University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

(USC Thesis Other)

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAMS

MATHEMATICS ENGINEERING SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND PERSISTENCE IN
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS MAJORS: THE
INFLUENCE OF MESA ON THE RETENTION OF FIRST GENERATION FEMALES IN
STEM AT CALIFORNIA TWO AND FOUR YEAR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
by

Nisha Parmar

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Nisha Parmar

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 2

MATHEMATICS ENGINEERING SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND PERSISTENCE IN
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS MAJORS: THE
INFLUENCE OF MESA ON THE RETENTION OF FIRST GENERATION FEMALES IN
STEM AT CALIFORNIA TWO AND FOUR YEAR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
by
Nisha Parmar

A Dissertation Presented

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

2017

APPROVED:

___________________________________
Dr. Pedro Garcia, Ed.D.
Committee Chair

____________________________________
Dr. Rudy Castruita, Ed.D.
Committee Member

_____________________________________
Dr. Michael Escalante, Ed.D
Committee Member
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 3

Abstract
This study applies a four-component conceptual framework centered around academic,
motivational, social, and networking support to understand the key features of Mathematics
Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) that support females’ persistence in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors at higher education institutions. The
primary purpose of the study was to explore the influence of MESA on the persistence and
graduation of educationally disadvantaged, first-generation females in STEM majors. In
addition, this study investigated the implementation of the MESA program in higher education,
and the resources needed to support females’ in STEM majors. Using a mixed-method
sequential approach, the research study included a survey instrument distributed to 250 former
and current members of MESA over the age of 18. Following survey completion, in-depth
interviews were conducted with six participants to gain insight into the experiences of first-
generation females in STEM. Survey results were analyzed in SPSS, while interview data were
coded using the constant comparative method to uncover emergent themes. Findings from the
study suggest that MESA supports students academically through long-term support, fosters
STEM self-identity. and encourages a social environment of success. However, participants
reported a need for more networking opportunities, professional development, and financial
resources. The findings from this study begin to address a gap in the literature surrounding the
effectiveness of STEM outreach programs and students’ perceptions of such programs.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 4

Preface
Some chapter of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as such, with
the exception of the Statement of the Problem and the Research Questions. While jointly
authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a collaborative effort is
reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing highly skilled
practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the USC
Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral candidates,
Rhonda Haramis and Jacob Jung. We three doctoral students have done a cohesive study on the
effectiveness of Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) on the persistence and
retention of educationally disadvantaged students in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) disciplines. We examined how the MESA outreach program operates at
public middle schools, high schools, and two-and four-year universities in an effort to understand
whether institutions are retaining educationally disadvantaged students in STEM. However, the
process for dissecting and resolving the problem was too large for a single dissertation. As a
result, the three dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively address effective STEM
outreach programs that support the persistence and retention of educationally disadvantaged
students (see Haramis, 2017; Jung, 2017).

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 5

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my older sister, whose love and support has made this
dissertation possible. My sister has always been a strong, positive role model in my life. She
has always believed in me, supported my decisions, and reminded me I could accomplish
anything I put my mind to.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the following individuals who have positively contributed to this
dissertation study and, without whom, this dissertation would not have been possible.
First, and foremost, I would like to thank my Dissertation Committee Chair, Dr. Pedro
Garcia, for his time, guidance, and support throughout the doctoral program. I would like to
acknowledge Dr. Rudy Castruita and Dr. Michael Escalante for serving on my dissertation
committee. Their insight, feedback, and encouragement was instrumental in completing this
research study.
I would also like to thank the University of Southern California (USC) MESA Program
for granting access to conduct this research study. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge
Dr. Darrin Gray and Mr. Ben Louie, the directors of the USC-MESA Program. Dr. Gray and
Mr. Louie welcomed our dissertation group to MESA events, facilitated connections with study
participants, and assisted in gathering data about the program. Without all their help and
support, this study would not have been feasible.
I am also grateful for the continued support of Rhonda Haramis and Jacob Jung. We
started the doctoral program as cohort members, became friends along the way, but now will end
the journey as family. Knowing that I had the support of these two individuals inspired me and
motivated me to persevere. Their dedication and commitment to this dissertation study was
invaluable, and for that I am very appreciative.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and students at Student-Athlete Academic
Services (SAAS) for their encouragement over the past two years. I am very thankful for the
opportunity to work with such an exceptional group of individuals, who inspire me to be a better
educator everyday.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 7

