Broadening participation in STEM through equity-minded high-impact practices: a multimodal systematic review

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI:10.1007/s10734-023-01165-y
Jillian Ives, Joni Falk, Brian Drayton
{"title":"Broadening participation in STEM through equity-minded high-impact practices: a multimodal systematic review","authors":"Jillian Ives, Joni Falk, Brian Drayton","doi":"10.1007/s10734-023-01165-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>High-impact practices (HIPs), such as undergraduate research, first-year seminars, and learning communities, have been shown to generally advance college student success. However, there are often disparities in access, participation, and outcomes between white and racially/ethnically minoritized students. While scholars have critiqued HIPs and provided alternative approaches to better serve minoritized students, we know little about how federally funded programs aiming to broaden participation can serve as a mechanism advance equity. Drawing on the literature, we developed an equity-minded HIP framework to critically examine the prominence and characteristics of 38 programs aiming to broaden participation in undergraduate US STEM education funded by the National Science Foundation. We conducted a systematic examination of multimodal data from the STEM for All Multiplex repository. Findings reveal most programs included only one to two HIPs, with undergraduate research being most prominent followed by internships. Most programs included only a few elements of equity-minded design, such as providing students additional resources and faculty training, and implemented HIPs to include peer and faculty interactions. Last, most programs utilized cognitive, psychosocial, or sociocultural measures to assess the benefits to students. Only a few measured equity-mined outcomes pertaining to institutional change such as policies, resources, and practices. We highlight two exemplar programs and offer recommendations for researchers and funders to more effectively implement equity-minded HIPs to broaden participation in undergraduate STEM education.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"258 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01165-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-impact practices (HIPs), such as undergraduate research, first-year seminars, and learning communities, have been shown to generally advance college student success. However, there are often disparities in access, participation, and outcomes between white and racially/ethnically minoritized students. While scholars have critiqued HIPs and provided alternative approaches to better serve minoritized students, we know little about how federally funded programs aiming to broaden participation can serve as a mechanism advance equity. Drawing on the literature, we developed an equity-minded HIP framework to critically examine the prominence and characteristics of 38 programs aiming to broaden participation in undergraduate US STEM education funded by the National Science Foundation. We conducted a systematic examination of multimodal data from the STEM for All Multiplex repository. Findings reveal most programs included only one to two HIPs, with undergraduate research being most prominent followed by internships. Most programs included only a few elements of equity-minded design, such as providing students additional resources and faculty training, and implemented HIPs to include peer and faculty interactions. Last, most programs utilized cognitive, psychosocial, or sociocultural measures to assess the benefits to students. Only a few measured equity-mined outcomes pertaining to institutional change such as policies, resources, and practices. We highlight two exemplar programs and offer recommendations for researchers and funders to more effectively implement equity-minded HIPs to broaden participation in undergraduate STEM education.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过注重公平的高效做法扩大对 STEM 的参与:多模式系统审查
高影响力实践(HIPs),如本科生研究、一年级研讨会和学习社区,已被证明能普遍促进大学生的成功。然而,白人学生和少数种族/族裔学生在接触、参与和结果方面往往存在差距。虽然学者们对 HIP 提出了批评,并提供了其他方法来更好地为少数族裔学生服务,但我们对旨在扩大参与的联邦资助项目如何作为促进公平的机制知之甚少。借鉴相关文献,我们开发了一个注重公平的 HIP 框架,以批判性地考察由美国国家科学基金会资助的 38 个旨在扩大美国 STEM 本科教育参与度的项目的重要性和特点。我们对 "STEM for All Multiplex "资料库中的多模式数据进行了系统检查。研究结果表明,大多数计划只包括一到两个 HIP,其中最突出的是本科生研究,其次是实习。大多数项目只包含少数几个注重公平的设计元素,如为学生提供额外资源和教师培训,并实施包括同伴和教师互动在内的 HIPs。最后,大多数计划利用认知、社会心理或社会文化措施来评估学生的收益。只有少数项目衡量了与政策、资源和实践等机构变革相关的公平性成果。我们重点介绍了两个典范项目,并为研究人员和资助者提供了建议,以便更有效地实施注重公平的 HIP 项目,扩大 STEM 本科教育的参与度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education
Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
12.00%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Higher Education is recognised as the leading international journal of Higher Education studies, publishing twelve separate numbers each year. Since its establishment in 1972, Higher Education has followed educational developments throughout the world in universities, polytechnics, colleges, and vocational and education institutions. It has actively endeavoured to report on developments in both public and private Higher Education sectors. Contributions have come from leading scholars from different countries while articles have tackled the problems of teachers as well as students, and of planners as well as administrators. While each Higher Education system has its own distinctive features, common problems and issues are shared internationally by researchers, teachers and institutional leaders. Higher Education offers opportunities for exchange of research results, experience and insights, and provides a forum for ongoing discussion between experts. Higher Education publishes authoritative overview articles, comparative studies and analyses of particular problems or issues. All contributions are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
“Writing for English-medium publication is a journey to nowhere — no route and no tools”: Russian academics’ perceptions of the existing publication support The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education Navigating public goods: Chilean public universities and their transformative role in Latin America Exploring perceptions of public good(s), government, and global contributions in Japanese higher education: a phenomenographic approach The importance of international and national publications for promotion and the impact of recruitment policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1