</td><td char=".">−0.04 (2.04)</td><td char=".">−0.98 (2.69)</td><td char=".">2.01 (3.39)</td><td char=".">−0.24 (2.38)</td></tr><tr><td>Sexuality</td><td>non LBGQ</td><td char=".">419</td><td char=".">0.73 (3.51)</td><td char=".">0.13 (2.00)</td><td char=".">−0.36 (2.68)</td><td char=".">2.14 (3.05)</td><td char=".">−0.01 (2.21)</td></tr><tr><td>LBGQ</td><td char=".">107</td><td char=".">0.36 (3.52)</td><td char=".">−0.29 (2.07)</td><td char=".">−0.69 (2.94)</td><td char=".">2.07 (3.31)</td><td char=".">0.13 (2.24)</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td /><td char=".">526</td><td char=".">0.66 (3.51)</td><td char=".">0.05 (2.02)</td><td char=".">−0.43 (2.74)</td><td char=".">2.12 (3.10)</td><td char=".">0.02 (2.22)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147965486-14">Support from STEM professors</hd> <p>The survey indicates that female STEM students feel significantly less supported (M = 0.17, SD = 3.67) by STEM faculty at our university than their male classmates (M = 1.32, SD = 3.18), with <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib517" id="ref66">517</reflink>) = 14.33, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>d = </emph>.38, CI [.16,.51]. This result is consistent with previous findings that female students in STEM fields can struggle to find an environment in which they can develop appropriate self-efficacy beliefs due to a lack of positive experiences with their professors (Zeldin and Pajares [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref67">71</reflink>]). There have also been studies that suggest that a higher representation of women in academia – i.e. female role models – can have tremendous impact on female students' retention in STEM (Sonnert, Fox, and Adkins [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref68">53</reflink>]) and performance (Marx and Roman [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref69">34</reflink>]). Unfortunately, according to a 2013 study by the US National Research Council (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref70">36</reflink>]) women occupy only 30 percent of all STEM faculty positions at universities. The discrepancy between the faculty support experienced by male and female students highlights the need for STEM faculty at our university to be more proactive in their support of female students and the desirability of increasing the proportion of female STEM faculty.</p> <p>Main effects for race [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>, 517) = 2.07, <emph>p</emph> =.15, <emph>d = </emph>.14, CI [-.06,.33]] and sexuality [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>, 517) = 0.93, <emph>p</emph> = 0.34, <emph>d = </emph>.11, CI [-.11,.32]] were not statistically significant. However, in light of the importance of faculty–student connections in STEM fields (Christe [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]), it is possible that further analysis of the intersectionality of race, gender and sexuality may bring further insight, but was not captured by our current analysis. Increasing faculty diversity has been documented to improve student experiences (Jacobi [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]; Wells-Lawson [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref75">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-15">Approachability of administrators</hd> <p>The main effects for gender [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>, 517) = 22.03, <emph>d = </emph>.41, CI [.23,.58]] and sexuality [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib517" id="ref78">517</reflink>) = 4.02, <emph>p</emph> =.045, <emph>d = </emph>.21, CI [.00,.42]] were statistically significant. Female students (M = −0.30, SD = 1.91), URMs (M = −0.04, SD = 2.04), and LGBQ (M = −0.29, SD = 2.07) reported faculty administrators to be less approachable than male students (M = 0.51, SD = 2.07), non-URMs students (M = 0.07, SD = 2.01), and non-LGBQ students (M = 0.13, SD = 2.00), respectively. While the effect for URMs versus non-URMs was small and not statistically significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>, 517) = 0.31, <emph>p</emph> =.577, <emph>d = </emph>.06, CI [-.14.25]], the generally low means on these questions indicate that that STEM departments need to improve the overall approachability of their chairs and their departmental undergraduate advisors for all STEM students.</p> <p>These collected results are largely consistent with previous research, which has indicated that STEM students can find it difficult to engage with STEM faculty (Eagan et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]). The largest differences between groups of students in our study was observed between males and females. This finding may be a manifestation of women experiencing more competition in STEM classes than men (Strenta et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref81">57</reflink>]), and therefore being less willing to appear vulnerable by discussing their concerns with largely-male STEM faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-16">STEM classroom environment</hd> <p>The results suggest that STEM classrooms could be a lot more welcoming than they are. There was a significant main effect for gender <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>, 517) = 36.48, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>d =.</emph>52, CI [.34,.69], indicating that female STEM students feel considerably less comfortable in STEM classrooms (M = −1.01, SD = 2.66) than male (M = 0.37, SD = 2.65) students. There have been mixed findings regarding gender differences in STEM classrooms. For instance, a couple of studies on engineering students (Kaufman, Felder, and Fuller [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref83">25</reflink>]; Marra, Bogue, and Shen [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref84">33</reflink>]) found no gender differences in how students experienced the classroom environment. Other studies, however, claim a substantial difference in classroom experiences, depending on gender (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref85">45</reflink>]). The results collected here support this latter point of view, namely that a gender disparity exists in terms of how the STEM classroom is experienced by men and women.