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends who have always motivated
me and encouraged me to follow my dreams. Their understanding and patience throughout this
doctoral program was essential and much appreciated. And, last but not least, a special thanks to
Gizmo, my faithful little dog, who stayed up by my side every night I needed to finish a paper.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .....................................................................................................................10
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................11
List of Appendices .............................................................................................................12
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................13
Introduction ............................................................................................................13
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................15
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................23
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................24
Research Questions ................................................................................................26
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................26
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations ........................................................27
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................28
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................31
Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................32
Historical Perspective and Politics of STEM .........................................................32
STEM Pipeline .......................................................................................................41
Students in STEM Education .................................................................................57
Outreach Programs .................................................................................................70
Key Features of Effective Programs ......................................................................74
MESA Program ......................................................................................................76
Summary ................................................................................................................77
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................79
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions ..................................79
Research Questions ................................................................................................81
An Introduction to MESA ......................................................................................82
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Study ...........................................88
Population and Sample ..........................................................................................91
Site Selection .........................................................................................................98
Data Collection ....................................................................................................101
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................108
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................114
Ethical Practices ...................................................................................................125
Summary ..............................................................................................................126
Chapter Four: Findings ....................................................................................................128
Background ..........................................................................................................128
Purpose .................................................................................................................129
Guiding Questions ...............................................................................................132
Research Study Participants .................................................................................132
Reporting of Results ............................................................................................142
Ancillary Findings ...............................................................................................185
Reflections on Findings .......................................................................................194
Summary ..............................................................................................................202
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Implications, and Conclusions ...........................204
Background ..........................................................................................................204
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 9

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .....................................................206
Review of Methodology ......................................................................................207
Discussion of Findings and Results .....................................................................208
Conclusion of Findings ........................................................................................219
Program Recommendations .................................................................................225
Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................231
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................233
Recommendations for Future Study ....................................................................235
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................237
References ........................................................................................................................238

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 10

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. USC-MESA Programs Affiliates within the Greater Los Angeles Region .........87
Table 2. Survey Responses Collected by Four-Year University .....................................103
Table 3. Instrumentation Usage .......................................................................................114
Table 4. Survey Item Breakdown Per Research Question ...............................................118
Table 5. Interview Questions Per Research Question ......................................................122
Table 6. Response Rate by College/University ...............................................................134
Table 7. Demographic Data from Survey Instrument ......................................................135
Table 8. Interview Participants ........................................................................................141
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Subscale One .............................................................145
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale One ..........................146
Table 11. Key Findings Related to Research Question One ............................................149
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Two ..........................................................154
Table 13. Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale Two ..........................155
Table 14. Open-Ended Example of Survey Participant Data for Subscale Two .............158
Table 15. Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Three ........................................................164
Table 16. Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale Three ........................165
Table 17. Open-Ended Example of Survey Participant Data for Subscale Three ...........168
Table 18. Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Four ..........................................................175
Table 19. Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale Four ..........................176
Table 20. Open-Ended Example of Survey Participant Data for Subscale Four .............178
Table 21. Ancillary Findings Uncovered from the Data ..................................................186
Table 22. Comparison Chart of Conceptual Framework, Research-Based
Strategies, and MESA ....................................................................................195

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 11

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of how Outreach Programs, such as MESA,
Target Educationally Disadvantaged Students ...................................................25
Figure 2. Federal STEM Education Funding FY2006, by Agency ...................................37
Figure 3. Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM ....................................................................43
Figure 4. Multiple Pathways Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM .....................................56
Figure 5. Alternative Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM .................................................56
Figure 6. Earned Bachelor’s Degrees in STEM by Race, Class and Gender ....................59
Figure 7. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Mathematics Courses ...................................61
Figure 8. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Science Courses ...........................................62
Figure 9. Top Program Goals Selected by Survey Respondents .......................................72
Figure 10. Percentage of Programs that Offer Academic Services, by Service Type .......73
Figure 11. Percentage of Programs that Offer Non-Academic Services, by
Service Type .....................................................................................................74
Figure 12. Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Approach .........................................89
Figure 13. Conceptual Framework of how Outreach Programs such as
MESA, Target Disadvantaged Populations ....................................................131
Figure 14. Survey Responses Showing the Distribution of Participants by
School Site ......................................................................................................136
Figure 15. Survey Responses Showing the Distribution of Participant Enrollment
in MESA Programs ........................................................................................137
Figure 16. Enrollment of Students by University ............................................................138
Figure 17. Distribution of Students’ Year in School .......................................................139
Figure 18. Distribution of Students’ Majors in College ..................................................139
Figure 19. Distribution of Survey Respondents’ Careers ................................................140

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 12

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Participant Information Sheet .....................................................................266
Appendix B. Recruitment Letter ......................................................................................268
Appendix C. Participant Consent Form. ..........................................................................269
Appendix D. MESA Survey Questionnaire .....................................................................270
Appendix E. Data Collection: Interview Protocol for Female Undergraduates
in STEM ......................................................................................................275
.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 13

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Rhonda Haramis, Jacob Jung, and Nisha Parmar
1

Introduction
Careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are growing at an
accelerated pace. The U. S. Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration
(2011) reported over the past 10 years, growth in STEM careers was three times as fast as growth
in non-STEM careers. Additionally, it was estimated that as of 2012, there were 7.4 million
STEM positions available in the job market, and this number is expected to increase to 8.65
million by 2018 (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013). As a result, there has been a renewed focus on
STEM education in the United States in order to remain competitive in the global economy and
promote job growth (Chen, 2009).
However, participation in STEM fields has traditionally been considered a White male
endeavor in the US, with minorities and females less likely to pursue occupations in these
disciplines (Campbell, Denes, & Morrison, 2000; Riegle-Crumb, King, Grodsky, & Muller,
2012). Due to the inequities in access to STEM curricula and courses, a growing concern is
there will be a shortage of qualified individuals, in particular minorities and females, to meet the
projected growth of the STEM field (Chen, 2009). Ensuring the United States has a robust
STEM workforce is imperative for economic growth and stability, and provides minorities and
females a niche in which to excel (Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2012). In addition, having a
more diverse workforce allows for improved designs in science and technology that might have
been otherwise overlooked.

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are listed
alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 14

The inequity in access to STEM careers is evidenced by the subsequently lower numbers
of high school minorities and females that enter college as STEM majors, persist and graduate
with a STEM degree, and enter a STEM career (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). While educationally
disadvantaged students constitute a growing number of students in the public educational system,
their presence in STEM does not reflect this trend. A study conducted by the American Council
on Education (Anderson & Kim, 2006) found that 13% of African-American and Hispanic
students elected to pursue a major in STEM, and of those minority students who elected a STEM
major, the graduation rate is nearly half as compared to their White peers (Foltz, Gannon,
Kirschmann, 2014). Similarly, the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES, 2006) data
showed that female high school seniors enrolled in STEM majors at one-third the rate of male
high school seniors. Consequently, even when minorities successfully graduate with a STEM
degree, and enter the STEM workforce, they do not receive equal compensation as their White,
male colleagues (Chen, 2009).
As there is an increasing need for qualified individuals in STEM fields, this problem
becomes a priority to understand and contextualize because the absence of minorities and
females from STEM majors leads to inequities in access to STEM curricula, differences in
compensation, and a lack of diversity in the work force (Milgram, 2011). Understanding the
unique barriers that educationally disadvantaged students face is imperative to increasing their
numbers and persistence in STEM courses during pivotal transitions throughout their educational
careers.
Among the many reasons educationally disadvantaged students are uniquely challenged
in their pursuit of STEM degrees and careers, four main themes emerged from the literature.
Educationally disadvantaged students face a lack of institutional support such as inadequate
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 15

resources and lack of academic assistance (Griffith, 2010), lack of social or peer support
(Szelényi, Denson, & Inkelas, 2013), negative racial and gender stereotypes (Riegle-Crumb et
al., 2012), and issues related to motivation (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013). Each of these four
themes will be further broken down into subcategories and examined in detail within the context
of the literature review in the subsequent chapter.
In response to the issue of the underrepresentation of minorities and females in STEM,
many institutions, from primary school through four-year universities, have implemented STEM
outreach programs that aim to increase the retention of educationally disadvantaged students in
STEM by providing students with academic, social, and emotional support systems within their
institutions. In order to gain a better understanding of how STEM outreach programs work and
the experiences of undergraduate minority females in STEM outreach programs, this dissertation
will examine the effectiveness of current STEM outreach programs on the persistence of
minority, first generation female undergraduate students in STEM majors.
Background of the Problem
The need for a strong STEM workforce in the US has led to a resurgence in ensuring
there are sufficient numbers of high quality STEM graduates (Foltz et al., 2014). Having a
strong STEM workforce would allow the US to enhance its innovative capacity, economic
development, and global competitiveness (Beede et al., 2011; Foltz et al., 2014). While STEM
specific jobs constitute only 5% of the entire US Workforce, policy makers and leaders in
academics and businesses alike, strongly believe that STEM fields have a significantly higher
impact on the US economy (Hira, 2010). For example, it is widely known that the technical and
scientific industries play an important role in maintaining national security, increasing the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 16

standard of living in the US, and solving the nation’s most challenging issues such as disease
control, infrastructure, and global warming (Hira, 2010).
STEM and Federal Initiatives
The STEM workforce has been the target of political action for the past 50 years due to
growing concerns that the US would have inadequacies in the number of high quality STEM
graduates, and would not be able to compete economically with countries such as India and
China (Bare, 2008; Hira, 2010). One such policy that was recently passed by the U. S. Congress,
and signed by former President Bush, was the America COMPETES Act of 2007 (Bare, 2008).
The America COMPETES Act authorized an increase in the nation’s investment in STEM
education from kindergarten through postsecondary education (Bare, 2008). Additionally, the
act increased the number of funds allotted for national organizations focused on science and
technology research such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Science (Bare, 2008).
In 2013, President Obama implemented a 5-year STEM strategic plan that placed three
federal agencies – the NSF, Department of Education (ED), and the Smithsonian Institute – in
charge of oversight of STEM programs, distribution of STEM monies, and monitoring of
program effectiveness (Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education 5-Year Strategic Plan, 2013). As a result of these national policies, the number of
STEM-focused schools and outreach programs have increased in an effort to recruit and graduate
students in STEM disciplines. However, educational policies such as the America COMPETES
Act and President Obama’s STEM: 5-Year Strategic Plan, were aimed at increasing the future
supply of STEM graduates and did not adequately address the current need for a highly qualified,
diversified STEM workforce.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 17

