{"title":"为STEM衔接课程做准备?STEM的双录取和大学专业选择","authors":"Xiaodan Hu, Hsun-Yu Chan","doi":"10.1080/00221546.2023.2241331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTGuided by the STEM pathway model, our study hypothesizes that dual enrollment can serve as an effective strategy to improve and equalize college students’ access to STEM programs. We analyzed a nationally representative dataset to disaggregate the influence of dual enrollment course-taking (i.e. participation, dual credits in Math/Science, number of dual credits) on students’ STEM major selection, with a focus on traditionally underrepresented students in STEM. We found that taking dual enrollment courses in general is positively associated with the probability of majoring in STEM, especially at the baccalaureate level. However, taking dual enrollment courses in Math/Science is not associated with the probability of majoring in STEM when compared with students with no dual enrollment courses in Math/Science. The relationship between dual enrollment course-taking and STEM outcomes varies across different student background groups: It is consistently positive for students of higher household income to major in STEM but not statistically significant for low-income students. We discussed practical implications and future research with a focus on the role dual enrollment plays in advancing postsecondary STEM access.KEYWORDS: Dual enrollmentSTEMcollege major choicesociodemographic backgroundHigh School Longitudinal Study Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Specifically, the multiple imputation procedure addressed missing values in the control variables: race/ethnicity (3.8%), SES (6.8%), high school GPA (7.4%), educational expectations (7.5%), highest math level (7.2%), the number of AP/IB credits (4.4%), and intent to major in STEM (6.9%), respectively.2. Because the HSLS data does not properly report gender identity (Marine, Citation2011), we use students’ sex assigned at birth as a binary indicator to create the subgroups.3. Due to the relatively small and unbalanced number of treated observations in each racial/ethnic group, we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses using propensity score models based on individual racial/ethnic groups. Thus, we had to aggregate racially minoritized groups based on their student-of-color status. We first defined students of color as students who identify as non-White. In additional analyses, we excluded Asian American students from the sub-sample given their relatively high performance in STEM fields (National Center of Educational Statistics [NCES], Citation2022).4. The readers should be cautioned that, due to the treatment transformation, it is challenging to interpret the coefficients in the context of DE credits earned. Additionally, these commands are not supported by the svy prefix to account for complex survey data, the dose-response model only provides suggestive evidence, without generalization to the broader population. Given these methodological challenges, we present the dose-response findings as supplemental analyses in Appendix D.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by a grant from the American Educational Research Association which receives funds for its “AERA Grants Program” from the National Science Foundation under NSF award NSF-DRL #1749275. Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those AERA or NSF.","PeriodicalId":54209,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Higher Education","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preparing for the STEM Pathways? Dual Enrollment and College Major Choice in STEM\",\"authors\":\"Xiaodan Hu, Hsun-Yu Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00221546.2023.2241331\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTGuided by the STEM pathway model, our study hypothesizes that dual enrollment can serve as an effective strategy to improve and equalize college students’ access to STEM programs. We analyzed a nationally representative dataset to disaggregate the influence of dual enrollment course-taking (i.e. participation, dual credits in Math/Science, number of dual credits) on students’ STEM major selection, with a focus on traditionally underrepresented students in STEM. We found that taking dual enrollment courses in general is positively associated with the probability of majoring in STEM, especially at the baccalaureate level. However, taking dual enrollment courses in Math/Science is not associated with the probability of majoring in STEM when compared with students with no dual enrollment courses in Math/Science. The relationship between dual enrollment course-taking and STEM outcomes varies across different student background groups: It is consistently positive for students of higher household income to major in STEM but not statistically significant for low-income students. We discussed practical implications and future research with a focus on the role dual enrollment plays in advancing postsecondary STEM access.KEYWORDS: Dual enrollmentSTEMcollege major choicesociodemographic backgroundHigh School Longitudinal Study Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Specifically, the multiple imputation procedure addressed missing values in the control variables: race/ethnicity (3.8%), SES (6.8%), high school GPA (7.4%), educational expectations (7.5%), highest math level (7.2%), the number of AP/IB credits (4.4%), and intent to major in STEM (6.9%), respectively.2. Because the HSLS data does not properly report gender identity (Marine, Citation2011), we use students’ sex assigned at birth as a binary indicator to create the subgroups.3. Due to the relatively small and unbalanced number of treated observations in each racial/ethnic group, we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses using propensity score models based on individual racial/ethnic groups. Thus, we had to aggregate racially minoritized groups based on their student-of-color status. We first defined students of color as students who identify as non-White. In additional analyses, we excluded Asian American students from the sub-sample given their relatively high performance in STEM fields (National Center of Educational Statistics [NCES], Citation2022).4. The readers should be cautioned that, due to the treatment transformation, it is challenging to interpret the coefficients in the context of DE credits earned. Additionally, these commands are not supported by the svy prefix to account for complex survey data, the dose-response model only provides suggestive evidence, without generalization to the broader population. Given these methodological challenges, we present the dose-response findings as supplemental analyses in Appendix D.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by a grant from the American Educational Research Association which receives funds for its “AERA Grants Program” from the National Science Foundation under NSF award NSF-DRL #1749275. Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those AERA or NSF.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2241331\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2241331","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Preparing for the STEM Pathways? Dual Enrollment and College Major Choice in STEM
ABSTRACTGuided by the STEM pathway model, our study hypothesizes that dual enrollment can serve as an effective strategy to improve and equalize college students’ access to STEM programs. We analyzed a nationally representative dataset to disaggregate the influence of dual enrollment course-taking (i.e. participation, dual credits in Math/Science, number of dual credits) on students’ STEM major selection, with a focus on traditionally underrepresented students in STEM. We found that taking dual enrollment courses in general is positively associated with the probability of majoring in STEM, especially at the baccalaureate level. However, taking dual enrollment courses in Math/Science is not associated with the probability of majoring in STEM when compared with students with no dual enrollment courses in Math/Science. The relationship between dual enrollment course-taking and STEM outcomes varies across different student background groups: It is consistently positive for students of higher household income to major in STEM but not statistically significant for low-income students. We discussed practical implications and future research with a focus on the role dual enrollment plays in advancing postsecondary STEM access.KEYWORDS: Dual enrollmentSTEMcollege major choicesociodemographic backgroundHigh School Longitudinal Study Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Specifically, the multiple imputation procedure addressed missing values in the control variables: race/ethnicity (3.8%), SES (6.8%), high school GPA (7.4%), educational expectations (7.5%), highest math level (7.2%), the number of AP/IB credits (4.4%), and intent to major in STEM (6.9%), respectively.2. Because the HSLS data does not properly report gender identity (Marine, Citation2011), we use students’ sex assigned at birth as a binary indicator to create the subgroups.3. Due to the relatively small and unbalanced number of treated observations in each racial/ethnic group, we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses using propensity score models based on individual racial/ethnic groups. Thus, we had to aggregate racially minoritized groups based on their student-of-color status. We first defined students of color as students who identify as non-White. In additional analyses, we excluded Asian American students from the sub-sample given their relatively high performance in STEM fields (National Center of Educational Statistics [NCES], Citation2022).4. The readers should be cautioned that, due to the treatment transformation, it is challenging to interpret the coefficients in the context of DE credits earned. Additionally, these commands are not supported by the svy prefix to account for complex survey data, the dose-response model only provides suggestive evidence, without generalization to the broader population. Given these methodological challenges, we present the dose-response findings as supplemental analyses in Appendix D.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by a grant from the American Educational Research Association which receives funds for its “AERA Grants Program” from the National Science Foundation under NSF award NSF-DRL #1749275. Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those AERA or NSF.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1930, The Journal of Higher Education publishes original research reporting on the academic study of higher education as a broad enterprise. We publish the highest quality empirical, theoretically grounded work addressing the main functions of higher education and the dynamic role of the university in society. We seek to publish scholarship from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives and disciplinary orientations. Articles appearing in the Journal employ an array of methodological approaches, and we welcome work from scholars across a range of career stages. Comparative and international scholarship should make clear connections to the U.S. context. Manuscripts not appropriate for submission to the Journal include purely theoretical papers, methodological treatises, unsolicited essays and reviews, and non-academic, institutional, and program evaluations or reports.