The Influence of the Sherman STEM Teacher Scholars Program on Persistence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

This sequential explanatory mixed-methods study investigated the differences in persistence between students from the Sherman STEM Teacher Scholars Program (STEP), a STEM teacher scholarship and career preparation program, and STEM majors not in the program. Quantitative results indicated that STEP participants had higher levels of academic integration, women scored higher on persistence factors than men, and White students had a higher degree commitment than students of color. Qualitative findings indicated that STEP provided a family atmosphere and connected their coursework to their career aspirations. Women of color felt stereotyped by White classmates in STEM courses, which impacted their degree of commitment, and students of color in STEP relied on the program as a counterspace to racially insensitive STEM classrooms.

1. Introduction

Over the past 20 years, K–12, higher education, and policy makers alike have focused their efforts on increasing the number of individuals in the US who pursue a degree in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines [1,2]. Often the argument for increasing the number of individuals with a degree in an STEM discipline is centered on the need for the US to remain a global competitor. Moreover, an analysis from Funk and Parker [3] indicated that since 1990, STEM workforce employment has outpaced the nation’s overall employment growth by 45 percent. Consequently, there is an urge for educational organizations to support the development and matriculation of students who seek to earn college degrees in STEM to fill these positions.

While there is a dire need for STEM professionals, data suggest there are discrepancies in STEM degree attainment by race and gender. In particular, White and Asian students and men are over-represented in STEM degree conferrals while women and Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous student populations are under-represented [4]. Consequently, researchers have sought to understand these discrepancies in STEM degree attainment. There is evidence that the culture of STEM creates a racially hostile environment for students of color [5], whereas they choose to transfer into a different degree program or leave college altogether [6]. For example, McGee [7] explained that for students of color in STEM, they typically have experiences of “isolation, feeling or being positioned as an imposter, and racial stereotypes and other forms of racialized bias that distract URM [underrepresented racially minoritized] students from their studies and sap up their energy” (p. 1).

Given these realities, colleges and universities have sought to develop programming to support the persistence of students in STEM degree programs. Consequently, the focus of these programs has centered around preparing students to enter the STEM workforce broadly but have not considered in tandem the need to also support students to enter the STEM K–12 teacher workforce specifically. Examining programs that seek to increase the STEM teacher workforce is significant as there is a national shortage of science and math teachers [8]. The low number of students who persist in STEM fields coupled with the reduced number of students entering the teaching profession limit the pool of potential STEM teacher candidates. In an analysis of a nationally representative sample of science and math teachers, Ingersoll and Perda [9] found that math and science teaching positions are the most difficult to fill and retain. This analysis further suggested that the high attrition rates of science and math teachers and the lack of interested and available pre-service teachers have created a national science and math teacher shortage.

The Sherman STEM Teacher Scholars Program: A Programmatic Response to a National Need

In 2007, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) developed the Sherman STEM Teacher Scholars Program (STEP), which was modeled after the Meyerhoff Scholars Program. STEP provides scholarships ranging from USD 3000 to USD 15,000 per academic year, academic enrichment (e.g., first-year experience course for each new STEP cohort), and professional enrichment (e.g., applied learning experiences in schools) to prepare pre-service STEM majors to become culturally responsive STEM educators in urban areas. It includes support for not only students at UMBC, but also for program alumni as they transition to their teacher roles [10].

Now entering its 17th year (at the time of writing this publication), STEP has supported over 150 students become STEM educators. Demographically, from 2007 to 2019, participants referred to as “Sherman Scholars” have been 26% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Pacific Islander, 15% Asian, 8% multiracial, and 38% White (R. Shafi, personal communication, July, 2019). With 62% of program participants being pre-service STEM teacher candidates of color, this percentage outpaces national teacher demographics (NCES, 2019) as well as Maryland state teacher demographics [11].

Although the program is centered on preparing STEM majors to become teachers, STEP is also thought to provide a supportive academic and social environment for STEM majors, which in return influences their persistence in college more so than STEM majors who are not involved in the program. Despite the longevity of the program, there has not been an empirical investigation to date that has compared participants in STEP to their non-STEP STEM major peers to investigate the efficacy of the program on STEM persistence.

Thus, the purpose of this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study is to investigate the relationship between participation in STEP and persistence in college. The study was guided by the following quantitative, qualitative, and integrated research questions:

• Are there differences in the factors of persistence as measured by the College Persistence Questionnaire for STEP participants versus STEM majors who do not participate in the program?
• Are there differences in the factors of persistence as measured by the College Persistence Questionnaire for STEM majors of color versus White students?
• What are the academic and social experiences of STEP participants versus STEM majors of color not in STEP?

2. Review of the Related Literature

For this study, we use Davidson et al.’s [12] notion of college persistence, which encompasses the constructs of academic integration, social integration, supportive services, degree commitment, institutional commitment, and academic conscientiousness (i.e., students’ perseverance in completing coursework). In this literature review, we explore the literature around each of these constructs.

