“A Bridge Between High School and College”

Abstract

Underserved students express a high interest in earning a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degree. However, their ACT benchmark indicators tend to be much lower than their peers, especially for students who report more than one underserved attribute. There are a number of STEM intervention programs (SIPs) that are designed to retain and graduate underserved students in STEM. Yet, relatively few engage in theoretically driven, empirical research to elucidate what program components contribute to college readiness. Using Conley’s college and career readiness framework, this qualitative case study examined how one SIP helped underserved students overcome academic barriers and acquire context-specific knowledge. Findings revealed that nine interrelated practices and activities contributed to students feeling better prepared for the STEM curriculum and college expectations. Still, more attention could have been devoted to advancing key cognitive strategies. This article concludes with practical implications for SIP program administrators and faculty.

Keywords

college readiness STEM underserved students postsecondary education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACT. (2016). The condition of STEM 2016. Retrieved from ACT website: http://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/condition-of-stem-2016.html.

Alexander

Chen

Grumbach

(2009) How leaky is the health career pipeline? Minority student achievement in college gateway courses. Academic Medicine 84(6): 797–802.

Bahr

P. R.

(2010) Preparing the underprepared: An analysis of racial disparities in postsecondary mathematics remediation. The Journal of Higher Education 81(2): 209–237.

Baker

(2013) Metacognitive strategies. In: Hattie

Anderman

E. M.

(eds) International guide to student achievement, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 407–409.

Bettinger

E. P.

Boatman

Long

B. T.

(2013) Student supports: Developmental education and other academic programs. The Future of Children 23(1): 93–115.

Bloom

Englehart

Furst

Hill

Krathwohl

(1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain, New York, NY: Longmans Green.

Castro

E. L.

(2013) Racialized readiness for college and career: Toward an equity-grounded social science of intervention programming. Community College Review 41(4): 292–310. doi:10.1177/0091552113504291.

Chen

Soldner

(2013) STEM Attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (Report No. NCES 2014-001). IES National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Chang

M. J.

Sharkness

Hurtado

Newman

(2014) What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 51(5): 555–580. doi:10.1002/tea.21146.

10.

Conley

D. T.

(2007) The challenge of college readiness. Educational Leadership 64(7): 23.

11.

Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Dignath

Büttner

(2008) Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning 3(3): 231–264.

13.

Glesne

(2015) Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction, 5th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

14.

Gregg-Jolly

Swartz

Iverson

Stern

Brown

Lopatto

(2016) Situating second-year success: Understanding second-year STEM experiences at a liberal arts college. CBE Life Sciences Education 15(3): 1–10. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-01-0044.

15.

Guskey

T. R.

(2007) Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's “Learning for Mastery.”. Journal of Advanced Academics 19(1): 8–31.

16.

Harper

S. R.

(2014) (Re)setting the agenda for college men of color: Lessons learned from a 15-year movement to improve Black male student success. In: Williams

R. A.

(ed.) Men of color in higher education: New foundations for developing models for success, Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 116–143.

17.

Hesse-Biber

(2010) Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry 16(6): 455–468. doi:10.1177/1077800410364611.

18.

Jackson

Kurlaender

(2014) College readiness and college completion at broad access four-year institutions. American Behavioral Scientist 58(8): 947–971. doi:10.1177/0002764213515229.

19.

Komarraju

Nadler

(2013) Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences 25: 67–72. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005.

20.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice 41(4): 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

21.

Kuh

G. D.

(2007) What student engagement data tells us about college readiness. Peer Review 2007(Winter): 4–8.

22.

Landis

R. B.

(2013) Studying engineering: A roadmap to a rewarding career, Los Angeles, CA: Discovery Press.

23.

Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(3), 1–15. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070.

24.

Long

B. T.

Boatman

(2013) The role of remedial and developmental courses in access and persistence. In: Jones

Perna

(eds) The state of college access and completion: Improving college success for students from underrepresented groups, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 77–95.

25.

Malhotra

G. S.

Mehta

(2015) Study skills. In: Malhotra

G. S.

Sagar

(eds) A practical approach to cognitive behaviour therapy for adolescents, New Delhi, India: Springer, pp. 57–90.

26.

Mattern

Radunzel

Westrick

(2015) Development of STEM readiness benchmarks to assist educational and career decision making. (ACT Research Report Series no. 3), Iowa City, IA, ACT. Retrieved from ERIC database. ED558031.

27.

McCarthy

M. M.

Kuh

G. D.

(2006) Are students ready for college? What student engagement data say. Phi Delta Kappan 87: 664–669.

28.

Merriam

S. B.

(2002) Qualitative research in practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Mevarech

Z. R.

Amrany

(2008) Immediate and delayed effects of meta-cognitive instruction on regulation of cognition and mathematics achievement. Metacognition and Learning 3(2): 147–157. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9023-3.

30.

Michael

Dickson

Ryan

Koefer

(2010) College prep blueprint for bridging and scaffolding incoming freshmen: Practices that work. College Student Journal 44(4): 969–978.

31.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2013) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Museus

S. D.

Liverman

(2010) Analyzing high-performing institutions: Implications for studying minority students in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research 148: 17–27.

33.

Obama, B. (2012, January 22). Issues: Education plan. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education.

34.

Raines

J. M.

(2012) FirstSTEP: A preliminary review of the effects of a summer bridge program on pre-college STEM majors. Journal of STEM Education 13(1): 22–29.

35.

Rincon

B. E.

George-Jackson

C. E.

(2016) STEM intervention programs: Funding practices and challenges. Studies in Higher Education 41(3): 429–444. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927845.

36.

Sablan

J. R.

(2014) The challenge of summer bridge programs. American Behavioral Scientist 58(8): 1035–1050. doi:10.1177/0002764213515234.

37.

Saldaña

(2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Seymour

Hewitt

N. M.

(1997) Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview.

39.

Stolle-McAllister

(2011) The case for summer bridge: Building social and cultural capital for talented black STEM students. Science Educator 20(2): 12–22.

40.

Venezia

Jaeger

(2013) Transitions from high school to college. The Future of Children 23(1): 117–136.

41.

Zelkowski

(2011) Defining the intensity of high school mathematics: Distinguishing the difference between college-ready and college-eligible students. American Secondary Education 39(2): 27–54.