An official website of the United States government
A growing body of research explores the experiences of students in graduate education and more-particularly, students of color pursuing advanced degrees. However, little research provides information about Black students' aspirations to pursue graduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Even less is known about Black males' aspirations to pursue graduate education in STEM. Knowing why Black males aspire to pursue graduate education would assist stakeholders (e.g., administrators, faculty, advisors, family members, and peers) in better supporting and motivating students while they are in graduate school, or earlier in their educational trajectories. This retrospective study of 50 Black males' aspirations for graduate school aimed tobetter understand the factors that influenced their aspirations to pursue graduate degrees in engineering.Four themes were most influential: (a) Black male students received messages implying that a bachelor's degree was insufficient, (b) earning a graduate degree in engineering was regarded as a sign of community influence and respect, (c) students' professorial career goals necessitated anadvanced degree, and (d) mothers functioned as support systems and role models for earning an advanced degree. Finally, we offer implications for future research and practice. These new findings about aspirations regarding graduate education will assist stakeholders in identifying critical moments and experiences necessary to encourage talented individuals to pursue advanced degrees in STEM fields.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2026
BOARD # 450: S-STEM: Barriers Stakeholders Face in Supporting Low-Income, First-Generation, and/or Rural Graduate Students
There is a growing need to train a diverse range of students in engineering disciplines and a growing demand for a skilled workforce with graduate degrees (Pearson et al., 2022; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019; National Science Foundation, 1996). A team of specialists in engineering and organizational systems worked together on a grant sponsored by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) program to explore how evidence-based strategies used successfully at the undergraduate level might improve the recruitment, retention, and outcomes of graduate programs. In this study, we interviewed a sample of the stakeholders who support low-income, first-generation, and/or rural graduate engineering students, to gain insight into the barriers they face in their efforts. We used a thematic analysis of transcribed interviews to draw conclusions. We found seven themes describing the facilitators and seven themes describing the barriers that stakeholders face in supporting these students. Our findings have implications for researchers who would investigate and implement future organizational support systems as well as for the leaders who would design and implement an array of interventions as part of an organizational support system.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1930464
- PAR ID:
- 10638113
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE Conferences
- Date Published:
- ISSN:
- NA
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Graduate degrees, Engineering, Stakeholders, Support system, Higher Education
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Failure analysis is central to the work of engineers, and yet we neglect to analyze our failures in the field of engineering education. In this paper, we examine our failure in the development and deployment of an immersive faculty experience for graduate students in engineering education. Professional development is a significant focus of graduate studies. Professional development broadly defined includes any activities supporting the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and abilities relevant to one’s current or desired position. In the context of graduate studies, professional development often involves such activities as conference or workshop attendance, internships or job exploration, mentoring or coaching directed at students, and certification programs. Despite the importance of professional development in graduate school, anecdotal and research-based evidence supports the assertion that graduate students experience professional development unevenly. Whether this unevenness results from intrinsic or extrinsic factors is not established. We investigate the barriers to participation in professional development, with a focus on an immersive faculty internship; however, this work revealed barriers associated with professional development in general and related to specific other types of professional development. We focus on barriers specifically because engineers examine both successes and failures in the effort to improve product design, and because our product—an immersive faculty experience for graduate students—was designed to overcome barriers identified during customary discovery research. For this analysis of failure, we rely on interviews and survey data from varied stakeholders (e.g., graduate students, their mentors, graduate program directors, representatives from grant-giving organizations, and faculty on hiring committees) to identify these barriers. We also share our personal reflections on the challenges associated with this effort. From the data collected from members of the engineering education community, we found that barriers to participation include time spent away from support systems, potential delays in graduation, lack of understanding of the value of professional development, and funding for participating in these opportunities. Graduate students perceive (rightly or wrongly) that their advisors do not support an immersive, off-site professional development experience, perhaps because advisors want graduate students to continue the work important to advisors or the advisors do not consider the experience valuable for cultivating the students’ professional identities. In addition, organizational challenges include facilitating a multi-site experience from a single institution that is subject to both institutional and NSF rules for budgeting. Stakeholders in graduate education have a significant interest in removing barriers to professional development, including opportunities like immersive internships. By doing so, they increase graduate students’ satisfaction with the graduate school experience and improve graduate students’ placement and career success. We connect our failure to both the concept of root cause failure analysis and the literature in organizational change. By doing so, we highlight how failure is an under-appreciated experience in the field of engineering education.more » « less
-
Researchers describe a need for increased access to and transitional support into STEM graduate education for low-income, academically talented, first-generation and/or underrepresented and minority (LIATFirstGenURM) students [1]. In October 2019, we were awarded an NSF scholarship grant to build infrastructure and provide support to low-income, academically talented, firs-generation, underrepresented, and minority (LIATFirstGenURM) graduate engineering students. As part of the internal evaluation of the program, we interviewed seven enrolled and funded graduate student beneficiaries to determine if they encountered any barriers during their recruitment and first semester of graduate study. Additionally, we asked them what support they valued most. We found that these students valued the organizational program support system, and as a result, we also found several opportunities to improve the system. In this paper, we share our findings and discuss implications for program updatesmore » « less
-
Research and evidence-based practices that center sense of belonging and engineering identity development drive strong outcomes for undergraduate students in engineering—especially those who are first-generation college students, from low-income families, and identify as other underrepresented groups in engineering (Deil-Amen, 2011; Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, & Arellano, 2009; Patrick & Prybutok, 2018). The process from ideation to organizational implementation is not well-documented in the literature on student success, leaving a gap in practitioners’ understanding of how to bring strong, research-informed practices to fruition in their institutions. Implementation is arguably as important as the design of a student intervention and knowing how to implement a good idea is an art and a science. This paper explores the various people and processes that take theory to practice for a National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education funded program. In this paper, I invoke an autoethnographic approach to reflect on the experience of designing a student-facing program while managing the organizational systems that empower or restrain transformative organizational change for students. Autoethnography as a methodology can be a helpful mode to understanding practice, as the researcher can move more fluidly between their lived experience and the organizational, sociological, or psychosocial theory that it mirrors (Berry & Hodges, 2015). The proposed paper discusses my team’s approaches to working with stakeholders and gatekeepers in our organization and in our community to execute a program designed to build sense of belonging and engineering identity while supporting academic attainment of underserved student populations using Community Cultural Wealth (Yosso, 2005) and Street-Level Bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980) as theoretical lenses. A small, summer-intensive program required the cooperation and capital of gatekeepers across the campus of our large, research university in the southwestern United States. This program, which serves students from marginalized ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds in engineering disciplines, became the basis for an NSF Improving Undergraduate STEM Education award. Students spent part of their summer (six weeks during the pilot program, which evolved to ten weeks for the second cohort) taking summer classes that helped them advance into their sophomore year of an engineering degree. They also took a career development class, which featured regular field trips to various regional engineering employers. Outcomes from the pilot program and subsequent year are promising, and include high rates of persistence, strong academic performance, and increased sense of engineering identity, but this paper focuses on the structure of the program, the need for collaborators, and the way that the team implemented an initiative which challenges the assumptions of stakeholders from within and outside of the institution. Major themes discussed are personal reflections of the process of coalition-building, gaining buy-in from critical partners on-campus and in the community, and co-investing in programmatic improvement with early cohorts of participating students.more » « less
-
This paper reports on research that is part of a broader National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded, Innovations in Graduate Education (IGE) project. The project aims to enhance the research culture and broaden the participation in research of underrepresented groups within graduate engineering programs at a mid-sized historically black college or university. The project includes three initiatives that seek to assist in the development of a “research engineer identity” among the graduate students pursuing research-based degrees in the college. One of the three initiatives of the project, and focus of this paper, involves the development of a survey-based Research Engineer Identity Scale (REIS). A two stage sequential mixed-method research design is being used to develop the scale. This paper focuses on the first stage in the design which involved conducting focus groups with research engineers to gain insight into the content, character, and complications associated with internalizing a Research Engineer Identity (REI) in general and among people from underrepresented groups in particular. We report on four semi-structured focus groups that each lasted approximately 90 minutes in Fall 2019. Each focus group included about 6 to 9 faculty members, industry professionals, or graduate students who actively engaged in engineering research in the Southeastern United States. Focus group participants represented various academic disciplines within engineering as well as a range of demographic characteristics such as sex, race, ethnicity, and citizenship status. The focus group conversations were transcribed and transcriptions were entered into NVivo for coding and analysis. Inter-rater reliability procedures were used to ensure consistency of coding. This paper reports on the themes that emerged within the focus group discussions regarding what it means to “be a research engineer.” The findings describe similarities and differences across demographic characteristics in regard to the content, character, and complications associated with efforts to develop a Research Engineer Identity. The paper concludes by briefly describing the process that will be used to transform the emergent themes into pool of items to be included in a web-based questionnaire designed to measure Research Engineer Identity.more » « less