</p> <p>There was also a significant main effect for race <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib517" id="ref87">517</reflink>) = 8.90, <emph>p</emph> =.003, <emph>d = </emph>.28, CI [.09,.47]. with URMs students being less comfortable in STEM classrooms (M = −0.98, SD = 2.69) than non-URMs (M = -.022, SD = 2.73) students. The significant effect regarding race was expected. It has been shown that students' race fundamentally affects their interactions in the classroom (Pitt and Packard [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref88">43</reflink>]), as well as how they engage with course material (Packard [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref89">42</reflink>]). There is also some evidence that specifically in STEM fields race contributes to different experiences (Johnson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>], Johnson and Mantina [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref91">24</reflink>]). The results here also support the idea that race is important in STEM classrooms.</p> <p>The main effect for sexuality was not statistically significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 517) = 1.14, <emph>p</emph> =.29, <emph>d = </emph>.12, CI [-.09,.33]].[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>]. This result differs from previous studies that have found that sexual minorities encounter more stressors in academia, which often negatively impacts academic performance (Oswalt and Wyatt [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref94">41</reflink>]). A possible explanation for the discrepancy is that these particular questions focus on classroom environment while sexual discrimination occurs more frequently outside of a classroom environment (Tetreault et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref95">58</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-17">Major support</hd> <p>Major support was rated higher overall by respondents than other categories. However, female students still perceived significantly less support [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>, 517) = 6.64, <emph>p</emph> =.010, <emph>d = </emph>.23, CI [.05,.40]] (M = 1.83, SD = 3.23) than their male counterparts (M = 2.53, SD = 2.87). In previous studies, male-dominated student and faculty STEM populations have been shown to negatively impact female students' sense of belong and community (Vogt, Hocevar, and Hagedorn [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref97">64</reflink>]). The main effect for race was not statistically significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>, 517) = 0.33, <emph>p</emph> = 0.56, <emph>d = </emph>.05, CI [-.14,.25]]. The difference between URMs and non-URMs students would have been expected to be larger based on findings from previous research (e.g. Chang et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref99">7</reflink>]; Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref100">20</reflink>]). Similarly, the main effect for sexuality was not statistically significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>, 517) = 0.04, <emph>p </emph>= 0.85, <emph>d = </emph>.04, CI [-.19,.24] [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>] ], even though sexual minorities have previously reported more negative perceptions of academic and career guidance than their heterosexual peers (Nauta, Saucier, and Woodard [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref103">38</reflink>]; Schneider and Dimito [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref104">47</reflink>]). While an explanation for these differences is not clear, it is encouraging that these students feel supported in their major at similar rates.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-18">First-year STEM advising</hd> <p>For this factor, there was a significant main effect for gender <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>, 517) = 18.70, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>d = </emph>.38, CI [.20,.55], indicating that female STEM students had a lower opinion of first year advising (M = −0.33, SD = 2.12) than male STEM students (M = 0.50, SD = 2.27). The result suggests women do not receive the mentorship needed to feel confident to pursue a career in STEM (Stout et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]). It is surprising there are not significant main effects for race [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>, 517) = 3.35, <emph>p </emph>= 0.07, <emph>d = </emph>.16, CI [-.04,.35]] or sexuality [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>, 517) = 0.42, <emph>p </emph>= 0.52, <emph>d = </emph>.05, CI [-.16,.27]] given earlier evidence that racial and sexual minorities are strongly affected by the quality of their interactions with faculty (Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>]; Cole [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref110">9</reflink>]; Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref111">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-19">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0147965486-20">Results Summary</hd> <p>The collected results demonstrate that gender significantly affects the experience of STEM students at our university: women rated their experiences more negatively than men on all five factors measured by the survey, confirming that faculty interactions, perceived classroom environment, and major support are crucial for the success of women in STEM.