Retaining a Strong STEM Workforce
Previous research has shown that the STEM disciplines struggle to recruit, retain, and
graduate students (Cannady, Greenwald, & Harris, 2014). This remains especially true for
minorities and females, who are disproportionately educationally disadvantaged in STEM fields
as compared to their White peers. For instance, females occupy nearly half the jobs in the US
economy, but females only occupy about 25% of the jobs in STEM (Beede et al., 2011). This is
problematic because as the number of jobs in STEM is expected to increase, the compensation is
also expected to rise as well (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). The United States
Department of Commerce (2011) estimated that STEM workers earn 26% more than non-STEM
workers. Thus, it is essential that the number of minorities and females pursuing STEM
disciplines increase in order to remain representative of the US population (Carnes, Schuler,
Sarto, Lent, & Bakken, 2006; Foltz et al., 2014). Furthermore, minorities and females could
bring a much needed diversified perspective on how to approach global issues that impact
traditionally underserved populations (Foltz et al., 2014; Milgram, 2011).
If the goal is to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students in STEM,
then it is imperative to understand why they are not entering STEM disciplines, and why those
who enter STEM are not persisting. Specifically, this study aimed to examine the mechanisms
that contribute to how educationally disadvantaged students are currently being supported in
STEM education through STEM outreach programs, and why educationally disadvantaged
students are less likely to persist in STEM majors and careers.
STEM Pipeline
Historically, the conceptual model of students following a STEM trajectory has been
portrayed by an ever-narrowing leaking pipeline (Cannady et al., 2014). The pipeline model
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 18

suggests that as students approach milestone transitions such as the shift from middle school to
high school, students leave the STEM pipeline. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars
dedicated to patching up the leaks to increase the number of students retained in STEM careers,
especially women and minorities, the investment has yielded poor returns, and the number of
students who leave STEM fields continues to be an issue of societal and economic concerns
(Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al., 2014).
Minorities and females are especially susceptible to leaking from the STEM pipeline
because these educationally disadvantaged groups face additional barriers peripheral to their
participation and persistence in STEM. Educationally disadvantaged students must contend with
inequities in academics, societal, and cultural norms that conflict with personal goals in STEM,
negative gender stereotypes, lack of role models, peer criticism, and feelings of being an
outsider, which contributes to their overall persistence in STEM (Thoman, Arizaga, Smith,
Story, & Soncuya, 2014).
Barriers to Diversity in STEM
Previous research has indicated that the strongest determinants of choosing a STEM
major in college are students’ prior academic preparation and achievement in mathematics and
science, and their attitudes (interest) in mathematics and science in high school (Cannady et al.,
2014; Correll, 2001; Tai, Sadler, & Mintzes, 2006). For both young women and men, those who
earned higher grades in advanced coursework, were 1.6 times as likely to pursue STEM majors
(Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Thi, 2014). Data from previous studies found that minorities,
including African Americans and Hispanics, take lower level courses in mathematics and
sciences in high school as compared to their White peers, and are therefore inadequately
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 19

prepared for college level STEM courses, while females reported negative attitudes regarding
STEM (Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, 2007).
Minority students are less likely to participate in higher-level courses due to lack of
access to rigorous courses. Ogbu and Simons (1998) suggested that minorities face school
systematic factors and community forces that result in their underachievement compared to their
White peers. Additionally, minorities are faced with language barriers, that adversely lead to
limited access to high paying jobs, and result in living in poverty and attending schools with
inadequate resources (Tienda & Haskins, 2011; Yun & Moreno, 2006). Finally, parents of
minority students, specifically involuntary minorities, lack the social capital to advocate for their
students to be in higher-level courses, which are gateway courses to STEM majors (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). Fortunately, for those minorities who are able to navigate the system and take
rigorous courses in high school, data indicated they are equally likely to pursue STEM majors in
college as their White peers (Tyson et al., 2007). These findings suggest that the lack of
adequate preparation and institutional barriers in access during high school present significant
barriers for minorities who seek to pursue STEM.
Females, on the other hand, may elect to engage in higher-level coursework in
mathematics and science in high school, but are less likely to pursue STEM degrees and careers
than their male peers due to lack of interest in mathematics and science, and lack of self-identity
in STEM (Tyson et al., 2007). First, interest related to STEM is developed during elementary
education and reinforced both negatively and positively throughout experiences in secondary and
postsecondary education. Females are discouraged from pursuing STEM disciplines due to the
competitive nature of the courses and the perceived male-dominant culture in STEM (Riegle-
Crumb et al., 2012). Second, motivational elements that heavily influence persistence and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 20

choices for females in STEM include their self-identity and self-concept in STEM. Females
have difficulty viewing themselves as scientists and have difficulty reconciling and achieving a
work-life balance. These findings indicate that females, even when they have the academic
capacity to excel in STEM courses, opt out of these disciplines due to negative attitudes related
to STEM (Tyson et al., 2007).
STEM Outreach Programs and Partnerships
Outreach programs, also known as pipeline programs, are one of the oldest strategies
used to increase the enrollment of students in college and their success in higher education
(Strayhorn, 2011). STEM outreach programs are a division of these pipeline programs that are
specifically focused on the active recruitment, retention, and graduation of educationally
disadvantaged students, such as minorities and females, in STEM majors (Contreras, 2011).
Outreach programs represent one type of intervention that seeks to improve conditions for
educationally disadvantaged students by creating a more inclusive and balanced STEM
workforce, increasing outreach and equity to groups that have been excluded from STEM, and
preparing more high quality students for STEM careers (Gilmer, 2007). These STEM outreach
programs operate under the pretenses that implementing and developing interventions that target
the recruitment and retention of minorities and females requires that programs address the two
factors which most significantly impact students’ success rates in college – academic preparation
in mathematics and science and students’ attitudes in mathematics and sciences (Strayhorn,
2011).
STEM outreach programs are highly diverse in their organization, their duration of
program, and their targeted population/demographics. STEM outreach programs range from the
federally funded programs such as Upward Bound and GEAR UP, to state funded programs such
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 21

as Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) in California (Contreras, 2011).
They also include intervention programs established by educational nonprofits, school district
partnerships programs such as Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) (Contreras,
2011), and university partnership programs such as the Minority Opportunities in Research
Program (MORE) at California State University at Los Angeles (CSULA) (Slovacek,
Whittinghill, Flenoury, & Wiseman, 2012). What all these outreach programs have in common
is they have evolved to address the key transition periods in a student’s educational career
identified by the conceptual pipeline model. These transitions include: primary school to middle
school, middle school to high school, and high school to college (Cannady et al., 2014).
Furthermore, they provide interventions such as academic enrichment, mentoring and social
development, cultural and gender role models, and emotional support, which for students from
educationally disadvantaged communities are instrumental in creating access where the cultural
message has not always been positive (Contreras, 2011).
Academic enrichment. Because minorities are often denied outreach to rigorous
curriculum in high school, targeted academic interventions implemented by outreach programs
are used to compensate for the inequities in resources (Contreras, 2011; Gilmer, 2007). The
Academic Investment Program in Math and Science (AIMS) at Bowling Green State University
was purposefully designed to target the needs of minority and female university students who are
traditionally underrepresented in STEM (Gilmer, 2007). The AIMS program provided students
with an intensive five-week summer course each year during their university career, which
integrated mathematics, science, and peer tutoring. The program was found to foster a support
system, facilitate faculty-student interaction, provide networking opportunities, assist with
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 22

financial hardships, and retain more educationally disadvantaged students in STEM majors
(Gilmer, 2007).
Social interactions. Outreach programs promote social and career-related pursuits
around issues in STEM, which is imperative to increasing persistence in STEM (Szelényi et al.,
2013). Research relating to the importance of social support showed that participation in a
Living Learning Program (LLP) increased the persistence of females in STEM majors. LLPs are
designed as a cohort model for students, and their use created a sense of community for students,
fostered interactions with diverse peers, and increased professional outcome expectations for
minorities and females in STEM (Szelenyi et al., 2013). Moreover, mentoring and fostering
positive relationships between faculty and students in STEM, helped to break down negative
stereotypes of the STEM disciplines, and provided students opportunities to engage in STEM
related research (Gilmer, 2007; Slovacek et al., 2012).
Role models. Historically, the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering existed
as White, male-dominated professions (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012). This perception has led to
the gender and racial disparity in STEM. This is further confounded by the issue of a lack of
minority and female role models in STEM (Griffith, 2010; Xu & Martin, 2011). Some
researchers have hypothesized that increasing the number of minority and female faculty in
STEM may increase students’ persistence in STEM (Griffith, 2010). When students are
provided role models that they can identify as similar to themselves, then they are able to
conceptualize themselves in the same role. Accordingly, if students in STEM are provided
faculty and advisors in STEM with whom they can identify with, then they are more likely to
develop a self-identity in STEM.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 23

Motivational support. Students’ self-efficacy is directly related to their motivation and
directly impacts students’ mental effort, active choice to engage in a task, and persistence during
adversity (Rueda, 2011). Minorities and females in STEM majors must contend with negative
cultural/gender stereotypes, lack of academic resources, peer criticism, and feelings of being an
outsider, which negatively affects their self-efficacy (Thoman et al., 2014). Outreach programs
that incorporated mentoring and informal professional networks have been instrumental in
helping minorities and females advocate for themselves, reshape their role in STEM, and
increase their self-efficacy (Xu & Martin, 2011). Furthermore, research indicated that the mean
academic self-efficacy and students’ social skills were significantly higher after participation in
pipeline programs (Strayhorn, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
There is a growing concern regarding the well-documented gender gap in STEM because
there will be A shortage of qualified individuals, in particular females, to meet the projected
growth of the STEM field (Chen, 2009). The gender gap in STEM is evidenced by the
subsequently lower numbers of high school females that enter college as STEM majors, persist,
and graduate with a STEM degree, and enter a STEM career (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2006), data showed that during
the 2003-04 academic year, only 8% of female high school seniors enrolled in a STEM major as
compared to 25% of male high school seniors. Further confounding the issue, many
undergraduate students who enrolled in colleges with an intended major in STEM changed their
course of study partway through their college career, and this pattern was especially true for
females (Griffith, 2010). If female students do not persist in STEM majors, then the likelihood
that they will select STEM careers decreases.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 24