Davidson et al. defined degree commitment as “the level of importance they [a student] attach to earning a diploma” [12], (p. 375). As colleges and universities seek to improve student retention, researchers have suggested that the more a student is committed to earning their degree, the more likely they are to complete their college studies [12,13,14]. Often in conversations on STEM persistence, inferences are drawn about whether students of color and women are committed to earning their degree based on the differences in persistence data between women and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students compared to their male and White and Asian student counterparts. However, researchers have unpacked how there must be a discussion about how university and STEM cultures push students of color to the margins [7].

Allen-Ramidal and Campbell [15] argued that to see all students succeed in STEM, there must be alignment between an institution’s culture and climate. The authors further contended that “the misalignment of culture and climate is often manifested in community members’ expression of views in opposition to an institutional view of its culture and mission” (pp. 3–4). In order to examine and understand students’ commitment to their degree, it is critical to understand their collegiate experiences. As a result, this study uses a mixed-methods approach to not only understand if there are differences in degree commitment by participation in STEP, race, and gender, but to understand how their experiences as STEM majors influence their commitment.

While faculty–student interactions are important to the persistence of students in STEM, there has been a litany of research that suggests support services (e.g., career counseling, mentoring, tutoring, etc.) play a role in the persistence of students generally [16] and in STEM disciplines specifically [17]. Interestingly, research on the experiences of women and students of color in STEM suggests that they create supports that often function outside of the traditional university-sponsored programming due to being marginalized on campus. Ong et al. [18] examined the collegiate experiences of 39 women of color and found that their sample created counterspaces, which the authors explained “are often considered “safe spaces” that, by definition, lie in the margins, outside of mainstream educational spaces, and are occupied by members of non-traditional groups” (p. 206). Their findings suggest that women of color developed these counterspaces in university and conference settings, which were described as “physical settings, such as conferences, or could be conceptual and ideological, such as in mentoring and peer-to-peer relationships” (p. 219).

Davidson et al.’s [12] definition of academic integration, which defines it as “students’ understanding of lectures, believing that faculty care about their intellectual growth, taking an interest in class discussions, and seeing a connection between courses and careers, among other things” (p. 385), was used for the current study. In the research on the persistence of students in STEM, faculty members have been found to play an influential role in the persistence of STEM majors [19,20]. Micari and Pezos [21] examined the relationship between student–faculty relationships and final grades in six organic chemistry courses and found that student–faculty relationships were a predictor of students’ grades and their confidence in the course.

Not only do STEM faculty members have an influence on the academic achievement of students, they provide opportunities to connect their coursework to career and real-world problems. Jett [22] examined the experiences of a Black male mathematics major and found that while his professors were supportive of him academically, he critiqued his mathematical research experiences as lacking integration among all of the STEM disciplines and expressed disdain about “the lack of real-life phenomena in research mathematics within the context of his experiences” (p. 91).

In research on STEM persistence, the notion of sense of belonging has been found to influence the likelihood of students completing their STEM degrees [19,23,24]. Specifically, Strayhorn [25] conceptualized that sense of belonging “reflects the social support that students perceive on campus; it is a feeling of connectedness, that one is important to others, that one matters” (pp. 304–305). Scholars have argued that for students of color and women majoring in STEM, the construct of sense of belonging is an important factor when understanding why some students persist in STEM and why others do not [24,26,27].

Moreover, previous research underscores how students of color and women are subjected to being stereotyped by White peers and professors, which influences their sense of belonging [28]. For example, Rodriguez and Blaney [29] examined the experiences of 17 Latina students and found that their participants experienced being marginalized as STEM majors because their peers signaled to them through snide comments that they did not belong in the field. While some participants in this study internalized these experiences and developed an ‘imposter syndrome’, participants also resisted these racist and sexist ideologies and “were able to develop a sense of belonging in STEM that was linked with their identity as trailblazers and feminists” [29], (pp. 7–8). Given the likelihood for students of color in STEM to experience macro- and microaggressions as STEM majors, it is important to consider the support these students use to navigate these experiences. Thus, the current study will address this concern and the role of STEP, as a mechanism for participants to feel that they belong in STEM.

3. Methods

This study was derived from a National Science Foundation-funded research project to explore the efficacy of STEP. In particular, the larger study had four major aims. First, the project investigated STEP participants’ motivation to become a teacher and why STEM majors not involved in the program decided not to pursue a career in teaching. Second, the project explored the factors that influenced their persistence as STEM majors. Third, the project investigated specifically the experiences of students of color who participated in STEP to understand how the program supported them as aspiring teachers. Lastly, the study sought to explore if there were differences in factors of persistence and experiences of students in STEP and STEM majors not involved in the program. While STEP has a focus on developing STEM teachers, students in the program take the same STEM courses as their peers with no teaching aspirations. Thus, the current study investigated whether STEP participants differed on various persistence factors.

3.1. Research Design

This research project used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design. Creswell [30] explained that this design involved two phases of data collection and analysis. During phase one, the researcher collected and then analyzed quantitative data. Based on the findings from the quantitative data, phase two entailed the researcher collecting qualitative data from participants to help explain the quantitative findings. An explanatory mixed-methods design was useful as the aim of the larger project was to understand within-group differences for STEP participants about their STEM persistence, but also to understand both quantitatively and qualitatively how the program potentially supported STEP participants to persist in STEM compared to STEM majors on campus who did not participate in the program.