</p> <p>Race and sexuality each only produced a significant difference on one factor, STEM classroom and administrative approachability, respectively. This result highlights two areas that the university could target for improvement. While the non-significant results are somewhat promising, the low mean score on several of these scales across all groups of students continues to suggest that the university needs to continue to work toward and emphasize inclusivity.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-21">Implications</hd> <p>The current study presented a new tool for assessing undergraduate STEM experiences at institutions of higher learning. Because the first draft of the survey was written by students, the tool may represent student concerns better than instruments written by non-students.</p> <p>While the initial draft of the survey was student-driven, the final version was developed collaboratively: professors and a teaching postdoctoral fellow provided numerous perspectives on problems associated with the STEM undergraduate experience, expanding upon the topics broached by the students. The diversity of the research team, in turn, helped to create a tool that parses undergraduate STEM experience in a capacious sense. This telescopic, rather than microscopic focus, suggests that while the survey may be used to identify specific problem areas that can inform development of interventions, it may also be used to assess the overall state of a given institution's undergraduate STEM climate. The latter use of the survey, in our experience, is just as important as the former, because the first barrier to change is often convincing faculty that systemic problems in STEM undergraduate education exist.</p> <p>Last year, at the end of our iteration of the 'Being Human in STEM' course, enrolled students presented the data collected from our administration of this survey to STEM faculty at large. This provided an opportunity for students to participate in the university's academic discourse and provided a method for supporting a student-centered approach to addressing diversity (Snowball and McKenna [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref112">52</reflink>]; Northedge [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref113">40</reflink>]). Numerous professors, who had previously neglected to consider the sociological underpinnings of STEM undergraduate education, responded favorably to this presentation. We are thus cautiously optimistic that, as a result of this effort to prove <emph>writ large</emph> the existence of a suboptimal STEM culture at our institution, many more professors will choose to participate in interventions, once these are developed.</p> <p>Based on the foregoing statistical analyses of responses to the survey at our institution, the tool appears suitable for future use by others. The discussion of results in the analysis section demonstrates one way to present the survey data clearly and concisely for STEM faculty hoping to obtain a glimpse into current campus climate. As discussed above in greater detail, among STEM students, gender negatively affected all perceptions that were measured, which may suggest that women are largely disadvantaged in STEM fields and that more work needs to be done to eliminate such disparities. Classroom environment was also more negatively perceived by STEM URMs than by STEM non-URMs. Targeted interventions should thus be developed to focus on retaining and supporting women, gender minorities, and URMs in STEM fields. In future studies, non-proportional sampling methods could also be used to examine intersectionality between gender, race, and sexuality in more detail.</p> <p>Finally, it must also be stressed that not all questions included in the survey may be equally useful to all institutions: it may be necessary to alter or remove questions before administering it. Moreover, as the results will vary to some degree from institution to institution, so must the approach to data interpretation. Some universities may hope to obtain better resolution during the data analysis stage, and, thus, may wish to gain insight into the ways problems surface across different STEM fields. Controlling for individual STEM departments while performing MANOVAs would allow this sort of information to be gleaned. While this survey appears to be a promising tool for assessing STEM undergraduate experiences, ultimately, more validity evidence needs to be gathered. Examining how other institutions amend the survey and analyze responses in relation to institutional and observational data will provide insight into how this tool may be improved.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We thank Celine Reynolds and Noboru S. Toyofuku MacLean for assistance with the survey design.</p> <hd id="AN0147965486-23">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <p>Correction Statement</p> <p>This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.</p> <ref id="AN0147965486-24"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Events that took place at the University of Missouri, Yale University, and Amherst College form key examples of racial misconduct and protest. For more on these events, see "Racial Tension and Protests," 2015 (https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/racial-tension-and-protests-on-campuses-across-the-country.html);">www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/racial-tension-and-protests-on-campuses-across-the-country.html);</ulink> Hartocollis & Bidgood, 2015 (https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/us/racial-discrimination-protests-ignite-at-colleges-across-the-us.html);">www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/us/racial-discrimination-protests-ignite-at-colleges-across-the-us.html);</ulink> and Dean, 2015 (https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/29/college-university-campus-racism-protest-yale-georgetown-amherst-missouri">www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/29/college-university-campus-racism-protest-yale-georgetown-amherst-missouri</ulink>).