Identifying the unique barriers that females in STEM majors face is imperative to
increasing their numbers and persistence in STEM majors at universities. Females in STEM face
barriers such as the lack of institutional support (Griffith, 2010), negative gender stereotypes
(Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012), and issues of self-efficacy (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013) which
would hinder their ability to become high quality individuals in the STEM workforce.
In response to the issue of underrepresentation of females in STEM, universities have
implemented several outreach programs that aim to increase the retention of females in STEM.
These programs target the persistence and retention of females in STEM by providing
undergraduate students with academic, social, and emotional support systems within the
institution. However, Strayhorn (2011) noted that although these intensive support programs are
increasingly popular, and universities spend enormous amounts of money to fund them, there is
very little empirical evidence to show their effectiveness. Of the studies that have been
conducted, a large proportion are quantitative in nature and do not include the experiences or
perspectives of the students who participate in the programs. Furthermore, the data collected are
not always disaggregated by gender or ethnicity, but are rather representative of all
underrepresented groups (Strayhorn, 2011).
Purpose of the Study

The initial purpose of this study was to observe, compare, and evaluate STEM outreach
programs that are currently in place. Moreover, this study explored the effectiveness of STEM
outreach programs on the retention of first generation females enrolled at a four-year university.
The final intent of this study was to identify the key elements that contribute toward a successful
STEM outreach program. This was crucial because it provides future implications for rethinking
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 25

and restructuring existing STEM outreach programs to ensure they provide equitable services for
all educationally disadvantaged students.
The conceptual framework was structured around the key elements that create an
effective STEM outreach program for retaining minorities and females in STEM disciplines.
The components of the conceptual framework included the following: academic support systems
which compensate for inequities in the educational system, positive social interactions with like-
minded peers and faculty mentors, built-in support network to counteract negative gender and
racial stereotypes, and motivational elements that influence students’ persistence in STEM
(Figure 1). STEM outreach programs such as the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Outreach
(CTLO) at California Institute of Technology (CalTech), the AIMS Program at Bowling Green
State University, and the MORE Program at CSULA, and Mathematics Engineering Science
Achievement (MESA) in California, have proven to be successful due to their high retention rate
of educationally disadvantaged populations. Figure 1 illustrates effective elements in outreach
programs.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of how Outreach Programs, such as MESA, Target
Educationally Disadvantaged Students

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 26

Research Questions
In order to contextualize the issue of minority female persistence in STEM at a four-year
university, the following questions will serve as the framework that will guide the study:
1. How is Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) being implemented by
university administrators and faculty at two- and four-year colleges to support the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged female students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
2. How do (did) educationally disadvantaged female students in higher education perceive
MESA has (had) influenced their graduation from STEM majors?
3. What resources from the MESA program are needed to influence the persistence and
retention of educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
4. How effective has the MESA program been for influencing the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the postsecondary level?
Significance of the Study

STEM not only embodies the integration of content and subject matter disciplines, it
prepares students with the skill set of problem solving and critical thinking, which are essential
for the 21st century. This study aimed to illustrate how effective STEM outreach programs
support the persistence of educationally disadvantaged students by providing academic support
systems, fostering positive social interactions, building support networks, and developing student
motivation. Additionally, the goal is to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged
minorities and females in identified STEM education and careers through STEM outreach
programs. Ultimately, this study sought to maximize the retention and persistence of students
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 27

flowing through the STEM pipeline, close the achievement gap/gender gap/racial gap in K-16
STEM education, and rebalance social injustices and inequities in the STEM job market.
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this research study:
1. The STEM outreach programs observed in this study are representative of a typical
STEM outreach programs that aim to:
a. Increase participation in STEM focused schools and STEM careers
b. Increase the number of educationally disadvantaged minorities and females in STEM
education and careers
c. Close the achievement gap in K-16 education
d. Promote retention and persistence
e. Rebalance social justice
2. The selected schools are a representative sample of a typical successful STEM outreach
programs in California.
3. Participants who were surveyed or interviewed responded with honesty and provided
accurate information.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were as follows:
1. The low number of successful STEM outreach programs within urban communities in
Southern California available to participate in this study.
2. Only California successful STEM outreach programs that have been established with four
or more years were selected.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 28

3. Interviews were delimited to minorities and females who are currently in enrolled or have
participated in a successful STEM outreach program.
Limitations

The following study limitations are recognized:
1. Time availability and distance feasibility.
2. The ability to gain access to successful STEM access programs was limited.
3. Amount of time needed to collect and analyze the data to determine commonalities of
successful STEM outreach programs.
4. Self-report responses may not be indicative of true responses leading to issues of
reliability and validity of data collected.
5. Small sample size and self-report responses of minorities and females participating in
STEM outreach programs could reduce the generalizability of the findings for this study.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions and terminology below are used throughout this study:
● Achievement gap: The discrepancies in student performance outcomes (retention,
persistence, degree completion, STEM career) when comparing student subgroups at the
same program. The subgroups are often characterized by nationality, race, and gender
(Educational Testing Service, ETS, 2016).
● Advanced Placement Program (AP): Established by College Board to help gifted
students earn college course credit while still in high school (College Board, 2016a).
● Educationally disadvantaged students: Students placed at special risk due to factors
such as economic status, educational environment, family and home circumstances,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 29

