Creating a STEM Identity:
Investment with Return
Janet Callahan,
Associate Dean, Engineering
Patricia Pyke,
Director of STEM Station
Susan Shadle, Director Center for
Teaching and Learning
Eric Landrum, Professor of Psychology
Boise State University, Idaho
ASEE-Indianapolis
June 17, 2014
Introduction
This presentation is focused on the development and utilization of
a framework for characterizing the development of Integrated
STEM Efforts – with the aim of using it for guidance in terms of
increasing our performance as institutions of higher learning that
prepare STEM professionals.
Think
• Take a minute to think about a particular best
practice, or co-curricular project (e.g. a summer
bridge program) that leads to increased STEM
student success
• This could be something you’ve spent some time
developing or implementing
• Aim for something that is being undertaken at
some level (in your course, in your department,
college-wide, university-wide) at your institution;
some undertaking worth widespread adoption
Why think about integrated STEM
Efforts (…a “STEM Identity”?
• The need, with a focus on STEM student success, was
initially motivated by lessons learned: ESWI, 2003-2008
– Various barriers to student success were revealed, mostly
involving what was going on in the lower division curriculum
– Grant-focused efforts aimed on pedagogically reforming entry
coursework in mathematics and science in order to prepare
students for success in engineering and in follow-on science
and math coursework
– Lots of brown bag seminars, recommendations to
departments and university administrators
– Can you guess what happened next?
Lesson Learned
“Organically diffusing pedagogy reform…”
• Disseminating “best practice curricular materials … to
other faculty does not work” (1)
• Even high levels of awareness of innovative engineering
education practices does not translate into high levels of
adoption (2)
• Essentially: good ideas supported by convincing
evidence of efficacy…does not spread naturally (3)
1.
2.
3.
C. Henderson, A. Beach and N. Finkelstein (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional
practice: an analystic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 48(8), 952-984.
M. Borrego, J.E. Froyd, T.S. Hall (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: a survey of awareness and
adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education. 99(3), 185-207.
E. Seymour (2001). Tracking the progress of change in US undergraduate education in science and mathematics,
engineering and technology. Science Education, 86, 79-105.
Take Away from ESWI
• There cannot be a “we” vs. “them” approach
to student success; rather there needs to be a
shared mission
• A shared sense of mission or interventions and
alliances through all levels of university
systems is needed
• The bigger picture at Boise State University…
STEM Enrollment Growth Fall 06 – Fall 13
Boise State University
16,417
16,696
17,349
17,360
19,657
19,042
100%
90%
80%
Enrollment %
70%
60%
50%
STEM enrollment
grew 77% since
Fall 06
40%
30%
20%
10%
2,063
2,161
2,238
2,421
2,757
3,004
3,348
3,655
Fall 06
Fall 07
Fall 08
Fall 09
Fall 10
Fall 11
Fall 12
Fall 13
0%
STEM
BSU
Looking back five years, university enrollment grew by 15%, from 16,417 to 19,401. But STEM enrollment grew by 63% in
the same time frame, from 2238 to 3655. More than half (55%) of the university’s growth was in STEM.
This Work
• Following the Hewlett Foundation ESWI grant, we
have had ~25 initiatives or grants that have
moved the university toward an integrated STEM
identity, over ten years of rapid growth
• This STEM education focused environment
provided research teams with many successes
and failures to observe and opportunities to build
on factors that emerged for cultivating a STEM
identity
This Work, cont.
• Observations on projects were made, in
reflection, on three general areas:
– Faculty engagement/community
– STEM curricular/co-curricular activities
– University leadership/systems
• We categorized stages, or levels, in a series of
five sequential stages…
Development of Integrated STEM Efforts
A: Faculty Engagement/
Level
0
1
2
3
4
Stage
Descriptor
Autonomous
Exploring
Community
—
Faculty work independently on coursework,
projects, etc. Little to no discussion on
pedagogy, course outcomes, etc.
—
Faculty recognize need for and begin
communication within the department to
improve courses, pedagogy within a course
B: STEM Curricular/Co-Curricular
Activities
Individual efforts in departments
—
—
No central STEM Integration
—
Departments try diffusing their
successes to other departments
—
Task forces and initiatives that recognize
STEM needs
—
Limited, if any, interaction with constituent
departments.
—
Individuals reach across departments for
specific projects
—
Constituents consulted
—
Specific curricular and cocurricular projects (such as math
Connecting
success) are undertaken
—
Extensive integration and
STEM education research a university focus development of STEM student
—
Collaborating
success programs
/Unifying
—
Interdisciplinary STEM faculty learning
Learning outcomes span courses
—
communities are commonplace
and departments
—
We, the faculty, a collaborative effort
Curriculum and learning
—
STEM faculty engage on curricular, co—
outcomes integrated across
curricular, scholarly work, policies
STEM departments
Building/
Integrated
C: University Leadership/ Systems
—niversity leaders join ownership of STEM
U
grants or initiatives
—olicies and strategic plans deliberately
P
include STEM
Specify data to measure STEM outcomes
—
—
University systems enable STEM goals
—TEM center seen as resource for faculty
S
success
—tudents identify with STEM as a —
S
Resources allocated in a way that
community
recognizes STEM goals and strategic plan
Integrated STEM first-year curriculum
—
—niversity systems deployed, if
U
needed, for integration
The Framework
• Using five cases, we scaffolded the levels with
descriptive phrases to generalize the results.
• Our paper describes, in detail, the five cases.
• To illustrate the process, two will be discussed
here
A: Faculty Engagement/
Level
0
1
2
Stage
Descriptor
Autonomous
Exploring
Building/
Connecting
Community
—
Faculty work independently on coursework,
projects, etc. Little to no discussion on
pedagogy, course outcomes, etc.
—
Faculty recognize need for and begin
communication within the department to
improve courses, pedagogy within a course
—
Limited, if any, interaction with constituent
departments.
—
Individuals reach across departments for
specific projects
—
Constituents consulted
STEM education research a university focus
—
3
Collaborating
/Unifying
—
Interdisciplinary STEM faculty learning
communities are commonplace
—
We, the faculty, a collaborative effort
—TEM faculty engage on curricular, coS
curricular, scholarly work, policies
4
Integrated
—TEM center seen as resource for faculty
S
success
Integrated STEM first-year curriculum
—
Case 2: Math
integration with other
STEM departments,
from 0 to 3
• [0] 2005-6: who you
took/what you learned – avg
pass rate in 05 for Calc I was
51%; Limited discussion about
what students should be able
to do, following a course
• [2] Math instructor taught
ENGR 120 in 05; Calc III and
Diff. Eq.; constituents
consulted; ERC professor
• [3] Planning funds from the
Provost; faculty learning
communities; program
transformation grant.
• Note: Klingbeil & ENGR 120
Case 5: STEM as an official university definition, from level 0 to 3.
Level
Stage
Descriptor
C: University Leadership/ Systems
0
Autonomous
—
No central STEM Integration
1
Exploring
—
Task forces and initiatives that recognize
STEM needs
2
Building/
Connecting
3
—niversity leaders join ownership of STEM
U
grants or initiatives
—olicies and strategic plans deliberately
P
Collaborating include STEM
/Unifying
Specify data to measure STEM outcomes
—
—
University systems enable STEM goals
4
Integrated
—
Resources allocated in a way that
recognizes STEM goals and strategic plan
• The terminology to
describe and the
methodology to measure
facets of STEM were
needed (STEP, I^3))
• Formal “STEM”
definitions
• Measurements of STEM
student enrollment and
degree attainment were
conducted, showing we
lagged behind our peers
in % of students majoring
in STEM
• Because of regional and
national needs, the
Provost made the case in
2011 for making STEM a
university priority.
STEM
• In the university’s strategic plan for 20122017, the one-page summary of university
strategies identifies STEM as the only group of
academic majors called out specifically for
attention:
• “Increase student recruitment, retention,
andgraduation in STEM disciplines,” and
“Build select doctoral programs with a priority
in professional and STEM disciplines.”
Case 5: STEM as an official university definition, from level 0 to 3.
Level
Stage
Descriptor
C: University Leadership/ Systems
0
Autonomous
—
No central STEM Integration
1
Exploring
—
Task forces and initiatives that recognize
STEM needs
2
Building/
Connecting
3
—niversity leaders join ownership of STEM
U
grants or initiatives
—olicies and strategic plans deliberately
P
Collaborating include STEM
/Unifying
Specify data to measure STEM outcomes
—
—
University systems enable STEM goals
4
Integrated
—
Resources allocated in a way that
recognizes STEM goals and strategic plan
Discussion
• The formation of a fully formed, organizationlevel STEM identity remains a work in progress
on our campus – but we are a team
• The recognition that organizational identity
formation spans these hierarchical levels is at
the heart of a new endeavor by the WIDER
team to apply a specific change model to
propagate evidence-based instructional
practices across the STEM curriculum
Framework Uses
• Think back to your best practice/co-curricular
activity
– Where, in the framework, is it situated ?
– Look at the next level to help illuminate a next step
• E.g. a university-level initiative? A proposal that emerges
across multiple colleges and with opportunities for many to
engage?
– I cannot emphasize enough, how important the
funding from NSF and from the Provost’s office was in
moving us from levels 0/1 to higher levels of
integration. The involvement of the deans (advisory
board meetings, etc.) was also instrumental. Advocacy.
JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu
Future Work
• We will continue to improve our faculty engagement,
our STEM curricular and co-curricular activities, and
our university leadership/systems at Boise State
University
• We are interested in working with other
universities and groups to determine how this
framework might be further developed or
used.
JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu
Acknowledgments
• This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation, under Grant Nos DUE-0856815 (Idaho STEP) and DUE0963659 (I^3) and DUE-1347830 (WIDER). Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation.
• The authors also acknowledge the foundational support provided by
the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s Engineering Schools of
the West Initiative
• We also acknowledge the leadership and administrative support
provided by Provost Martin Schimpf, Associate Provost Sharon
McGuire, former Provost Sona Andrews (Provost, PSU), former Dean
of Engineering Cheryl Schrader (Chancellor, MUST), Deans Amy Moll
and Tony Roark, and the input provided by Donna Llewellyn, Georgia
Tech.
JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu
Questions?
JanetCallahan@BoiseState.edu
STEM Identity Development
A: Faculty Engagement/
Level
0
1
2
3
4
Stage
Descriptor
Autonomous
Exploring
Community
—
Faculty work independently on coursework,
projects, etc. Little to no discussion on
pedagogy, course outcomes, etc.
—
Faculty recognize need for and begin
communication within the department to
improve courses, pedagogy within a course
B: STEM Curricular/Co-Curricular
Activities
Individual efforts in departments
—
—
No central STEM Integration
—
Departments try diffusing their
successes to other departments
—
Task forces and initiatives that recognize
STEM needs
—
Limited, if any, interaction with constituent
departments.
—
Individuals reach across departments for
specific projects
—
Constituents consulted
—
Specific curricular and cocurricular projects (such as math
Connecting
success) are undertaken
—
Extensive integration and
STEM education research a university focus development of STEM student
—
Collaborating
success programs
/Unifying
—
Interdisciplinary STEM faculty learning
Learning outcomes span courses
—
communities are commonplace
and departments
—
We, the faculty, a collaborative effort
Curriculum and learning
—
STEM faculty engage on curricular, co—
outcomes integrated across
curricular, scholarly work, policies
STEM departments
Building/
Integrated
C: University Leadership/ Systems
—niversity leaders join ownership of STEM
U
grants or initiatives
—olicies and strategic plans deliberately
P
include STEM
Specify data to measure STEM outcomes
—
—
University systems enable STEM goals
—TEM center seen as resource for faculty
S
success
—tudents identify with STEM as a —
S
Resources allocated in a way that
community
recognizes STEM goals and strategic plan
Integrated STEM first-year curriculum
—
—niversity systems deployed, if
U
needed, for integration