3.2. Participant Recruitment

After receiving institutional review board approval from UMBC, the researchers were provided a list of over 1500 non-STEP STEM majors from the office of institutional research at UMBC to support generating a non-STEP participant recruitment pool to match these students with STEP participants. STEP and non-STEP participant matches were generated by matching students from both groups with similar demographics (i.e., major, race, and high school GPA). Due to non-STEP members not potentially participating in our study, we matched 5 non-STEP STEM majors for every STEP participant to ensure we would be able to match every STEP member with a non-STEP STEM major. This process yielded an initial matched participant pool of 215 students (43 STEP, 172 non-STEP). Students in the initial participant pool were sent an email invitation to participate in this study. Email invitations included a hyperlink to the electronic survey, as well as a URL to the survey website for those unable to access the survey using the link. All participant names discussed in this paper are pseudonyms.

3.3. Quantitative Phase Participants, Instruments, and Procedures

Ninety (90) students from UMBC completed the survey. The majority of participants were female (n = 62; 68.9%) and non-transfer students (n = 65; 72.2%). Given the variety of STEM majors offered at UMBC, participants’ majors were grouped into the following three categories: Science/Science Education, Math/Math Education, and STEM Education. Over half of the participants were non-STEP students (n = 54; 60%) and were not interested in K–12 teaching (n = 50; 55.6%). Similarly, race was divided almost equally between students of color (n = 43; 47.8%) and White students (n = 47; 52.2%). The racial representation of the study aligns with the racial diversity of UMBC, as students of color comprise 49.8% of the student population at UMBC.

Davidson et al.’s [12] College Persistence Questionnaire (CPQ) was selected to investigate factors influencing student retention. The CPQ is a 36-item questionnaire that measures factors that contribute to post-secondary student matriculation. It examines the following factors: academic integration, social integration, supportive services, degree commitment, institutional commitment, and academic conscientiousness (i.e., students’ perseverance in completing coursework). Participants responded to statements using a 5-point Likert scale. The labels for the Likert responses depend on how the question was worded. For example, questions that ask “how much” students like something are answered with “very dissatisfied” and “very satisfied” as end responses. Additionally, labels for the 5-point scale varied based on question wording (e.g., 1 = very unfavorable, 5 = very favorable; 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied) to examine the impact of specific factors on retention. These responses were converted to a 5-point favorability score (–2 = very unfavorable, –1 = somewhat unfavorable, 0 = neutral, +1 = somewhat favorable, +2 = very favorable). Responses for each item were analyzed, and items that performed similarly were combined into subscales. Four clusters of items were identified: degree commitment, academic integration, support services, and sense of belonging. The mean, standard deviation, and internal consistency of each subscale are shown in

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for College Persistence Questionnaire subscales.

Measure	n	M	SD	α
Academic Integration	90	0.31	0.51	0.69
Degree Commitment	90	0.72	0.51	0.65
Sense of Belonging 1	90	−0.12	0.46	0.66
Support Services	90	0.09	0.75	0.79

¹ Sense of belonging subscale combines items targeting institutional commitment and social integration.

.

3.4. Qualitative Phase Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

At the completion of the survey, participants were asked if they would like to participate in a one-on-one follow-up qualitative interview and/or focus group. For participants who elected to participate in the second phase of the project (qualitative interviews), they were contacted after the completion of the quantitative data analysis and received USD 20 for their interview participation. The purpose of these follow-up interviews were to gain a more robust understanding of the quantitative findings. Additionally, for STEP participants, we used individual interviews to understand how the program contributed to their persistence as STEM majors. Sample questions included the following: What factors influenced you to become a STEM major? In what ways does (or does not) the campus make you feel that you belong? What are your experiences interacting with your professors? Why have you been committed to finishing your degree at this institution? From our survey, 47 (52%) participants elected to participate in an interview. From that list, 17 participants were interviewed for this study. A total of 7 participants were Sherman Scholars, and 10 were non-STEP STEM majors.

Table 2. Qualitative interview participant demographics.

Participant	STEP or Non-STEP	Race/Ethnicity	Gender	Major
Alex	non-STEP	Hispanic	Man	Physics
Lauren	non-STEP	Asian	Woman	Mathematics
Leslie	non-STEP	Asian	Woman	Biological Sciences
Jessica	non-STEP	Iranian	Woman	Biological Sciences
Corey	non-STEP	Black	Woman	Mathematics
Stacey	non-STEP	Hispanic	Woman	Psychology
Bianca	non-STEP	Black (Nigerian)	Woman	Biological Sciences
Cassie	non-STEP	Middle Eastern	Woman	Biological Sciences
Sonu	non-STEP	Asian	Woman	Biological Sciences
Dani	non-STEP	Asian	Woman	Mathematics
Malika	STEP	Black	Woman	Mathematics
Barry	STEP	Asian	Man	Biological Science
Mila	STEP	White	Woman	Mathematics
Zora	STEP	Hispanic	Woman	Chemistry
Ali	STEP	Black	Woman	Elementary Education
Mark	STEP	White	Man	Biological Sciences
Nina	STEP	Asian	Man	Chemistry

provides demographic information on each participant.

The 17 participants engaged in one-on-one semi-structured interviews with either the first or second author. A semi-structured interview protocol was used because semi-structured interviews provide researchers some flexibility in the order questions are asked and allow the conversation to have a natural flow [31]. However, each of the participants was generally asked the same questions. Each interview lasted between 15 and 40 min and were conducted in person or remotely via Zoom. The duration and location of interviews varied because of COVID-19 in-person meeting restrictions during the data collection process and its impact on students having to transition to online learning and navigating various life challenges.

Interviews were professionally transcribed and then checked for accuracy. Next, the first author uploaded all interviews to NVivo (a qualitative data management software) for analysis. The first author initially began the coding process using four of the following deductive codes derived from the quantitative findings and aligned with the CPQ: degree commitment, sense of belonging, academic integration, and support services satisfaction. Using these deductive codes, the first author read through each interview and coded selected text to each of these codes where applicable. Given the iterative nature of qualitative research, the first author then conducted a second reading of each interview and inductively coded the interviews, which led to 12 codes (e.g., reasons to be a STEM major, importance of under-represented students in STEM) that were not captured in the 4 deductive codes.

At the conclusion of this process, the first author held research team meetings with the second author to discuss their perspectives about the data. The second author read through each interview and developed a coding structure using Microsoft Word. From their list, the first author integrated the second author’s codes into NVivo. Given the advice of Saldana [32], the first author served as the “code-book editor”, which is a designated researcher “who creates, updates, revises, and maintains the master list for the group” (p. 34). Our conversations about the data led to revising our codes. We then grouped our codes together to develop themes, which helped to explain our quantitative findings. This process led to two overarching themes, which are shared in the findings section.

3.5. Triangulation and Use of Research Debrief Team

Tracy [33] explained that in qualitative analysis, researchers should seek crystallization, which requires researchers to gather multiple forms of data, using various frameworks, and engage with multiple researchers with the aim that these actions lead researchers “to open up a more complex, in-depth, but still thoroughly partial understanding of the issue” (p. 844). Given the aims of our study, collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data served as one approach for triangulation. In many ways, the qualitative data provided rich insights that our quantitative data could not illuminate. Furthermore, to ensure we had accurate statistical and qualitative interpretations, we also had two peer debriefers. One peer debriefer was a psychometrician who provided expertise on the quantitative analyses and our interpretations. The second peer debriefer was an STEM education expert who provided insights and suggestions to refine our data collection and analysis process. Both debriefers were involved in the development of this paper (and larger project) and pushed us to consider alternative analyses and expand our thematic analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative Results

4.1.1. Quantitative Descriptive Results

Descriptive statistics were conducted to examine the data. Missing data were removed, as they were not relevant to current research interests. Next, new variables were created to convert continuous variables to categorical, such as whether the student identified as a part of a racial minority group (i.e., 1 = White, 2 = student of color) and K–12 teaching probability (i.e., 1 = unlikely to teach, 2 = likely to teach).

Similarly, all item responses on the CPQ were categorical and were coded on a 5-point scale (e.g., 1 = very unfavorable, 5 = very favorable). Items that were negatively worded, such that correct responses were in the reverse order, were rescored (e.g., 5 = very unfavorable, 1 = very favorable). Lastly, per the recommendations of Davidson et al. (2009) [12], items were coded to align with the favorability ratings (e.g., −2 = very unfavorable, 2 = very favorable).

Next, correlations were used to examine the strength and direction of relationships between race, gender, GPA, major, probability to teach, and the CPQ subscales (i.e., academic integration, degree completion, support services, and sense of belonging). The correlation indicated statistically significant results for several correlations at p < 0.05, as shown in

Table 3. Correlation matrix for key variables and CPQ subscales.

Variable	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. GPA	3.80	0.54	-	-	0.03	0.03	0.27 *	−0.09	0.33 **
2. K–12 Probability	46.32	40.93		-	-	0.05	−0.52	−0.14	0.06
3. Academic Integration	0.31	0.51	0.69			-	0.00	0.16	0.16
4. Degree Commitment	0.72	0.51	0.65				-	0.09	0.83 **
5. Sense of Belonging	−0.12	0.46	0.66					-	0.02
6. Support Services	0.09	0.75	0.79						-

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

.

Responses for each item on the survey were analyzed, and items that performed similarly were combined into subscales. Four clusters of items were identified: degree commitment, academic integration, support services, and sense of belonging. The mean, standard deviation, and internal consistency of each subscale are shown in Table 1. Subscales were computed based on how items correlated and were tested by internal consistency analyses. These subscales differed from the scaling of Davidson, Beck, and Milligan (2009), by combining institutional commitment and social integration and removing the academic conscientiousness subscale from the current analyses.

4.1.2. Quantitative Associations between CPQ Scale Scores and Independent Variables

Several multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to investigate the association between the student demographics and the CPQ subscales. The initial MANOVA examined STEP student status (i.e., yes, no) and CPQ subscales. There was a non-significant difference in factors of persistence based on whether the participant was a in STEP: F(4, 85) = 2.41; p = 0.055; Wilk’s Λ = 0.898; and partial η² = 0.10. However, STEP participation had a statistically significant effect on academic integration ratings, F(1, 88) = 6.46; p = 0.013; partial η² = 0.068, indicating that Sherman Scholars had more favorable perceptions of their professors and were better able to connect their coursework to their career aspirations than non-STEP STEM majors.

Next, responses to the CPQ scale scores were examined using the entire sample (i.e., STEP, non-STEP) to explore whether other independent variables contribute to factors of persistence. An MANOVA including CPQ subscales and gender was conducted. The difference in factors of persistence based on participant gender was statistically significant—F(4, 85) = 2.67; p = 0.038; Wilk’s Λ = 0.888; and partial η² = 0.112—such that on average, female students performed higher on the CPQ subscales than male students. Two subsequent MANOVAs were run to explore the relationship with CPQ and student of color status, then CPQ and major, respectively, which yielded non-significant results for differences in student of color status (i.e., White, student of color)—F(4, 85) = 1.93; p = 0.114; Wilk’s Λ = 0.917; and partial η² = 0.08—and major—F(8, 168) = 0.93; p = 0.606; Wilk’s Λ = 0.798; and partial η² = 0.04. However, on the degree commitment items, White students reported a higher level of importance to receiving their degree on average than students of color in the sample: F(1, 88) = 5.33; p = 0.023; and partial η² = 0.057.

4.1.3. Limitations

A relatively small sample of students from a single institution (i.e., UMBC) was used in this study. Consequently, the number of participants (n = 90) varied significantly from the validation study for the CPQ (n = 20,220) [12]. Thus, generalizability of the findings may be limited, and results should be used with this mind. While the response rate was similar to other online surveys at 42% [34], future research should include a larger participant population and implement additional survey marketing techniques.

4.2. Qualitative Results

Given the quantitative findings, qualitative interviews with participants provided context and nuance to the quantitative results. After interviews with 17 participants, two overarching themes emerged. The first theme provides some explanation as to why Sherman Scholars scored higher on the academic integration factor of the CPQ. The second finding focuses on students of color and their perceptions of commitment to earning a degree and their experiences as STEM majors.

4.2.1. Academic Integration: Experiences with Faculty and Influence of STEP

Quantitative findings indicated that participants in STEP had more positive views of the academic integration construct than non-STEP STEM majors. Davidson et al. defined academic integration as “students’ understanding of lectures, believing that faculty care about their intellectual growth, taking an interest in class discussions, and seeing a connection between courses and careers, among other things” [12], (p. 385). Interviews with participants focused on understanding their relationships with faculty generally and STEM faculty specifically and how they saw the connection between their academics and careers. The non-STEP participants in this study discussed the divergent experiences they had with their STEM faculty members. However, STEP participants in this study discussed the role the program played in connecting what they learned in the classroom to their future career as teachers.

Mixed Experiences with Faculty for Non-STEP Participants

Participants who were not involved with STEP in this study had mixed experiences with faculty members generally and STEM professors specifically. During interviews, participants described that STEM faculty members were more concerned with their research and saw teaching as an afterthought. One participant, Sonu (non-STEP), described various interactions she had with professors and found them to be very excited about their research labs and endeavors, but it appeared they did not put a lot of time into teaching. Another participant, Jessica (non-STEP), provided a slightly different explanation than Sonu, as she believed “The STEM courses sometimes because of the number of students. There are 300 in one class, I understand that sometimes they cannot be as supportive as they want to be. But I think they do their best”.

While Sonu and Jessica explained how their professors showed their preference towards teaching, other participants explained that professors were genuinely there to help them. In particular, students of color expressed how while they noticed they were stereotyped due to their race/ethnicity and gender, they thought the professors helped them overcome these feelings. For example, Leslie (non-STEP) who has a career goal of attending medical school explained:

“I don’t think professors have ever treated me differently, but I do get sometimes an uncomfortable sense around my peers because I know that 2% of Asian females make it through medical school, which always puts me on like slight edge that I have to be my best to get anywhere in life. So I’m not going to just kind of cry over spilled milk, but I definitely say for my professors, at least, they’ve always given me the time of day and they talked to me about what the next steps for to do are, or they re-explain a concept that I never like if I didn’t fully grasp and I completely respect them for that. I don’t get any sense of discomfort or I guess judgment from them.”

Sherman Program Made Connection between Coursework and Career

During interviews with Sherman Scholars, they discussed how the program allowed them to make connections between their coursework and their future careers as teachers. As a component of STEP, Sherman Scholars engage in at least one applied learning experience (ALE) per year. ALEs are designed to get Sherman Scholars comfortable being in school settings so that when they begin student teaching (typically during their last year of coursework), they are prepared to teach and know about how schools operate from an insider perspective. Scholars discussed how this gave them an advantage compared to other education majors who were not part of the program. For example, one Sherman Scholar, Ali, discussed how her ALE at one school actually led her to being offered a full-time teaching position at the school. Ali explained,

“I feel like being more involved with applied learning experiences and actually working with students, it gives you that exposure and people are able to see who you are as a teacher. They’re able to see who you are as a person and how you interact with their students. And even their staff, the more exposure that you have I feel like was very beneficial because by the time I was ready to go into my internship, because of the experience that I had with Sherman, I was already ahead of the game. The other people in my cohort, that was their first time stepping into a school and really being engulfed in the community. And the Shermans and I had already been in those circles and in those experiences, so I feel like it definitely gives you an advantage to people who might be in the education department but not inside Sherman.”

Thus, in many ways, the ALE aspect of STEP serves as an audition for program participants. Moreover, not only are participants gaining real-world experiences, they are able to make the connections to the content learned in their college courses.

Not only did Sherman Scholars acknowledge the importance of ALEs, but they also believed that having access to other like-minded scholars was critical to their academic success in STEM. Malika for instance explained the academic benefits of STEP:

“Sherman has helped me a lot because as a math major, there are other math majors on the teaching track that I’ve met at Sherman who have been able to help me. In my academics or helped me plan my schedule to best fit my academic and mathematical needs.”

In Malika’s case and other Sherman Scholars, not only did STEP provide a community to acquire support in their major courses, but participants also provided peer advising to one another. This included sharing information about what professors to take and the best ways to structure their academic schedule as STEM majors.

4.2.2. Degree Commitment: Experiencing Stereotyping in and Inclusive Campus Environment

Quantitative findings indicated that White students had stronger views about degree commitment than students of color in the larger sample. Davidson et al. (2009) defined degree commitment as “the level of importance they attach to earning a diploma” (p. 375) and go on to further explain that “The crucial elements in degree commitment are students’ intentions (to finish the degree), estimates of the likelihood or certainty that a degree will be achieved, and their self-appraised commitment to earning the degree” (p. 375). During our qualitative interviews, we asked participants to expand upon their commitment to earning their degree. Our analysis generated two sub-themes.

First, a majority of participants discussed that their degree commitment was influenced by their commitment to the institution and opportunities the institution provided to them. Second, for students of color interviewed, they all discussed their commitment to earning their degree as a result of how the university put forth an inclusive campus environment. However, students of color indicated that as STEM majors they were often negatively stereotyped by their White classmates because of their race/ethnicity and gender. Interestingly, participants explained that this did not deter their commitment from wanting to earn their degree but influenced how they interacted with classmates. However, STEP participants acknowledged the program as providing a family atmosphere and creating space for them to feel valued and appreciated by classmates and program staff. Below, we expound upon participants’ experiences in great detail.

Opportunities the Institution Provided Students

Participants were asked to explain why they attended UMBC and were committed to earning their degree. One prevalent response was that the institution provided students various academic and employment-related opportunities that increased their degree commitment. For Sherman Scholars, they cited the program as a central component to their desire to attend UMBC and their commitment to completing their degree. Zora, a Sherman Scholar, described her visit to UMBC and how STEP influenced her decision to attend UMBC:

“I get a vibe and that’s just it. When I toured UMBC, it was an early bird tour and I went and I saw the dorm and they had Scooby Doo up as their decorations and I was like, this is it. It’s where I want to go, it’s a sign. I went to Sherman and I mean I had the interview and then after that I met [the center director], I think first. And I was like, she’s awesome. She’s amazing. I think I’m going to enjoy it here.”

While it made sense that STEP participants would acknowledge the program as an influence on their commitment to the university, non-STEP students of color also acknowledged how having programs like STEP on campus signaled to them that the university was attentive to their needs. Cassie who was not involved in STEP explained that:

“Like all of the different programs that really encourage minority participation and success, like the Meyerhoff Program. Even though I’m not a part of it, it’s so nice to see that there are so many [programs] in place at UMBC that are really, really encouraging that. And it makes me, I don’t want to say fit in, but makes me feel like I’m supported even though I’m not exactly a part of that program.”

Non-STEP participants also acknowledged how the institution provided opportunities for them, which influenced their commitment to the institution. Leslie (non-STEP), for instance, explained that “I chose UMBC because of the other universities that I got accepted into, I felt that UMBC had the best curriculum and opportunities for me to grow”. For non-STEP participants, many explained the growth that Leslie mentioned was that the institution prepared them to further their education in STEM generally and medical school specifically. While participants discussed the importance of having opportunities on their degree commitment, they also signaled that being in an inclusive campus community also made them committed to earning their degree.

The Use of the “Sherman Family” to Combat STEM Stereotyping

Participants spoke in great detail about the welcoming and “inclusive” environment the UMBC campus offers. Some students described the racial diversity of the student body. For example, Cassie (non-STEP) expressed the importance of the campus diversity on her commitment to attending the institution, “but I feel like UMBC the student body is really, really, really diverse, which is one of the things I like most about UMBC”.

