Research in Higher Education

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 349–369 | Cite as

The Role of Living–Learning Programs in Women’s Plans to Attend Graduate School in STEM Fields

  • Katalin Szelényi
  • Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas


This paper examines the role of living–learning (L/L) programs in undergraduate women’s plans to attend graduate school in STEM fields. Using data from the 2004–2007 National Study of Living Learning Programs (NSLLP), the only existing multi-institutional, longitudinal dataset examining L/L program outcomes, the findings show that women’s participation in women-only STEM-focused L/L programs is positively associated with STEM graduate school aspirations, in comparison to residing in co-educational STEM L/L programs, all other L/L programs, and traditional residence halls. Socially supportive residence hall climates and women’s self-assessments as performing better than men in STEM contexts were also positively associated with STEM graduate school plans, while academically supportive residence hall climates and visiting the work setting of a STEM professional held negative relationships with the outcome. Implications are discussed for L/L programs and the utility of women-only programming within coeducational institutions of higher education.


Women in STEM Living–Learning Programs Graduate school aspirations 


  1. Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething: Paradoxes of attainment, No. OR 91-530. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1992). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Buck, G. A., Plano Clark, V. L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y., & Cerda-Lizarraga, P. (2008). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Science Education, 92(4), 688–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students’ self-perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education, 24(2), 173–191.Google Scholar
  7. Crosby, F., Allen, B., Culbertson, T., Wally, C., Morith, J., Hall, R., et al. (1994). Taking selectivity into account, how much does gender composition matter?: A re-analysis of M. E. Tidball’s research. NWSA Journal, 6(1), 107–118.Google Scholar
  8. Gandhi, C. M. O. (1999). A longitudinal evaluation of factors associated with retaining women in science and engineering. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(11), 5833 (UMI No. 9950087).Google Scholar
  9. Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The campus climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges (Report of the Project on the Status and Education of Women).Google Scholar
  11. Hathaway, R. S., Sharp, S., & Davis, C.-S. (2001). Programmatic efforts affect retention of women in science and engineering. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(2), 107–124.Google Scholar
  12. Inkelas, & Associates. (2004). National Study of Living-Learning Programs: 2004 report of findings. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from
  13. Inkelas, & Associates. (2008). National Study of Living-Learning Programs: 2007 report of findings. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from
  14. Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inkelas, K. K., Johnson, D., Lee, Z., Daver, Z. E., Longerbeam, S., Vogt, K., et al. (2006). The role of living-learning programs in students’ perceptions of intellectual growth at three large universities. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 115–143.Google Scholar
  16. Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, D., Soldner, M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006, June). Facilitating success for women in STEM through living-learning programs. White paper prepared for the National Conference of the Women in Engineering Programs and Advocates Network, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  18. Kahveci, A., Southerland, S. A., & Gilmer, P. J. (2008). From marginality to legitimate peripherality: Understanding the essential functions of a women’s program. Science Education, 92(1), 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, M. M. (2002). Cultivating intellectual development: Comparing women-only colleges and coeducational colleges for educational effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, M. M., & Alvarez, R. (1995). Women-only colleges: Some unanticipated consequences. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 641–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinzie, J., Thomas, A. D., Palmer, M. M., Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2007). Women students at coeducational and women’s colleges: How do their experiences compare? Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S., et al. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Lopez, F. G., & Sheu, H.-B. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Science Foundation. (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2009, NSF 09-305. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269–284.Google Scholar
  30. Rayman, P., & Brett, B. (1995). Women science majors: What makes a difference in persistence after graduation? Journal of Higher Education, 66(4), 388–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riordan, C. (1994). The value of attending a women’s college: Education, occupation, and income benefits. Journal of Higher Education, 65(4), 486–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sax, L. J. (2001). Undergraduate science majors: Gender differences in who goes to graduate school. The Review of Higher Education, 24(2), 153–172.Google Scholar
  33. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stassen, M. L. A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 581–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoecker, J. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (1991). Women’s colleges and women’s career attainments revisited. Journal of Higher Education, 62(4), 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tidball, M. E. (1985). Baccalaureate origins of entrants into American medical schools. The Journal of Higher Education, 56(4), 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tidball, M. E. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent natural science doctorates. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(6), 606–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tidball, M. E., Smith, D. G., Tidball, C. S., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (1999). Taking women seriously: Lessons and legacies for educating the majority. Phoenix, AZ: The American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vogt, C. M., Hocevar, D., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2007). A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women’s and men’s success in engineering programs. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitt, E. J. (1994). “I can be anything!” Student leadership in three women’s colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 198–207.Google Scholar
  41. Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (1998). Models of excellence: The baccalaureate origins of successful European American Women, African American Women, and Latinas. Journal of Higher Education, 69(2), 141–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Baker, B. D., & Morphew, C. C. (2000). Dollars and $ense: Institutional resources and the baccalaureate origins of women doctorates. Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UCLA, Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group. (n.d.). Regression with SPSS. Chapter 5: Additional coding systems for categorical variables in regression analysis. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Leadership in EducationUniversity of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Counseling and Personnel ServicesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations