Advertisement

Why We Are Still Talking About Leaving

  • Elaine SeymourEmail author
  • Anne-Barrie Hunter
  • Timothy J. Weston
Chapter
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the scholarly debate about the nature and consequences of losses from STEM majors. We also offer a summary of findings from the original study, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Seymour & Hewitt, Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1997), which are revisited in findings from the present study throughout this book. The original work was designed to discover, and establish the relative importance of factors contributing to high rates of switching from STEM to non-STEM majors; the current study explores what has and has not changed in the intervening years, what new variables have arisen, and how these contribute to losses from STEM majors. The digest of original findings allows comparison and contrast with findings from the present study. We also review research that has tested and augmented the original findings and explain what prompted the follow-up study. The purposes, design, and conduct of the new study are explained, and the chapter finishes with an overview of the book’s content and structure.

References

  1. Agar, M. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C., Chen, E., & Grumbach, K. (2009). How leaky is the health career pipeline? Minority student achievement in college gateway courses. Academic Medicine, 84(6), 797–802.Google Scholar
  3. Ambrose, S. (1966). Duty, honor, country: A history of west point. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Astin, A., & Astin, A. S. (1993). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational research pipeline in the sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  5. Beichner, R. J. (2008). The SCALE-UP project: A student-centered active learning environment for undergraduate programs. Commissioned paper for the national academies workshop: Evidence on promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/PP_Commissioned_Papers.html
  6. Beichner, R. J., & Saul, J. M. (2003). Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project. In Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” (pp. 1–17). Varenna, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., … Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP). In E. F. Redish & P. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-based reform of university physics. Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/PER/per_reviews/volume1.cfm
  8. Berrett, D. (2011, November 6). What spurs students to stay in college and learn? Good teaching practices and diversity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/What-Spurs-Students-to-Stay-in/129670/
  9. Biggers, M., Brauer, A. & Yilmaz, T. (2008, March). Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors vs. CS leavers. Paper presented at the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, Portland, OR.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352274
  10. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 92–111.Google Scholar
  12. Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.Google Scholar
  13. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Braxton, J. M., Shaw Sullivan, A. V., & Johnson, R. M., Jr. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. New York, NY: Agathon.Google Scholar
  15. Bressoud, D., Mesa, V., & Rasmussen, C. (2015). Insights and recommendations from the MAA national study of college calculus (MAA notes). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  16. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational outlook handbook, 2012–2013 ed. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh
  17. Callahan, K. M. (2009). Academic-centered peer interactions and retention in undergraduate mathematics programs. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(3), 361–389.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, G. (1993, March 31). Visions of engineering education in Century 11. The Porth Distinguished Lecture, University of Missouri at Rolla, Rolla, MO.Google Scholar
  19. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/stem-complete.pdf
  20. Cejda, B. D., Kaylor, A. J., & Rewey, K. L. (1998). Transfer shock in an academic discipline: The relationship between students’ majors and their academic performance. Community College Review., 26(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
  21. Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). (2018). When financial aid falls short: New data reveal students face thousands in unmet needs. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Chang, M. J., Cerna, O., Han, J., & Saenz, V. (2008). The contradictory roles of institutional status in retaining underrepresented minorities in biomedical and behavioral science majors. The Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 433–464.Google Scholar
  23. Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 51(5), 555–580.Google Scholar
  24. Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  25. Chen, X. (2015). STEM attrition among high-performing college students in the United States: Scope and potential causes. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
  26. Clewell, B. C., de Cohen, C. C., Tsui, L., Forcier, L., Gao, E., Young, N., … West, C. (2006). Final report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation Program. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  27. Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–300.Google Scholar
  29. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a hispanic-serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924–942.Google Scholar
  31. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063.Google Scholar
  32. DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2009. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  33. DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. R., & Santos, J. L. (2009). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2007–2008 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  34. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Technology, 14(2), 243–279.Google Scholar
  35. Drew, C. (2011, November 4). Why science majors change their minds (it’s just so darn hard). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=christopher%20drew%20science%20majors&st=cse
  36. Durkheim, E. (2005) Suicide: A study in sociology. In J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson (Trans.) London and New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Eagan, K., Hurtado, H., Figueroa, T. & Hughes, B. (2014). Examining STEM pathways among students who began college at four-year institutions. Commissioned paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in completing 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Retrieved April, 2015, from: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_088834.pdf
  38. Eagan, M. K., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2010, November). What matters in STEM: Institutional contexts that influence bachelor’s degree completion rates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  39. Eagan, M. K., Hurtado, S., Figueroa, T., & Hughes, B. (2012). Examining STEM pathways among students who begin college at four-year institutions. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  40. Ege, S. N., Coppola, B. P., & Lawton, R. G. (1997). The University of Michigan undergraduate chemistry curriculum. 1. Philosophy, curriculum, and the nature of change. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(1), 74–83.Google Scholar
  41. Elizondo-Montemayor, L., Hernández-Escobar, C., Ayala-Aguirre, F., & Aguilar, G. M. (2008). Building a sense of ownership to facilitate change: The new curriculum. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(1), 83–102.Google Scholar
  42. Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after Calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11(7), e0157447.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209–240.Google Scholar
  44. Festinger, L. (1961). The psychological effects of insufficient rewards. American Psychologist, 16(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  45. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and math. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science., 111(23), 8410–8415.Google Scholar
  46. Garcia, G. A., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Predicting Latina/o STEM persistence at HSIs and non-HSIs. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  47. Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multi-contextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229–261.Google Scholar
  48. Gates, S. J., & Mirkin, C. (2012). Engage to excel. Science, 335(6076), 1545.Google Scholar
  49. Gayles, J. G., & Ampaw, F. (2014). The impact of college experiences on degree completion in STEM fields at four-year institutions: Does gender matter? The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 439–468.Google Scholar
  50. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  51. Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469.Google Scholar
  52. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, L. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700.Google Scholar
  53. Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A.-B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college STEM majors. Science, 341, 1455–1456.Google Scholar
  54. Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911–922.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly campus climate for women? Project on the status and education of women. Washington, DC: Association of American College.Google Scholar
  56. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., … Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hardin, E. E., & Longhurst, M. O. (2016). Understanding the gender gap: Social cognitive changes during an introductory STEM course. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 233–239.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102.Google Scholar
  59. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79–91.Google Scholar
  60. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of literature. Wiley Online Library.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439Google Scholar
  61. Herrara, F.A. & Hurtado, S. (2011). Maintaining initial interests: Developing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career interests among underrepresented racial minority students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  62. Hills, J. (1965). Transfer shock: The academic performance of the transfer student. The Journal of Experimental Education., 33(3), 201–215.Google Scholar
  63. Holmegaard, H. T., Madsen, L. M., & Ulriksen, L. (2014). To choose sciences: Constructions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education programs. Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 186–215.Google Scholar
  64. Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173. Retrieved 10/13/2006 from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/108069556Google Scholar
  65. Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., & Chang, M. (2010). Degrees of success: Bachelor’s degree completion rates among initial STEM majors. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.Google Scholar
  66. Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., & Hughes, B. (2012). Priming the pump or the sieve: Institutional contexts and URM STEM degree attainments. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  67. Hyde, M. S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2000). Adjusting education practice to increase female persistence in the sciences. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(4), 335–355.Google Scholar
  68. Islam, M. M., & Al-Ghassani, A. (2015). Predicting college math success: Do high school performance and gender matter? Evidence from Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 67.  https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Jackson, D. L. (2013). Making the connection: The impact of support systems on female transfer students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The Community College Enterprise., 19(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  70. Jaeger, A. J., Eagan, M. K., & Wirt, L. G. (2008). Retaining students in science, math, and engineering majors: Rediscovering cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 42(1), 20–32.Google Scholar
  71. Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended consequences: How science professors discourage women of color. Science Education, 91, 805–821.Google Scholar
  72. Jones, M. T., Barlow, A. E., & Villarejo, M. (2010). The importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 82–115.Google Scholar
  73. Kim, M. M., Rhoades, G., & Woodard, D. B. (2003). Sponsored research versus graduating students? Intervening variables and unanticipated findings in public research universities. Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 51–81.Google Scholar
  74. Kochhar, R., & Cilluffo, A. (2018). Income inequality in the U.S. is rising most rapidly among Asians. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-isrising-most-rapidly-among-asians/
  75. Kokkelenberg, E. C., & Sinha, E. (2010). Who succeeds in STEM studies? An analysis of Binghamton University undergraduate students. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 935–946.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  77. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  78. Laursen, S. L., Hunter, A.-B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., & Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  79. LeBeau, B., Harwell, M., Monson, D., Dupuis, D., Medhanie, A., & LeBeau, T. R. (2012). Student and high school characteristics related to completing a science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) major in college. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  80. Lee, Y.-G., & Ferrare, J. J. (2019). Finding one’s place or losing the race? The consequences of STEM departure for college dropout and degree completion. The Review of Higher Education., 43(1), 221–261.Google Scholar
  81. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Litzler, E., & Young, J. (2012). Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering: Results from the project to assess climate in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319–345.Google Scholar
  83. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.Google Scholar
  84. Manis, J., Sloat, B. F., Thomas, N. G., & Davis, C.-S. (1989). An analysis of factors affecting choices of majors in science, mathematics, and engineering at the University of Michigan. Michigan, MI: Center for Continuing Education of Women, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  85. McLelland, L. (1993). Students entering science, mathematics and engineering majors as fall freshmen, 1980–1988. Unpublished data provided by L. McLelland, Director, Office of Research and information, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  86. Merton, P., Froyd, J. E., Clark, M. C., & Richardson, J. (2009). A case study of relationships between organizational culture and curricular change in engineering education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(4), 219–233.Google Scholar
  87. Morrison, C., & Williams, L. E. (1993). Minority engineering programs: A case for institutional support. NACME Research Letter, 4(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  88. Mortenson, T. (1995, January 26–29). Financial opportunity for post-secondary education. Paper to the NACME Research and Policy Conference: Minorities in mathematics, science and engineering. Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.Google Scholar
  89. Museus, S. D., Agbayani, A., & Chang, D. M. (Eds.) (2016). Focusing on the underserved: Immigrant, refugee, and indigenous Asian-American and Pacific Islanders in Higher Education. University of Hawai’i, Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar
  90. Museus, S. D., & Liverman, D. (2010). High-performing institutions and their implications for studying underrepresented minority students in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 148, 17–27.Google Scholar
  91. Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 55–72.Google Scholar
  92. Nasr, K., Pennington, J., & Andres, C. (2004). A study of students’ assessments of cooperative education outcomes. Journal of Cooperative Education, 38(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
  93. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  94. National Science Foundation. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Washington, DC: National Science Board.Google Scholar
  95. National Center for Educational Statistics CIP User Site. (2019, May 1). Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/browse.aspx?y=55
  96. Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Shuman, L. J. (2010). Predicting STEM degree outcomes based on 8th grade data and standard test scores. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 209–223.Google Scholar
  97. Nuwer, H. (2001). Wrongs of passage. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report to the President) (130 p.). Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
  100. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–208.Google Scholar
  101. Ost, B. (2010). The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 923–934.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Packard, B. W. (2005). Mentoring and retention in college science: Reflections on the sophomore year. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(3), 289–300.Google Scholar
  103. Palmer, R. T., Maramba, D. C., & Dancy, T. E. (2011). A qualitative investigation of factors promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in STEM. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(4), 491–504.Google Scholar
