S-STEM lessons learned: Supporting community college transfer pathways and access to high impact practices during transfer transition

Abstract

While scholarships help reduce the financial burden of higher education, scholarships alone do not increase STEM bachelor degree completion by low-income academically talented students. Developing strategies to support STEM transfer students is key [1], [2], [3] as is engaging students in high-impact practices such as internships and undergraduate research [4]. We share approaches developed in our National Science Foundation Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (NSF S-STEM) program to support student success and to increase access to research and internship opportunities, particularly during the transition between institutions for the transfer student, which we refer to as transfer transition. We draw implications from student-level qualitative research and make suggestions for changes in institutional structure that better support both student-level and institutional outcomes. At our small, urban, liberal arts institution, 51% of STEM students are Pell-eligible and 35% are underrepresented. Among juniors and seniors, 42% are transfers. A scholarship program for juniors and seniors funded by two NSF S-STEM grants has supported 111 scholars. Of these scholars, 92 have graduated with STEM degrees and 18 are continuing in STEM. This 99% retention rate compares with a university-wide 6-year graduation rate for first-time full-time students of 63.5% and a 3-year graduation rate for transfer students of 50.0% (2012 and 2015 cohorts, respectively). Five scholars have been awarded NSF Graduate Research Fellowships, of whom two were transfers and two were underrepresented as defined by NSF. We used qualitative research methods to explore the lived experience of both transfer and non-transfer S-STEM scholars. Using conceptual frameworks from social work, we coded and analyzed individual, semi-structured, recorded and transcribed interviews of scholars, selected support staff, and one faculty focus group. Emerging themes included holistic individual relationships with key faculty and staff; social identity, particularly social class, along with gender, age, race, immigrant status, and religion; and individual traits that helped students succeed despite social identity-related barriers. Faculty also emphasized the importance of establishing a culture of science. While STEM faculty felt supported by the institution, they also questioned whether the administration fully recognized the unique needs of STEM faculty, staff and students.