While Cassie explained her belief about how the diverse student body propelled them and other students to attend UMBC and thrive academically, several students of color commented on how the institution was attempting in meaningful ways to create a campus where they could be affirmed. Barry (a Sherman Scholar) said “So, UMBC is really great with respecting diversity, making sure that there’s equal opportunity for all students. It was easy to feel I belong as a minority in UMBC”. Ali (a Sherman Scholar) also expressed how the institution had a reputation of being an inclusive environment, which she acknowledged was not just talk, but action. She explained:

“My family had heard about UMBC, a couple of people in my church had gone. They had spoke very highly of it. And the fact that my grandfather and my uncle, who are big influences in my life, noticed that UMBC had a Black president, and he was very active in Civil Rights. And the fact that he was pushing for Black and Brown students to succeed academically, especially in STEM, that appealed to them and they encouraged me to go. I see that he does push Black and Brown students in STEM to really thrive. And I appreciate that because like you said, how do we encourage people to be in certain spaces? He’s doing that. So it was very uplifting to see that he was striving to do those things.”

Interestingly, while participants like Brianna acknowledged the institution being an inclusive environment and being known for its excellence in preparing students of color to excel in STEM specifically, students of color in this study did acknowledge that in their STEM courses they were subjected to stereotyping and microaggressions by their White classmates. Some participants described how being the one of few students of color and/or women in their STEM courses did at times impact them. For example, Lauren (non-STEP) described:

“I’ll be sitting in a class full of 20 men and then like five other not men. And yeah, it’ll be intimidating because they speak with such confidence even though they’re wrong. So yeah. So sometimes I’m wondering, yeah, am I smart enough for this, for this class?”

While Lauren experienced what she described as “imposter syndrome”, she went on to explain that when she would take tests and typically finish first, she quickly learned that “Okay, so they’re just all talk”.

Similar to Lauren, Sonu also described how that while her career interests were more aligned to biology as she wanted to become a physician’s assistant, she expressed that she also left her original major of information systems due to not wanting to be stereotyped in her class as a woman. She went on to express that:

“I didn’t want to have to fight every day for people to think that I’m smart enough to make it in the field. I didn’t want to have to work five times harder than the male counterparts to just make the same leeway they did.”

For Asian women who participated in interviews, they specifically described being subjected to the model minority myth, which Poon et al. described as the ways that Asian students are treated “as a monolithically hardworking racial group whose high achievement undercuts claims of systemic racism made by other racially minoritized populations, especially African Americans” [35], (p. 469). Although participants discussed being looked at to be smart just because they were Asian, participants unfortunately described how they were “prepared” for these moments. Leslie (non-STEP) explained it best by stating:

“I knew well before going into this major that I was going to be kind of a black sheep because only 2% of Asian females get through medical school, so I was already kind of prepared to have people give me weird looks at a certain point”.

While students experienced various forms of stereotyping, during our conversations with Sherman Scholars, they continuously discussed how STEP provided them a “family” that they could rely on to circumvent the negative experiences they had in their STEM courses. In essence, STEP served as a mechanism to support degree commitment of students of color. For example, during an interview with Malika (a Sherman Scholar), we had the following exchange about the importance STEP played in her commitment to earning her degree at UMBC:

“Researcher: And so being a part of the Sherman program, do you feel like it made your commitment to UMBC stronger?

Malika: Yes. It really did. Sherman is such a family dynamic. It’s kind of a home away from home, that community dynamic. It’s so great.”

For Sherman Scholars like Malika, they explained how the program created opportunities for participants to get together in what are titled “Family Meetings” to discuss current trends in STEM teaching. An ancillary component of the Family Meetings were the connections made between participants in cohorts and between cohorts. Additionally, Sherman Scholars shared their experiences as students during the meetings and informed other participants about the faculty and advisors who will support them as STEM majors. One Sherman Scholar, Mila, a graduating senior at the time of data collection explained how she relied on her cohort member to get through her studies:

“I just graduated. It was my fifth year in the program, and there was one other member of my cohort who was also She was with me the whole way, and so just the different bonding experiences that my cohort had from beginning to end was probably the most influential part.”

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that influence persistence of STEM majors at UMBC and to explore if there were differences between students who participate in STEP and those that are not part of the program. Previous research outlined the influential role of faculty members on STEM major persistence [19,20]. While student perspectives on classroom and faculty experiences were not explicitly asked on the survey, participant interviews provided an opportunity to learn more about these experiences. Student views on faculty varied from those believing student success was not a priority for their STEM instructors to those citing instances where they received support from their professors. Given the importance that scholars have placed on student faculty relationships [36], it is critical that conversations around STEM persistence place an emphasis on the role of STEM faculty. Moreover, the findings signal the need for institutions to not only delve into the pedagogical approaches STEM faculty members use, but their attitudes and dispositions about being in disciplines where funding and research productivity may be given more priority than teaching.

While Sherman Scholars and non-STEP participants cited varying experiences interacting with faculty, there were differences in the ways these two groups had access to opportunities to connect their coursework to career experiences. Students credited research, work (e.g., full-time jobs, part-time tutoring, internships), and other learning experiences to having both positive and negative influences on their career aspirations. For Sherman scholars specifically, career aspirations were linked to their applied learning experiences (ALEs). Sherman scholars shared that they believed their ALEs prepared them for what they could expect as a teacher, which influenced their decision whether to persist with pursuing a teacher career. These insights from STEP scholar interviews align with quantitative findings suggesting that being a STEP scholar influenced student persistence and interest in K–12 teaching.

Women in this study performed higher on the CPQ factors than male students, potentially suggesting a higher level of college persistence. This finding is interesting given past research, which has shown that men are more likely to persist and attain a degree in an STEM discipline than women [37]. We also acknowledge this finding comes with a caveat, as the overall sample had a higher number of women participants. During interviews, several women shared that they were prepared for the gender stereotypes, while other participants admitted that the lack of comfortability with gender stereotyping led to a change in their STEM major. Similarly, students of color shared that they were stereotyped by White students in their STEM courses, which influenced interactions with classmates. Overall, students of color expressed hyperawareness of their group identity (e.g., racial minority, women) in STEM courses and even felt intimidated in some cases. However, these findings speak to the resilience of women and students of color who persist academically.

The results of the quantitative analyses suggested college persistence is impacted by student gender and racial identity. Consequently, White students attributed a higher level of importance to degree completion than students of color. While most participants expressed during interviews that their commitment was impacted by the offerings of the university, students of color were specifically interested in the university’s commitment to an inclusive environment. Several students of color mentioned that the diverse student population and administration of UMBC played a pivotal role in their university selection. However, the diversity of the university did not make them exempt from stereotypes and microaggressions in their STEM classes. Nevertheless, students reported that these experiences on campus did not impact their overall view of the university. They cited the academic reputation and rigor of the coursework as preparing them to succeed in their future endeavors. This finding is significant, as it signals to institutions that students of color seek to enroll in institutions where their identities can be affirmed. However, as argued by Allen-Ramdial and Campbell [15], if institutions do not focus on the policies and practices of STEM faculty and administrators, a well-intentioned institution can create a hostile environment for STEM majors by allowing the racist behaviors of students to flourish.

The quantitative results indicate that Sherman Scholars had higher levels of academic integration than non-STEP scholars in our sample. Interviews of Sherman Scholars consistently included acknowledgement of the familial aspect of the program. Students shared that program stakeholders (e.g., students, staff) fellowshipped, supported each other, and even hosted “family meetings”. Unsurprisingly, program membership was reported to be an essential reason why students decided to attend UMBC and matriculated at the university. Furthermore, in many ways, STEP served as a counterspace whereby students of color and women could be around like-minded students who wanted to see them succeed. While the findings confirm the research of Ong et al. [18] who discussed the necessity of counterspaces for women and students of color, institutions of higher education must strive not only in rhetoric, but in action to create a campus where student groups do not need to create counterspaces, but that all spaces on campus affirm their identities and see them as academicians.

Overall, the mixed-methods study revealed that students believe that STEP not only creates opportunities for students to immerse into career preparation early, but also improves student persistence in degree completion by creating an inclusive environment. These findings contribute to the literature regarding the importance of supplemental STEM programs on student matriculation and degree attainment.

6. Implications

Given the findings, there are several implications for STEM degree programs and higher education more generally. The findings indicated that Sherman Scholars had more positive views of their relationships with faculty due to having the support of STEP in order to determine which professors to take and have encouragement and academic support from classmates. Consequently, for STEM degree programs, this peer support and mentoring that was integrated in STEP should be integrated into degree programs for all students. For instance, departments could assign upperclassmen a few new students to provide mentoring and support on how to navigate the program. Not only does this provide support for newer students, but overall it creates more of a family atmosphere where STEM majors help one another versus there being competition and students relying solely on themselves.

Furthermore, because Sherman Scholars were able to make connections between their course content through their ALEs, STEM programs could ensure that internships are a requirement for students. This allows students to acquire experiences where they can apply what they learn in their coursework. This will not only support the persistence of students in STEM, but will also allow universities to become ingrained in their local community by providing students to businesses.

Another salient finding from this study was that students of color who major in STEM are subjected to stereotyping from classmates. To address this issue, there are several strategies that can be applied. First, it is important to recruit and retain STEM faculty members of color. Research suggests that faculty members of color have an impact on students of color retention in STEM [27]. Second, not only is it important to recruit STEM faculty members of color, but STEM faculty members and administrators have to ensure that the culture of their degree program is one that is inclusive of all students. To perform this includes conducting climate assessments to understand the experiences of students of color and then acting on these results. For instance, STEM departments can look at the makeup of their research labs to understand the racial/ethnic and gender composition of student participants and based on the results can conduct a targeted recruitment campaign to recruit under-represented students.

7. Conclusions

To ensure the US remains a leader in STEM, colleges and universities must ensure that they are developing programs and policies that support the persistence of STEM majors generally and STEM majors of color specifically. The Sherman STEM Teacher Scholars Program is one example of a program that has sought to diversify the STEM workforce through recruiting and retaining students of color in STEM. While the program has focused on teachers, findings from this study suggest that the program does have some influence on students persisting as STEM majors. We hope that university administrators look to the Sherman STEM Teacher Scholars Program as an example of a support system that not only gets students through their coursework but provides them the opportunity to connect their coursework to the real world.