  104. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  105. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  106. Perna, L., Lundy-Wagner, V., Drezner, N. D., Gasman, M., Yoon, S., Bose, E., & Gary, S. (2009). The contributions of HBCUs to the preparation of African-American women for STEM careers: A case study. Research in Higher Education, 50, 1–23.Google Scholar
  107. Porter, O. (1990). Undergraduate completion and persistence at four-year colleges and universities: Completers, persisters, stop-outs and drop-outs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  108. Price, J. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 901–910.Google Scholar
  109. QSR International (2016). NVivo 10.0. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/what-is-nvivo
  110. Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 892–900.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Reich, D. (2011, November 9). Why engineering majors change their minds. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/danreich/2011/11/09/why-engineering-majors-change-their-minds/
  112. Reyes, M. (2011). Unique challenges for women of color in STEM transferring from community colleges to universities. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 241–262.Google Scholar
  113. Riegle-Crumb, C., & King, B. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664.Google Scholar
  114. Rodriguez, C., Kirshstein, R., Amos, L., Jones, W., Espinosa, L., & Watnick, D. (2012). Broadening participation IN STEM: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  115. Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female-friendly science: Applying women’s study methods and theories to attract students. New York, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  116. Rotberg, I. (1990). Sources and reality: The participation of minorities in science and engineering education. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 358–361.Google Scholar
  117. Rothwell, J. (2013). The hidden STEM economy: Metropolitan policy program at brookings institution. Retrieved April, 2015, from http//www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/06/10-stem-economy-rothwell/thehiddenstemeconomy610.pdf
  118. Salzman, H. (2013). What shortage? The real evidence about the STEM workforce. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(4). Retrieved from http://issues.org/29-4/what-shortgae-th-real-evidence-about-the-stem-workforce/
  119. Science editorial. (1992). Minorities in science: The pipeline problem. Science, 285(5085), 1175.Google Scholar
  120. Seidel, J. V., Kjolseth, J. R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The ethnograph: A user’s guide. Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.Google Scholar
  121. Seymour, E., & DeWelde, C. (2016). Why doesn’t knowing change anything? Constraints and resistance, leverage and sustainability (with K. De Welde). In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Seymour, E., & Fry, C. F. (2016). The Reformers’ Tale: Determining progress in improving undergraduate STEM education. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  124. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534.Google Scholar
  125. Shi, R. (2011, November 16). An alternative to grade inflation. The Daily Texan. Retrieved from http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2011/11/16/alternative-grade-inflation
  126. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  127. Strayhorn, T. L., Long, L. L., Kitchen, J. A., Williams, M. S., & Stentz, M. E. (2013). Academic and social barriers to Black and Latino male collegians' success in engineering and related STEM fields. Atlanta, GA: American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  128. Suresh, R. (2007). The relationship between barrier courses and persistence in engineering. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 8(2), 215–239.Google Scholar
  129. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.Google Scholar
  130. Tate, E. D., & Linn, M. C. (2005). How does identity shape the experiences of women of color engineering students? Journal of Science Education and Technology., 14(5/6), 483–493.Google Scholar
  131. Taylor, T. (2011, November 14). Grade inflation and choice of major [Web log post: The conversable economist]. Retrieved from http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2011/11/grade-inflation-and-choice-of-major.html
  132. Tinto, V. (1975, Winter). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.Google Scholar
  133. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  134. Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and most don’t. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  135. U S Department of Education. (2014). 2013–2014 civil rights data collection: Key data insights on equity and opportunity gaps in our nation’s public schools. Washington DC: Office for Civil Rights.Google Scholar
  136. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  137. Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
  138. Whalen, D. F., & Shelley, M. C. (2010). Academic success for STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of STEM Education, 11(1–2), 45–60.Google Scholar
  139. Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities s: A case study in progress. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  140. Zhang, Y., & Allen, T. O. (2015). Challenges and support: Transfer experiences of community college engineering students. Journal of Applied Research in Community College, 22(1), 43–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Seymour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anne-Barrie Hunter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Timothy J. Weston
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Ethnography and Evaluation Research (E&ER)University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Center for STEM LearningUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT)University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations