1. Race to the Top: Examining Predictors of Competition among First-Year Science Students Sylvia Hurtado Kevin Eagan Josephine Gasiewski Minh Tran Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA 2010 International Conference on the First Year Experience Maui, HI June 10, 2010

2. Significance  Competitive culture of science  Focus on grades  “Survival of the fittest” mentality (Epstein, 2006)

3. Background  Effects of competition on: Academic achievement Retention Knowledge gains  Contexts of competition Selective institutions Introductory courses  Grading on a curve  Large classes  Lack of engaging pedagogy Out-of-class experiences

4. Research Questions  What individual experiences and institutional characteristics predict science students’ sense of competition for high grades among their peers?  What contexts and experiences contribute to students’ sense of competition?  What are students’ and faculty members’ perceptions about the culture of competition in science across institutions?

5. Theoretical Framework  Academic Tribes and Culture (Becher, 1989) Culture of Science as a source of “disruption”  Folklore, myths, and legends  Socialization  Normalization – “This is how science is done!”  Science Identification (Carlone and Johnson, 2007) Competence Performance Recognition

6. Qualitative Data Sources  5 campuses: 1 HBCU, 2 HSIs, and 2 PWIs Selective research programs Various funding sources  Faculty and staff interviews (n=16)  Student focus group interviews (n=71) 60% female/40% male 56% Latina/o, 18% Black, 13% Asian American, 8% multiracial, 2.5% American Indian, and 2.5% White 70% biology, biochemistry, or chemistry majors

7. Methods: Qualitative  Interpretive/descriptive qualitative study  Semi-structured interview protocol  Coded transcripts using NVivo® software to identify emergent themes  Reached inter-coder reliability of 85%

8. Methods: Quantitative  Data and sample 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey and 2005 Your First College Year Survey  3,112 biomedical and behavioral science aspirants  150 colleges and universities 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey and 2008 College Senior Survey  3,550 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) aspirants  216 colleges and universities

9. Methods: Quantitative  Variables Dependent variable: Extent to which students sensed competition among their peers for high grades Independent variables  Background characteristics  Pre-college experiences  First-year college experiences (TFS-YFCY dataset)  Fourth-year college experiences (TFS-CSS dataset)  Institutional characteristics  Analyses Descriptive statistics Multilevel modeling

10. Findings: Predictors of Competition at the End of the First Year of College  Background characteristics and pre-college experiences Participated in pre-college research program (+) Chose college b/c had good academic rep (+) Social self-confidence (+) Sense of science identity (+) Academic self-confidence (-)  Disciplinary differences (all compared to psychology) Life science (+) Physical science (+) Health science (+)

11. Findings: Predictors of Competition at the End of the First Year of College  Classroom intimidation Felt intimidated by professors (+) Feel like most students are treated like numbers in a book (+)  Out-of-class experiences Studying with other students (+) Received tutoring (+) Feel that faculty are interested in students’ academic problems (+)  Contextual differences Institutional selectivity (+)

12. Findings: Predictors of Competition Four Years after College Entry  Background characteristics Asian American (+) Choosing a college based on prestigious reputation (+) Science identity (+)  Classroom intimidation Feeling intimidated by professors (+) Feeling overwhelmed by academic work (+)

13. Findings: Predictors of Competition Four Years after College Entry  Out-of-class experiences Joining major-related club (+) Discussing course content with students outside class (+) Studying with other students (+) Talking with faculty outside of class (+) Sensing a hostile racial climate (+) Sensing that faculty are interested in students’ academic problems (+)  Contextual differences Institutional size (+) Selectivity (+) Percentage of undergraduates majoring in STEM (+)

14. Classroom Intimidation o Fear of asking questions o Reveals lack of understanding o Reveals lack of intelligence o To both peers and professors o Hierarchy of questions o clarification vs. deep & profound o Fostered by professors “People in organic chemistry don’t sit there and ask, ‘How did that work?’ You wait until office hours, in the quiet, and make sure nobody thinks that you’re dumb.” (Female student, PWI) “I feel like there’s a lot of pressure to…it seems like there’s a lot of pressure or I put a lot of pressure on myself to…I feel bad if I ask a question that’s just for clarification and not something that’s deep and profound.” (Female student, PWI)

15. Out of Class Competition Students are hesitant to:  Share information and resources  Work together “It also depends if you can open up yourself to people and not just think like, ‘Oh, what if you join a group and you get the same grades?’ It’s all about competition, you know. A lot of the things that happen…are all about competition, getting the better A.” (Female student, PWI) “There are [people] that are really competitive and I remember there was…we had to get a journal article and it was in the microfilm area and even though you don’t get to take it away from there, someone threw it away, so you couldn’t get it and you had to order it and have it sent down from another university.” (Male student, PWI)

16. Contextual Differences Importance of getting noticed  Not just being a #  Personal attention Ethic of care  Students  Faculty “It seems like here, the people have a mentality…like the sharing mentality, so if you’re not…if you don’t share or if you’re not…if you’re thinking about number one, they kind of shun to the side. I mean, because everyone else is in the group and you’re…you think you can work better on your own, we’ll let you work on your own. That’s how it is here.” (Female student, HBCU)

17. Grades vs. Learning Pre-meds as intensely competitive Gate-keeper courses Rote memorization vs. learning Faculty emphasis on grades “It’s really hard when you’re studying with competitive people. It puts too much pressure on your when you’re not trying to understand the material because you like it, you’re trying just to ace the class, so it’s not that desire to learn, but the desire to get a better grade, and sometimes you kind of just have to step back from it and try to see why you’re doing what you’re doing, not just to get the grade, but to really understand the material so you can later apply it.” (Female student, PWI) “I know my mentor’s always like…I don’t know, like trying to motivate us and I think one way he seeks to motivate us is to kind of be like, ‘Don’t you want to be better than so-and-so,’ and you kind of do get that feeling. (Female student, HSI)

18. Mitigating Power of Undergraduate Research Programs  Provided: Smaller scale faculty interactions Peer networks Sense of community

19. Implications  Intimidation in class fosters a greater sense of competition  Academic competition extends out of class to students’ studying behaviors and strategies  Institutional context shapes how students perceive and experience competition  Future research needed to further examine grading practices, pedagogy and environment of introductory science

20. Group Activity  Given the themes and challenges we just presented… please discuss in small groups how these issues affect your individual campuses and develop a list of recommendations for your respective institutions. A spokesperson from each group will share you list with the rest of the participants.

21. Contact Information Acknowledgments: This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05 as well as the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors. Papers and reports are available for download at: http://heri.ucla.edu/nih Project e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu Faculty and Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Mitchell Chang Monica Lin Gina Garcia Felisha Herrera Postdoctoral Scholars: Kevin Eagan Josephine Gasiewski Administrative Staff: Aaron Pearl Graduate Research Assistants: Christopher Newman Minh Tran Jessica Sharkness Cindy Mosqueda Juan Garibay