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The choice of the word "race" versus "ethnicity" is often subtle and controversial (Dein [11]). In the context of the current manuscript, the term race was defined as the answer to the survey question: "What is your racial identity? (choose as many as apply): Black, Hispanic, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, White, Native, Mixed, Prefer not to respond."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Survey respondents were asked to select as many of the following racial designations as they felt described them: White, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Latinx, Pacific Islander, Native, or Mixed. The definition of non-URM used in the data analysis was: White, Asian, White/Asian, or any one of these three in combination with the designation Mixed. Every other respondent was coded as URM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> As discussed below, we omitted transgender students from the analysis to maintain their anonymity.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Link to Amherst College website reporting on the course: https://<ulink href="http://www.amherst.edu/news/news%5freleases/2018/10-18/being-human-in-stem,">www.amherst.edu/news/news%5freleases/2018/10-18/being-human-in-stem,</ulink> link to the Being Human in STEM course website started by Amherst College: <ulink href="http://www.beinghumaninstem.com/">http://www.beinghumaninstem.com/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> These authors contributed equally to this work.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref99" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Wrote the manuscript: Claudia De Grandi, Zachary B. Smithline, Philip Reeves, Teddy G. Goetz. Performed statistical analyses: Claudia De Grandi, Zachary B. Smithline, Philip Reeves, Teddy G. Goetz, Nathaniel Barbour, and Simon G. J. Mochrie. Wrote the survey: Zachary B. Smithline, Teddy G. Goetz, Erika Hairston, Joyce Guo, Fadeke Muraina, Joel A. Bervell, Lauren M. Chambers. Faculty advisors of students who wrote the survey: Claudia De Grandi, Helen Caines, Andrew D. Miranker, Simon G. J. Mochrie (lead course instructor).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref73" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1636219</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0147965486-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adelman, C. 1998. Women and Men of the Engineering Path: A Model for Analyses of Undergraduate Careers (20402-9328). Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. 2014. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC : AERA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. " The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation." Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497 – 529.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braddock, J. H. 1981. " Desegregation and Black Student Attrition." Urban Education 15 (4): 403 – 418.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, R. D., B. Clarke, V. Gortmaker, and R. Robinson-Keilig. 2004. " Assessing the Campus Climate for gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Students Using a Multiple Perspectives Approach." Journal of College Student Development 45 (1): 8 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter, J., D. Hollinsworth, M. Raciti, and Kathryn Gilbey. 2018. " Academic 'Place-Making': Fostering Attachment, Belonging and Identity for Indigenous Students in Australian Universities." Teaching in Higher Education 23 (2): 243 – 260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, M. J., O. Cerna, J. Han, and V. Saenz. 2008. " The Contradictory Roles of Institutional Status in Retaining Underrepresented Minorities in Biomedical and Behavioral Science Majors." The Review of Higher Education 31 (4): 433 – 464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christe, B. 2013. " The Importance of Faculty-Student Connections in STEM Disciplines: A Literature Review." Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 14 (3): 22 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref50" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cole, D. 2007. " Do Interracial Interactions Matter? An Examination of Student-Faculty Contact and Intellectual Self-Concept." The Journal of Higher Education 78 (3): 249 – 281. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2007.0015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costello, A. B., and J. W. Osborne. 2005. " Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10 (7): 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dein, S. L. 2006. " Race, Culture and Ethnicity in Minority Research: A Critical Discussion." Journal of Cultural Diversity 13 (2): 68 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drake, J. K. 2011. " The Role of Academic Advising in Student Retention and Persistence." About Campus 16 (3): 8 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagan, K., T. Figueroa, S. Hurtado, and J. Gasiewski. 2012, June. Faculty Accessibility Cues: Opening the Doors to Classroom Communications. In Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eris, O., D. Chachra, H. L. Chen, S. Sheppard, L. Ludlow, C. Rosca, and G. Toye. 2010. " Outcomes of a Longitudinal Administration of the Persistence in Engineering Survey." Journal of Engineering Education 99 (4): 371 – 395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Floyd-Smith, T., D. Wilson, R. Campbell, N. Veilleux, R. Bates, M. Plett, et al. 2010. " A Multi-Institutional Study of Connection, Community, and Engagement in STEM Education: Conceptual Model Development." Proceedings of the ASEE (American Society for engineering education) Conference, Arlington, VA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galanes, G. J., and H. J. Carmack. 2013. " "He's Really Setting an Example": Student Contributions to the Learning Environment." Communication Studies 64 (1): 49 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrido, L. E., J. J. Abad, and V. Ponsoda. 2013. " A new Look at Horn's Parallel Analysis with Ordinal Variables." Psychological Methods 18 (4): 454 – 474.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giles, W. F., and H. S. Feild. 1978. " Effects of Amount, Format, and Location of Demographic Information on Questionnaire Return Rate and Response Bias of Sensitive and Nonsensitive Items." Personnel Psychology 31 (3): 549 – 559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregerman, S. R., J. S. Lerner, W. von Hippel, J. Jonides, and B. A. Nagda. 1998. " Undergraduate Student-Faculty Research Partnerships Affect Student Retention." The Review of Higher Education 22 (1): 55 – 72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado, S., N. L. Cabrera, M. H. Lin, L. Arellano, and L. L. Espinosa. 2009. " Diversifying Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs." Research in Higher Education 50 (2): 189 – 214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobi, M. 1991. " Mentoring and Undergraduate Academic Success: A Literature Review." Review of Educational Research 61 (4): 505 – 532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jessop, T., and A. Williams. 2009. " Equivocal Tales About Identity, Racism and the Curriculum." Teaching in Higher Education 14 (1): 95 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A. C. 2007. " Unintended Consequences: How Science Professors Discourage Women of Color." Science Education 91 : 805 – 821.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, K. M., and N. Mantina. 2016. " Race Influences Student Experience in STEM Courses." The FASEB Journal 30 (1): 553 – 554.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, D. B., R. Felder, and H. Fuller. 2000. " Accounting for Individual Effort in Cooperative Learning Teams." Journal of Engineering Education 98 (2): 133 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. H. Schuh, and E. J. Whitt. 2011. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. Washington, DC : John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, L. K. 2003. " Institutional Factors Affecting Student Retention." Education 124 (1): 126 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood, K., J. Sun, and K. Pollock. 2017. How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success: the Four Paths Framework. Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Le Roux, K. 2019. " Navigating the Discursive Tensions of the Public University: The Case of a South African Student." Teaching in Higher Education 24 (2): 231 – 247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lichtenstein, G., H. Loshbaugh, B. Claar, T. Bailey, and S. Sheppard. 2007. " Should I Stay or Should I go?: Undergraduates' Prior Exposure to Engineering and Their Intentions to Major." Proceedings of the ASEE (American Society for engineering education) Conference, Honolulu, HI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love, D. 2009. " Student Retention Through the Lens of Campus Climate, Racial Stereotypes, and Faculty Relationships." Journal of Diversity Management (JDM) 4 (3): 21 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckett, K. 2016. " Curriculum Contestation in a Post-Colonial Context: A View from the South." Teaching in Higher Education 21 (4): 415 – 428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marra, R. M., B. Bogue, and D. Shen. 2008. " Engineering Classroom Environments: Examining Differences by Gender and Departments." Proceedings of the ASEE American Society for engineering education) Conference, Pittsburgh PA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marx, D. M., and J. S. Roman. 2002. " Female Role Models: Protecting Women's Math Test Performance." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (9): 1183 – 1193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, J., and M. Ackermann. 2012. " Intention to Persist and Retention of First-Year Students: The Importance of Motivation and Sense of Belonging." College Student Journal 46 (3): 483 – 491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2013. Seeking Solutions: Maximizing American Talent by Advancing Women of Color in Academia: Summary of a Conference. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Science Foundation. 1996. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996. Arlington, VA : National Science Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nauta, M. M., A. M. Saucier, and L. E. Woodard. 2001. " Interpersonal Influences on Students' Academic and Career Decisions: The Impact of Sexual Orientation." Career Development Quarterly 49 : 352 – 362.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nettles, M. T., A. R. Thoeny, and E. J. Gosman. 1986. " Comparative and Predictive Analyses of Black and White Students' College Achievement and Experiences." The Journal of Higher Education 57 (3): 289 – 318.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northedge, A. 2003. " Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse." Teaching in Higher Education 8 (2): 169 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oswalt, S. B., and T. J. Wyatt. 2011. " Sexual Orientation and Differences in Mental Health, Stress, and Academic Performance in a National Sample of U.S. College Students." Journal of Homosexuality 58 (9): 1255 – 1280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Packard, J. 2013. " The Impact of Racial Diversity in the Classroom: Activating the Sociological Imagination." Teaching Sociology 41 (2): 144 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pitt, R., and J. Packard. 2012. " Activating Diversity: The Impact of Student Race on Contributions to Course Discussions." The Sociological Quarterly 53 (2): 295 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plett, M., and D. Wilson. 