gender, or race (MESA, 2016). For the purposes of this study, educationally
disadvantaged students include minorities and first-generation females.
● Engineering: Applied or practical aspect of several processes used in devising a system,
component, or protocol to meet an identified need (Carberry, Lee, & Ohland, 2010,
p. 71).
● English Language Learners (ELLs): Students who are unable to communicate fluently
or learn effectively in English, who often come from non-English speaking homes and
require specialized or modified instruction in both the English language and in their
academic courses (Kena et al., 2015).
● First-generation student: Students from families with low socioeconomic status or from
middle- or higher-income families without a college-going tradition (College Board,
2016b).
● Interest: A mental state that is activated, or triggered, by creating “uncertainty, surprises,
novelty, complexity, or incongruity” in the learner as a response to a previously unknown
experience or information (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p.4).
● Mathematics: Study of patterns and relationships (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber,
2014).
● MESA: Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement is a California outreach
program designed to recruit and retain educationally disadvantaged students in STEM
(MESA, 2016).
● Motivation: The process whereby goal-directed behavior is instigated and sustained
(Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2012)
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 30

● Persistence: A student’s continuation behavior leading to a desired goal (Schunk et al.,
2012). For this study, persistence in STEM was defined as student enrollment in a STEM
major, graduate program, or career.
● Pipeline: The progression from middle school, high school and postsecondary education
(Cannady et al., 2014).
● Retention: Refers to an institution’s ability to keep students (in STEM) from one
performance period to the next (Tinto, 1997).
● Science: The body of knowledge about the natural world as investigated through the
process of inquiry to uncover new knowledge (Honey et al., 2014).
● Self-efficacy: An individual’s belief or judgment of the capability of organizing and
executing required to complete a task (Schunk et al., 2012).
● Self-concept: A self-perception that influences behavior (Xu & Martin, 2011).
● Self-identity: The ability for students to incorporate the STEM culture and profession
into their visions of themselves (Tyson et al., 2007)
● STEM: The integration of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) into a
single field of study (Planty et al., 2009).
● STEM outreach program: Outreach programs to support students with curriculum and
resources in their pathway towards a STEM major and eventually a STEM career
(Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007).
● STEM workforce: Individual who works with computers (software developers,
information technology, and analysts), engineers, mathematicians and statisticians, life
scientists, physical scientists, and limited social scientists (U. S. Department of
Commerce, 2011).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 31

● Technology: Tools used to solve problems (Honey et al., 2014).
● Underrepresented populations/minorities: Refers to Latino English Language Learners
and female students who are traditionally left out of careers in STEM (Allen-Ramdial &
Campbell, 2014).
Organization of the Study

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provided an introduction to the
study by overviewing the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, and the
purpose and importance of the study. Chapter Two is a detailed review of the existing literature
that pertains to effective STEM education/outreach programs and how it impacts academic
support, social support, and emotional support. Chapter Three includes the methodology used in
this study and explains the appropriateness of the mixed-method approach. In addition, the
methodology section includes the sample population, survey instruments, and tools used to
analyze the data collected. Chapter Four includes the findings of the study as they relates to the
research questions proposed. Finally, chapter Five is a summarization of the findings of the
study and provides recommendations and insights for future research opportunities related to the
problem of practice.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 32

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Authors: Rhonda Haramis, Jacob Jung, and Nisha Parmar
2

Historical Perspective and Politics of STEM
In this section, a review of the comprehensive literature details the historical perspective
and political aspects of STEM. This encompasses the ongoing concerns about the STEM
workforce, followed by key legislation that fueled the United States’ decision to make STEM
education a priority. Next, the literature examines the funding allocated to support legislative
policies, and how defining STEM is influenced by the distribution of funding. Finally, an
examination of the desired skill set is provided to support the need for highly qualified
individuals in both STEM and non-STEM fields.
STEM Workforce
During World War II, the United States was a global leader in the establishment of a
highly skilled STEM workforce (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). The efforts put forth during World
War II afforded the US to take the lead in STEM for military technology, thus improving the
country’s economic standing (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). In today’s economy, however, the
need to develop US STEM workforce extends beyond the realm of military advancement.
Although not outwardly advertised, the demand for job candidates with STEM related skills is
becoming increasingly critical across all industries (Bayer Corporation, 2014; Gonzalez &
Kuenzi, 2012). A current debate has surfaced about whether the increase in demand for STEM
degree graduates is accurate or misdiagnosed. Individuals on one side of the spectrum claimed
that America is “overproducing the number of PhDs we need for research and development”
(Bayer Corporation, 2014, p. 618). This justification is based on stagnant wages for math-related

2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are listed
alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 33

professionals, and the declining rate of STEM identified jobs over the past five years. However,
the opposition stressed that PhDs are not the only individuals needed in STEM companies.
Graduates with 2- and 4-year STEM degrees have increased in demand in non-STEM identified
companies (Bayer Corporation, 2014).
In addition to building a larger pool of high quality individuals to meet the demands of an
evolving STEM workforce, the need for gender and ethnic diversity is a growing concern.
Museus, Palmer, Davis, and Maramba (2011) argued that the demographic composition of
America has changed dramatically over the past several decades. Within the study, the
researchers include a trajectory graph generated by the U. S. Census Bureau that shows the
country’s racial make-up by 2050, and the data predicts a 16% increase in Hispanic
representation over the next 40 years (Museus et al., 2011). Additionally, the number of women
represented in the workforce, and particularly the STEM field, continues to increase nationally
and globally (Espinosa, 2011). The number of females, specifically women of color who attend
college, has increased; however, the number who actually are conferred with a degree in STEM
is not representative of the number of females attending college (Espinosa, 2011). Empirical
studies show that “a more diverse student body in STEM fields lead to a workforce of scientists,
engineers, and mathematicians who are more equipped to function effectively in today’s diverse
and global workforce” (Museus et al., 2011, p. 5).
STEM Legislation
Longstanding interests in America’s goal to improve the country’s science and
technology literacy dates back as far as the first Congress and President George Washington
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). However, America’s interest in taking a pioneer role in STEM
education increased during the 20th Century. The National Science Foundation Authorization
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 34

Act of 1950 (NSF, 2013) was founded to “develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy
for basic research and education in the sciences” (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012, p. 31; NSF, 2013).
Although the NSF’s primary purpose was to support pre- and post-doctoral STEM students, the
NSF also included teacher institutes to support the improvement of STEM education at the K-12
levels (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
The launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik in 1957 was also a catalyst in the United State’s
decision to take a more aggressive role in STEM (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). Growing concerns
about “existing balances in our educational programs which have led to an insufficient
proportion of our population educated in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages
and trained in technology” (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012, p. 32) prompted the National Defense
Education Act of 1958 (NDEA, National Defense Education Act of 1958). This was the first
time the government offered federal loans to students and funding to states for science,
mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction.
Some scholars argued that the NDEA paved the way for the establishment of one of the
most influential bipartisan measures in the history of the United States, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). When first enacted, the
ESEA did not explicitly include STEM-specific provisions. However, throughout the
subsequent reauthorizations, and more recently, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB,
U. S. Department of Education, 2002), STEM requirements have been inserted for Local
Educational Agencies (LEAs) to maintain compliance (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). As of
December 10, 2015, the ESEA bipartisan measure was again reauthorized as the Every Student
Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), and continues to incorporate science and math accountability
measures for each state (STEM Education Coalition, 2015; Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 35

Sec. 1005 State Plans, 2015a). Officially beginning implementation in the 2017-2018 fiscal
year, California legislation will enforce ESSA’s STEM initiatives by ensuring LEAs implement
the New Generation Science Standards (NGSS), assess all students in mathematics in the third
through eighth and eleventh grades, and assess all fifth, eighth, and tenth grade students in
science (California Department of Education, 2015; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015a).
Moreover, ESSA now permits states to use a portion of its federal funding to integrate
engineering and technology concepts into states’ science assessments (Every Student Succeeds
Act, 2015b).
In addition to NDEA and ESEA, several policies and initiatives that were passed between
1965 and 2007 continue to influence the persistence of STEM Education and the STEM
workforce today (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965
authorized funding for higher institutions to assist students and their families with financial
assistance while completing a postsecondary degree (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Higher
Education Act of 1965, HEA). However, HEA was reauthorized as the Higher Education
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA, 2006) to earmark approximately $1.4 billion in federal
funding for the Science Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART) Grant program
until the 2010-2011 academic year, which awarded $4,000 to students majoring in STEM
degrees (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005, 2006).
Three legislative acts shaped the U. S. Department of Education (ED) to become a
prominent agency in the creation and management of STEM education programs. The
Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 recognized ED as an independent federal
agency. Within this act, science education programs such as the Elementary and Pre-school
Science Teacher Training, and the Minority Institutions Science Improvement, were transferred
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 36

over to ED (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Department of Education Organization Act, 1979). Soon
afterward, the publication of A Nation at Risk through the National Commission on Excellence
in Education (NCEE, 1983) highlighted the ascending economies in Germany and Japan; this
heightened America’s concern about its descending rank globally in educational competitiveness
and spurred the enactment of the Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 (EESA).
ESSA’s policies mandated ED to improve teacher training and development in STEM
education by providing grants to states and LEAs (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2007; Museus et al.,
2011; ESSA, 1984). More recently, the America COMPETES Act of 2007, and its
reauthorization in 2010, approved the creation of a variety of STEM education programs at
several federal science agencies in addition to ED such as NSF, the Department of Energy
(DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010, 2011). Given the increase in agencies, America COMPETES also
established a federal government-wide STEM education coordinating committee, the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC), to monitor program effectiveness and reduce the
duplication of services (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
STEM Funding
Both the NSTC and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted inventory
reports in 2011 and 2012, respectively, which identified between 209 and 252 distinct STEM
education programs, and about $3.4 billion dollars earmarked to sustain these programs
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi, Matthews & Mangan, 2006). Figure 2 shows
the percentage of funding allocated to the key agencies that facilitate STEM education programs
(Kuenzi, 2008).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 37

Source: Kuenzi, Jeffrey J. (2008). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education:
Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action (p. CRS-21). Congressional Research Service Reports. Paper
35.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35.

Figure 2. