Search for: All records

The COVID-19 pandemic caused extensive disruption to higher education, highlighting the negative impacts of emergency shift to online instruction. As a result, advantages of intentionally designed, online programs in higher education were overshadowed during the pandemic. Furthermore, socioeconomic disparities were exacerbated during the pandemic which extended to STEM undergraduate transfer students, who are more likely to be low-income, from historically underrepresented groups, older, and first generation in their family to attend college. To better understand the impact of the pandemic on STEM undergraduates, including those in an intentionally designed online program, ordinal regression analysis of 352 student survey respondents enrolled in a life sciences major at a large, R1 institution in the United States spring 2020 through fall 2021 was performed. Three student types are compared: on-campus, first-time in college (FTIC); on-campus transfer (OC-TR); and online transfer (ONL-TR) students. The latter group receives all course delivery online, whereas on-campus student groups received predominately in-person course delivery prior to the pandemic. ONL-TR students were over six times less likely to report negative educational impact compared to on-campus students, FTIC and OC-TR, while controlling for parent education, income, gender, race/ethnicity, and GPA. Additional survey items further explored this result and were validated with academic records and thematic analysis of students’ text responses. A pre−/post-pandemic comparison revealed that students maintained a similar course load and GPA, despite increased perceptions of a lower GPA during the pandemic. OC-TR students were over two times more likely to express increased concern related to delayed graduation and higher frequency of feeling stress compared to FTIC and ONL-TR students. Meanwhile, low-income students were more likely to report stressors due to the pandemic’s impact on daily life, independent of student type. Taken together, students in this intentionally designed online program were more resilient to the educational and emotional impacts of the pandemic compared to on-campus students. The differences between student groups warn against generalization of student impacts and suggest further research into the positive role of online learning, not just for delivery of educational content and expanding access, but for academic and emotional stability for different student populations. 

Abstract Current policies and interventions to enhance student success and retention are often tied to full-time enrollment, which are substantiated by studies associating part-time enrollment with lower retention and poorer academic outcomes. However, these findings are limited to studies of first-time college students and do not represent today’s nontraditional undergraduate who may be transfer, online, and working adult students. To enhance retention of on-campusandhybrid online 2 + 2 transfer students in a STEM undergraduate program, need-based scholarships are awarded to students enrolled full-time as stipulated by the federal granting agency. Although the scholarship has helped >80 students to date, over 40% of eligible transfer students are excluded only because they are enrolled part-time, disproportionately affecting students in the hybrid online track who are more likely to be women and underrepresented minorities. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, this study explores enrollment behavior of transfer students (online and on-campus), its relationship with student characteristics and academic outcomes, and implications for scholarship eligibility. Full-time enrollment is a significant challenge for transfer students. While scholarship requirements are a key factor influencing full-time enrollment, online transfer students additionally cite work and family obligations as drivers of enrollment behavior. Thus, online 2 + 2 transfer students face different challenges than on-campus peers and are more likely to enroll part-time out of necessity, yet still have comparable GPA and graduation rates. These findings support a growing awareness of barriers nontraditional students face questioning the relevance of policies driven by “traditional” student outcomes, which perpetuate inequity in higher education. 

The Microbiology and Cell Science program at the University of Florida compressed two standard 16-week lab courses into five-day versions of the course, which are referred to as bootcamp labs. The bootcamp labs have the same objectives, activities, and assessments as their traditional counterparts. Development of the bootcamp labs was part of a larger effort to increase access to the major, and more broadly STEM, by offering a 2+2 hybrid online transfer program. The results of this mixed-methods study include a direct comparison between bootcamp and traditional lab format as an approach for delivery of a face-to-face lab course. The bootcamp lab cohort has a greater diversity of students, with more women and underrepresented minorities in STEM than the traditional semester-long cohorts. Students in the bootcamp labs have comparable grade outcomes and learning gains to students in traditional lab format. Regression analysis identified GPA, but not lab format, as the most significant predictor of success for students enrolled in lab courses. Qualitative results suggest that the bootcamp format may be a better way than traditional formats to teach microbiology lab. In summary, the results demonstrate that a bootcamp version of a face-to-face microbiology course is just as effective as the traditional semester-long version. This work has broader implications as it supports the bootcamp lab approach as a model in STEM education for increasing access and for overcoming a major barrier to online STEM programs: face-to-face delivery of key lab courses.