Post-Convention Spotlight: Programmatic, Curricular and Advising Interventions for STEM Student Success

About the session:

Title: Programmatic, Curricular and Advising Interventions for STEM Student Success

Presenter(s) name(s) and Position Title(s):

Kaitlin Heenehan, M.A.Ed., Honors Program STEM Scholar Advisor

Jennifer Lease Butts, Ph.D., Assistant Vice Provost for Enrichment Programs and Director, Honors Program

Institution(s):
University of Connecticut

Description (as posted in the ACPA booklet):

Students in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) need support in order to thrive as the next generation of entrepreneurs, innovators, and problem solvers. This session highlights the STEM Scholar Community at UConn as a model in these support efforts. The model leverages campus resources in academic and student affairs to provide programmatic, curricular, and individual advising interventions. Participants will leave with ideas for supporting the cognitive and social development of STEM students at their home institutions. 

Presented at ACPA International Convention, Montreal, Canada, March 9, 2016
 

• Tell us about the session you presented?

STEM educational initiatives are becoming a priority on college campuses for the purposes of increasing graduates in STEM fields and contributing to the economic development and innovation in individual states, the nation, and the world (Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council, 2013; Educate to Innovate, 2015; Marginson, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts, 2013). Our session focused on presenting information about the STEM Scholar Community at UConn, which was developed as part of Next Generation CT, a $1.7 billion investment in UConn over 10 years for infrastructure, recruitment of top faculty and students, and a focus on STEM education. This smaller community within the Honors Program is based on a scholarship awarded at time of admission, and the focus has been on providing programmatic, curricular, and advising support in order to help students continue to engage and find success in STEM fields at UConn. We shared examples of these initiatives within a support model and explained how they contribute to student development. Some initiatives blend the programmatic, curricular, and advising components (Dawson, van der Meer, Skalicky, & Cowley, 2014; George-Jackson, 2014; Linley and George-Jackson, 2013; Renzulli, S.J., 2015; Oakley, 2014; Astin, 1999). All initiatives are in support of student development, including talent development (Project Kaleidoscope, 2007; Renzulli, J.S., 1976) psychosocial & cognitive development (Baxter Magolda, M.B.,1992; Baxter Magolda, M.B., 2001; Chickering and Reisser, 1993), 21^st century skill development (The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009), and articulated learning (Ash & Clayton, 2004).  

• What was the audience engagement like and how did attendees respond to your content?

From the moment audience members walked in the door, we began conversations with them about their roles, home institutions, and motivation for attending our session. It helped frame what we were about to share, and it also allowed for great follow up conversations both at ACPA and via email and phone after the conference. The audience was extremely interested in the structure of the STEM scholarship and the context for our community, so we spent time providing that information before delving in to the initiatives. We shared hard copies and electronic copies of syllabi and surveys, as a few examples of initiatives, so attendees were already starting to think about how they could implement ideas their home institutions.

•   What was your experience as a presenter at ACPA, was this your first time?

Jen has presented at ACPA in the past, but Kaitlin had only presented at other conferences, not at ACPA. We both agree that presenting at ACPA is a unique experience because it pulls people from different institutional types, departments, and roles together - everyone has a different reason for attending sessions. It was incredibly helpful in our session to meet attendees because it has ultimately led to some great connections with colleagues in similar roles supporting STEM students at other institutions. These connections are sometimes hard to find at other conferences that can be more focused on specific functional areas.

•  What advice do you have for emerging professionals who want to share their knowledge?

We would recommend spending time thinking about how to encourage dialogue in your session so that participants are able to meet one another and know how they may connect during or after the session. In sharing knowledge, it’s important to try to recognize who else is in the room and what knowledge they could contribute in the timeframe allotted, or if there isn’t time in the session, finding a way to connect after the session. In general, emerging professionals should feel confident about presenting initiatives or programs that they are leading if these programs have the capacity to invite broader conversation and expand the national dialogue on a topic.

•   What have you gained as a result of your experience overall?

The STEM Scholar Community is only in its second year, so it was really exciting to be able to share the work that has been done and also begin planning for new cohorts of students entering in the coming years. The model we presented pulls from many aspects of a student’s experience, and it was helpful to share what we’ve learned and hear ideas from other colleagues doing similar work. We’ve also added to our network of colleagues in ACPA whom we can connect with around these topics and others that are particular to our work.

•  How did presenting a sponsored or cosponsored session impact your [experience]? Did it change the way you planned for ACPA? What would you do differently if you could do it all again?

CASHE is a commission that pulls from a variety of functional areas, so the CASHE sponsorship of our program helped draw attendees to our session at ACPA who are working in a variety of departments and institutional types but are doing similar work. It was incredibly valuable to have the sponsorship and share how we support students in STEM. It shaped our planning for the convention in that we knew that there would be a core audience that our program was advertised to, and that was helpful in planning for discussion and other interactions in the session.

•  Do you have anything else you wish to share?

We are really open for continued dialogue on our model and about how to support students in STEM. If anyone reading this has ideas, questions, or lessons learned that they’d like to share, we welcome further discussion and collegial connections to share our ideas and learn from others.

References:

Ash, S. L. & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137-154.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patters in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Chickering, A. W. and Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council. (2013). Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-year Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf

Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014).  On the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 609-639. doi: 10.3102/0034654314540007

Educate to Innovate. (2015). Educate to Innovate. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/educate-innovate

George-Jackson, C. E. (2014). Undergraduate women’s persistence in the Sciences. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, (7)1, 96-119. doi:10.1515/njawhe-2014-0006

Linley, J. L., & George-Jackson, C.E. (2013). Addressing underrepresentation in STEM fields through undergraduate interventions.  New Directions for Student Services, 144, 97-102.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Retrieved from http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SAF02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf

Oakley, B. (2014). A mind for numbers. New York: Penguin Group.

Project Kaleidoscope. (2007). Volume IV: What works, what matters, what lasts. Retrieved from http://www.pkal.org/documents/Learning%20Science.pdf

Renzulli, J. S. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(3), 303-326.

Renzulli, S. J. (2015). Using learning strategies to improve the academic performance of university students on academic probation. NACADA Journal, 35(1), 29-41. doi: 10.12930/NACADA-13-043

The Partnership for 21^st Century Skills. (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.