1. PRESENTED BY: RICARDO V. LOPEZ, MPH Elucidating Key Variables in the STEM Transfer Student Experience from the Integration of Multi-institutional Research Projects 1 (CSUF)

2. TEST: UP 2 Program National Science Foundation - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program ($2,500,000 over five years) Overall Goals Increase the number of STEM transfers to four-year universities and colleges Increase the number of STEM AA and baccalaureates degrees

3. Community College A (CC-A) Community College B (CC-B) Community College B (CC-B) Advanced STEM infrastructure Located in a more affluent socio- economic area Out of CSUF service area Advanced STEM network of support Located in a less affluent socio- economic area Inside CSUF Service Area 3 Community College Partners

4. Examining STEM Transfer Student Experiences 4 STEM Transfer Student Experience Questionnaire administered at the CC Level Questionnaire administered at CSUF Examination of Four-Year Transcripts of Students that intend STEM

5. 5 The Community College STEM Transfer Student Questionnaire (CC-STSQ) Survey developed and administered by CSUF in collaboration with our community college partners

6. The CC-STSQ 6 Thorough literature review revealed few questionnaire/survey tools specifically aimed at understanding STEM transfer student experiences Studies on general transfer student engagement and transfer experiences were considered Content validity was developed with consultations with parties knowledgeable of STEM transfer student experiences Face validity enhanced via focused groups and pilot testing with potential STEM transfer students at the CC

7. PARTICIPANTS 7 Survey administration defined by each partner CC, and represented the best attempt to date to “catch” potential STEM students Four prominent types of students were recruited, each categorized into two groups 1) Those that intend to Transfer as STEM majors 2) Those that DO NOT intend to Transfer as STEM majors Students were recruited from three types of courses 1) Biology (theoretical and applied) 2) Physical Sciences 3) Mathematics

8. The CC-STTQ FORMAT 8 Includes a total of 87 questions Administered in paper format Organized into V sections: I. Demographics II. General CC Academic Information III. Degree and Transfer Plans IV. Experiences in Math/Science courses at the CC level V. Experiences with CC STEM Networks of Support

9. DATA MANAGEMENT 9 Goodness-of-fit test to assess representativeness of specific student populations Descriptive statistics for all variables and stratified based on intent to transfer in STEM Cumulative ranking scores for specific questions sets Cronbach’s alpha calculated for seven question sets Predictor and outcome variables were dichotomized Pearson Chi-Square analysis was conducted on specific predictor and outcome variable relationships Risk estimates (odds ratios) were calculated for variable relationships significant at the p<0.05 level Logistic regression (univariate and multivariate)

10. 10 Selected Results From the Community College STEM Transfer Student Questionnaire (CC-STSQ) Selected results are presented in collated format per CC partner; refer to the bottom-right of each slide for the following reference: 1) CC-A: Community College A 2) CC-B: Community College B

11. RESULTS-DEMOGRAPHICS (n=529) 11 CC-A

12. RESULTS-DEMOGRAPHICS (n=594) 12 CC-B

13. RESULTS-DEMOGRAPHICS (n=529) 13 CC-A

14. RESULTS-DEMOGRAPHICS (n=594) 14 CC-B

15. RESULTS-DEMOGRAPHICS (n=529) 15 CC-A

16. RESULTS-DEMOGRAPHICS (n=594) 16 CC-B

17. RESULTS-GENERAL CC INFORMATION (n=529) 17 CC-A

18. RESULTS-GENERAL CC INFORMATION (n=594) 18 CC-B

19. RESULTS-DEGREE & TRANSFER PLANS (n=529) 19 Over 95% of students intend to transfer to a four-year institution Over 72% intend to transfer within a STEM major Intent to apply (cumulative ranking): 1) UC (75.6%) 2) CSU (70.4 %) 3) In-state private (52.0%) 4) Out-of-state (24.0%) CC-A

20. RESULTS-DEGREE & TRANSFER PLANS (n=594) 20 Over 91% of students intend to transfer to a four-year institution Over 43% intend to transfer within a STEM major Intent to apply (cumulative ranking): 1) CSU (81.3%) 2) UC (70.4 %) 3) In-state private (38.0%) 4) Out-of-state (29.0%) CC-B

21. RESULTS-STEM STUDENT TRANSFER PLANS 21 Student Ethnic Distribution* All Participants (n=529) Intend STEM (359)** Does Not Intend STEM (103)** Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) Asian42.3 (224) 28.9 42.6 (153) 7.6 38.9 (40) Latino24.8 (131) 16.4 24.2 (87) 4.7 24.3 (25) White/Caucasian8.5 (45) 5.7 8.4 (30) 1.9 1.9 (10) Student Sex* All Participants (n=529) Intend STEM (359)** Does Not Intend STEM (103)** Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) Female41.8 (221) 23.8 35.1 (126) 11.5 59.2 (61) Male56.1 (297) 43.1 63.5 (228) 7.6 38.8 (40) *Showing race categories with the highest numbers **67 students left the question about “intent to transfer into STEM” unanswered CC-A

22. RESULTS-STEM STUDENT TRANSFER PLANS 22 Student Ethnic Distribution* All Participants (n=594) Intend STEM (256)** Does Not Intend STEM (256)** Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) Asian19.5 (116) 11.6 27.0 (69) 4.4 10.2 (26) Latino52.7 (313) 20.7 47.7 (123) 25.3 58.6 (150) White/Caucasian10.3 (61) 3.4 7.8 (20) 5.9 13.7 (35) Student Sex** All Participants (n=594) Intend STEM (256)* Does Not Intend STEM (256)* Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) n Percent Percent (Frequency) Female61.3 (364) 22.1 51.2 (131) 29.1 67.6 (173) Male38.4 (228) 20.7 48.0 (123) 14.0 32.4 (83) CC-B *Showing race categories with the highest numbers ** 82 students left the question about “intent to transfer into STEM” unanswered

23. RESULTS-STEM STUDENT TRANSFER PLANS (n=359) 23 CC-A

24. RESULTS-STEM STUDENT TRANSFER PLANS (n=256) 24 CC-B

25. RESULTS-STEM STUDENT TRANSFER PLANS (n=359) 25 CC-A

26. RESULTS-STEM STUDENT TRANSFER PLANS (n=256) 26 CC-B

27. Results-Experience with CC Networks of Support (STEM Students) 27 Cumulative ranking of top three (3) resources that may influence successful completion of STEM courses: 1) Access to instructors with questions about material & assignments 2) Working with other students on problem sets (rather than alone) 3) Having access to people that can mentor in math/science ● Cumulative ranking of top three people that motivated them to pursue STEM 1) Family 2) General Counselors 3) Friends at “this” College CC-A

28. Results-Experience with CC Networks of Support (STEM Students) 28 Cumulative ranking of top three (3) resources that may influence successful completion of STEM courses: 1) Access to instructors with questions about material & assignments 2) Receiving constructive feedback from instructors 3) Having access to subject specific study centers in STEM ● Cumulative ranking of top three people that motivated them to pursue STEM 1) General Counselors 2) Family 3) Friends (at this college) CC-B

29. 29 Selected Results From the Community College STEM Transfer Student Questionnaire (CC-STSQ) Results from univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis

30. Results- Variables Significant at the Univariate Level (n=529) 30 Predictor Variables: Sex Intent to Apply to the University of Ca campuses Intent to obtain a highest degree desired Attendance at Supplemental Instruction Confidence level regarding academic performance in four-year STEM courses Perceived knowledge of which STEM courses are required for intended major at the four-year level Outcome Variable: Intent to major in STEM at the four-year level CC-A

31. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=529) (race and sex being equal, where appropriate) 31 Women have a lower odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus men Those that intend to apply to the UC system have a 2.1 (CI: 1.1-4.0 ) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM to versus those that do not intend to apply to the UC system CC-A

32. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=529) (race and sex being equal, where appropriate) 32 Those that intend to obtain a doctorate have a 3.1 (CI: 1.8-5.4) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus students that do not intend to obtain a doctorate Those that attended Supplemental Instruction (SI) have a 2.7 (CI: 1.6-4.6) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus those that did not attend SI CC-A

33. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=529) (race and sex being equal, where appropriate) 33 Those that are self-confident about completing four year STEM courses have a 4.3 (CI: 1.3-13.4) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM be versus those that are not confident Those that feel knowledgeable about which four year STEM courses to take have a 7 (CI: 2.3-20.8) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM be versus those that do not feel knowledgeable CC-A

34. Results- Variables Significant at the Univariate Level (n=594) 34 Predictor Variables: Sex Ethnicity Employment Status Intent to Apply to the University of Ca campuses Confidence level regarding academic performance in four-year STEM courses Perceived knowledge of which STEM courses are required for intended major at the four-year level Attendance at Supplemental Instruction Outcome Variable: Intent to major in STEM at the four-year level CC-B

35. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=594) (race and sex being equal, where appropriate) 35 Women have a lower odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus men Those that intend to apply to the UC system have a 2.7 (CI: 1.6-4.3) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus those that do not intend to apply to the UC Asian participants have a 3.3 (CI: 2.0-5.4) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus other race groups Latino participants have a lower odds intending to transfer into STEM versus other race groups CC-B

36. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=594) (race and sex being equal, where appropriate) 36 Those that work have a 1.7 (CL: 1.1-2.5) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus those that do not work (sex and race being equal) Self-perceived knowledge of which STEM four-year courses to take is not predictive of intent to transfer into STEM when considering race and sex. Those that are self-confident about completing four year STEM courses have a 2.5 (CL: 1.4-4.5) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus those that are not confident (race and sex being equal) CC-B

37. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=594) (race and sex being equal, where appropriate) 37 Those that attend Supplemental Instruction (SI) have a 2.5 (CI: 1.3-4.6) higher odds of intending to transfer into STEM versus those that do not attend SI CC-B

38. 38 CSUF STEM TRANSFER STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE (CSUF-STSQ) Survey developed and administered by CSUF in collaboration with the College of Natural Science and Mathematics & the College of Engineering and Computer Science

39. PARTICIPANTS 39 Participation was anonymous and on-line Outreach pool included a total of 1,075 STEM students that transferred to CSU Fullerton from fall 2008 to fall 2010 Two prominent types of students were recruited, each categorized into two groups 1) Those majoring in Math and Science 2) Those majoring in Engineering and Computer Science Students were recruited via e-mail, letters home, college website announcements and class visits

40. The C-STSQ 40 Thorough literature review revealed few questionnaire/survey tools specifically aimed at STEM transfer students at the four- year level Studies on general transfer student engagement and transfer experiences were considered Content validity was developed with consultations with parties knowledgeable of STEM transfer student experiences Face and content validity enhanced via focused groups and pilot testing

41. The CC-STTQ FORMAT 41 Emphasis: “Tell us your Transfer Student Story” Includes a total of 84 questions Organized into V sections: I. Demographics II. Experiences at the Community College (CC) III. Experiences as a Transfer Student to CSUF IV. Experiences as a STEM Major at CSUF

42. DATA MANAGEMENT 42 Determine adequate participation rate before administration Descriptive statistics for all variables and stratified based on intent to transfer in STEM Cumulative ranking scores for specific question sets Predictor and outcome variables were dichotomized Pearson Chi-Square analysis was conducted for predictor and outcome variable relationships Risk estimates (odds ratios) were calculated for variable relationships significant at the p<0.05 level

43. Results-Demographics 43 Two hundred forty-seven (247) participants: 90% confidence level (+/- 4.6% margin of error)

44. Results-Demographics 44

45. Results-Experience at the CC Level 45

46. Results-Experience at the CC Level cont. 46 Those that answered NO (126), made up their minds while at the CC at the following times: 28% during the first year 32% during the 2 nd year 41% during the third year or later

47. Results-Experiences at the CC Level with Counselors 47 To What Extent Were CC Counselors Informative Regarding the Following?* Not At AllModerate Extent Considerable Extent Percent (Frequency) Requirements to Transfer 16% (35) 48% (105) 36% (79) STEM Major Prerequisites 33% (73) 43% (95) 23% (51) Undergraduate Research Opportunities 63% (139) 30% (65) 75 (15) *Responses of those that marked “ does not apply ” are omitted on these tables

48. Results-Experiences at the CC Level with Counselors 48 Mark Your Level of Agreement with the Following as they Pertain to Your Interactions with CC Counselors?* Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Agree Percent (Frequency) Spoke About Completing and Associate’s Degree 17% (37) 16% (35) 58% (127) Encouraged them to Choose a Major in STEM 34% (75) 28% (61) 22% (49) Helped them explore Careers in STEM 43% (94) 24% (53) 20% (44) *Responses of those that marked “ does not apply ” are omitted on these tables.

49. Results-Factors Related to STEM Major at CSUF 49

50. Results: Experiences as a STEM Major at CSUF 50 Top three reasons why student returned: 1) Classes at the CC are more affordable 2) CC courses are more convenient to take 3) Unable to enroll at CSUF

51. Results: Experiences as a STEM Major at CSUF 51 Those that have not participated: a) 34% know where to find undergraduate research opportunities b) 53% plan to participate in undergraduate research before they graduate

52. Results: Experiences as a STEM Major at CSUF 52 While at CSUF How Often Have You Discussed the Following with STEM Faculty EACH SEMESTER? Does Not ApplyNot At AllDiscussed Percent (Frequency) Graduate/Professional School 15% (32)48% (99)37% (76) Your Career Plans in STEM Industry 12% (24)39% (80)50% (103) Opportunities for Undergraduate Research/Independent Study 13% (27)46% (93)41% (84) Letters of Recommendation 16% (33)54% (111)30% (63)

53. 53 Examination of Math/Science Transfer Student Transcripts Examined transcripts of 532 CC students that transferred into Math and Science (during the fall semesters) AND intended to stay in those majors from 2005-2010 GOAL : Elucidate critical factors that are common among students that INTEND to stay as Math and Science majors.

54. Number of Transfer Students into NSM (fall semesters) from 2005-2010 and those Included in the NSM Transcript Project 54 Transfer Year Total Number that Transferred into NSM from Community College during the Fall Semester Number of Fall NSM Transfer Students Included in the Transcript Project* 2005 17218 (10.5) 2006 22662 (27.4) 2007 16580 (48.5) 2008** 11593 (80.9) 2009 156121 (77.6) 2010 202158 (78.2) TOTAL1,036532 (51.4%) *Query ran on September 20, 2010 (census date for fall 2010) **TEST:UP Project began

55. Academic Outcomes of Students Included in the NSM Transcript Project 55 Transfer Year Students included in the Transcript Project Graduated (% per year) Persisted* (% per year) Disqualified, but continued through Extended Ed. (% year) Did not Persist** (% year) Pending (possible stop-out or disqualified) (% year) 2005 187 (38.9)3(16.7)NONE8 (44.4)NONE 2006 6231 (50.0)6 (9.7)NONE23 (37.1)2 2007 8021 (26.4)15 (18.8)341NONE 2008 9310 (10.6)42 (45.2)5342 2009 121PENDING90 (74.4)4234 2010 158PENDING137 (76.7)NONE1110 TOTAL53269 (13.0) 293 (55.1) 12 (2.3) 140 (26.3) 18 (3.4) *Still enrolled at CSUF by spring 2011**Withdrew from CSUF, disqualified (never returned)

56. Results- Variables (n=532) 56 Demographics: Sex Race (Asian, Latino and White) Pre-transfer: Transfer units considered for GPA Transfer GPA Number of schools attended Post-transfer: M ath level of entry S cience level of entry F irst semester GPA F irst semester academic status F irst semester time-status (full or part- time) S TEM course pass completion proportion S TEM units Earned C SUF units attempted C SUF units earned C SUF GPA P ersistence at CSUF S topping-out (taking a semester off) P articipate in undergraduate research

57. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=532) (Sex and race equal, where appropriate) 57 Asian students have a 1.9 (CI: 1.2- 3.0) higher odds of persisting at CSUF versus other race groups when considering important PRE-TRANSFER factors -Transfer units considered for GPA -Transfer GPA -Number of school attended pre-transfer Asian students have a 1.8 (CI: 1.1- 3.0) higher odds of persisting at CSUF versus other race groups when considering important POST-TRANSFER factors -First semester academic status -First semester time enrollment status -STEM units passed -CSUF units passed -CSUF GPA

58. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=532) (Sex and race equal, where appropriate) 58 Students are 1.8 (CI: 1.15-2.87) as likely to persist at CSUF for every one point higher in Transfer GPA Students are 2.0 (CI: 1.6-2.6) as likely to persist at CSUF for every point higher in their First Semester GPA Students on probation after their first semester have a lower odds of persisting at CSUF versus those that were not on probation

59. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=532) (Sex and race equal, where appropriate) 59 Student are 1.05 (CI: 1.04-1.07) as likely to persist at CSUF with every unit of STEM courses passed Student are 1.05 (CI: 1.3-1.06) as likely to persist at CSUF with every unit of CSUF courses passed Student are 3.0 (CI: 2.3-3.9) as likely to persist at CSUF for every one point higher in CSUF GPA

60. Results- Multivariate Logistic Regression (n=529) (Sex and race equal, where appropriate) 60 Students that participating in formal undergraduate research had a lower odds of persisting at CSUF versus those that did not participate (at the univariate level) Participating in formal undergraduate research is NOT predictive of persistence at CSUF when considering the following variables : -STEM units earned -CSUF units earned -CSUF GPA

61. Questions 61