2014. " People Matter: The Role of Peers and Faculty in Students' Academic Engagement." Proceedings of the ASEE (American Society for engineering education) Conference, Indianapolis, IN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandler, B., L. Silverberg, and R. Hall. 1996. The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women. Washington, DC : The National Association for Women in Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawilowsky, S. 2009. " New Effect Size Rules of Thumb." Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 8 (2): 597 – 599.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, M. S., and A. Dimito. 2010. " Factors Influencing the Career and Academic Choices of Lesbian, gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People." Journal of Homosexuality 57 : 1355 – 1369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidman, A. 2005. College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. Westport, CT : Greenwood Publishing Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, E. 1995a. " Guest Comment: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences." American Journal of Physics 63 (3): 199 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, E. 1995b. " The Loss of Women From Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors: An Explanatory Account." Science Education 79 (4): 437 – 473.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, E., and N. M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowball, J. D., and S. McKenna. 2017. " Student-generated Content: an Approach to Harnessing the Power of Diversity in Higher Education." Teaching in Higher Education 22 (5): 604 – 618.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sonnert, G., M. F. Fox, and K. Adkins. 2007. " Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Effects of Faculty, Fields, and Institutions Over Time." Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1333 – 1356.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spearman, C. 1904. " 'General Intelligence,' Objectively Determined and Measured." The American Journal of Psychology 15 (2): 201 – 292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spearman, C. 1927. The Abilities of man. Oxford, England : Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stout, J. G., N. Dasgupta, M. Hunsinger, and M. A. McManus. 2011. " STEMing the Tide: Using Ingroup Experts to Inoculate Women's Self-Concept in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (2): 255 – 270.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strenta, A. C., R. Elliott, R. Adair, M. Matier, and J. Scott. 1994. " Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions." Research in Higher Education 35 (5): 513 – 547.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tetreault, P. A., Ryan Fette, P. C. Meidlinger, and D. Hope. 2013. " Perceptions of Campus Climate by Sexual Minorities." Journal of Homosexuality 60 (7): 947 – 964.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, B. 2004. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomalin, E. 2007. " Supporting Cultural and Religious Diversity in Higher Education: Pedagogy and Beyond." Teaching in Higher Education 12 (5-6): 621 – 634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M., J. Parish, and M. DiPaola. 2006. " School Climate: The Interplay Between Interpersonal Relationships and Student Achievement." Journal of School Leadership 16 (4): 386 – 415.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veenstra, C. P. 2009. " A Strategy for Improving Freshman College Retention." The Journal for Quality and Participation 31 (4): 19 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogt, C. M. 2008. " Faculty as a Critical Juncture in Student Retention and Performance in Engineering Programs." Journal of Engineering Education 97 (1): 27 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogt, C. M., D. Hocevar, and L. S. Hagedorn. 2007. " A Social Cognitive Construct Validation: Determining Women's and Men's Success in Engineering Programs." The Journal of Higher Education 78 (3): 337 – 364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., and G. L. Cohen. 2007. " A Question of Belonging: Race, Social fit, and Achievement." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 : 82 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins, M. W. 2007. SEscree [Computer software]. Phoenix, AZ: Ed & Psych Associates. <ulink href="http://edpsychassociates.com/Watkins3.html">http://edpsychassociates.com/Watkins3.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins, J., and E. Mazur. 2013. " Retaining Students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Majors." Journal of College Science Teaching 42 (5): 36 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells-Lawson, M. I. 1994. " The Effects of Race and Type of Institution on the College Experiences of Black and White Undergraduate Students Attending 30 Predominantly Black and Predominantly White Colleges and Universities." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American educational research Association, New Orleans, LA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED374700.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, D., D. Jones, F. Bocell, J. Crawford, M. J. Kim, N. Veilleux, and M. Plett. 2015. " Belonging and Academic Engagement among Undergraduate STEM Students: A Multi-Institutional Study." Research in Higher Education 56 (7): 750 – 776.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young-Jones, A. D., T. D. Burt, S. Dixon, and M. J. Hawthorne. 2013. " Academic Advising: Does it Really Impact Student Success? " Quality Assurance in Education 21 (1): 7 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeldin, A. L., and F. Pajares. 2000. " Against the Odds: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Women in Mathematical, Scientific, and Technological Careers." American Educational Research Journal 37 (1): 215 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoski, K. W., and S. Jurs. 1996. " An Objective Counterpart to the Visual Scree Test for Factor Analysis: The Standard Error Scree." Educational and Psychological Measurement 56 : 443 – 451.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Claudia De Grandi; Zachary B. Smithline; Philip M. Reeves; Teddy G. Goetz; Nathaniel Barbour; Erika Hairston; Joyce Guo; Fadeke Muraina; Joel A. Bervell; Lauren M. Chambers; Helen Caines; Andrew D. Miranker and Simon G. J. Mochrie</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib517" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1282377
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: STEM Climate Survey Developed through Student-Faculty Collaboration
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22De+Grandi%2C+Claudia%22">De Grandi, Claudia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7998-1563">0000-0002-7998-1563</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Smithline%2C+Zachary+B%2E%22">Smithline, Zachary B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reeves%2C+Philip+M%2E%22">Reeves, Philip M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2684-604X">0000-0003-2684-604X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Goetz%2C+Teddy+G%2E%22">Goetz, Teddy G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barbour%2C+Nathaniel%22">Barbour, Nathaniel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hairston%2C+Erika%22">Hairston, Erika</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guo%2C+Joyce%22">Guo, Joyce</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Muraina%2C+Fadeke%22">Muraina, Fadeke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bervell%2C+Joel+A%2E%22">Bervell, Joel A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chambers%2C+Lauren+M%2E%22">Chambers, Lauren M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caines%2C+Helen%22">Caines, Helen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1595-411X">0000-0002-1595-411X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Miranker%2C+Andrew+D%2E%22">Miranker, Andrew D.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2267-0630">0000-0003-2267-0630</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mochrie%2C+Simon+G%2E+J%2E%22">Mochrie, Simon G. J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7243-8111">0000-0002-7243-8111</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teaching+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Teaching in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2021 26(1):65-80.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification+%28Psychology%29%22">Identification (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Environment%22">College Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Differences%22">Racial Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Role%22">Administrator Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+School+Relationship%22">Student School Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Advising%22">Academic Advising</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Identity%22">Sexual Identity</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1636219
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1356-2517
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper presents a survey tool for assessing undergraduate STEM environments at institutions of higher learning. Such surveys typically appear in methodology sections of focused, hypothesis-driven papers written by and for education studies specialists. We sought to compose a different kind of survey tool, one that enables STEM instructors, nonspecialists in educational research, to probe undergraduate STEM climate at their institutions in broad, exploratory terms. We accomplished this goal by assembling a diverse research team of students and faculty, those who directly shape and experience undergraduate STEM climate. We supplement our paper by including a preliminary analysis of the data from the first administration of the survey at our institution. Our goal here is chiefly pedagogical: to suggest an approach to data analysis for those implementing our survey. In sum, our project invites college STEM instructors to enter into a discussion that, though often marginalized, plays a central role in shaping their capacity to teach inclusively.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1282377
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1282377
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1636219
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 65
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Identification (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student School Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Advising
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sexual Identity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: STEM Climate Survey Developed through Student-Faculty Collaboration
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: De Grandi, Claudia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Smithline, Zachary B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reeves, Philip M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Goetz, Teddy G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barbour, Nathaniel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hairston, Erika
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guo, Joyce
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Muraina, Fadeke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bervell, Joel A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chambers, Lauren M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Caines, Helen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Miranker, Andrew D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mochrie, Simon G. J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1356-2517
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teaching in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1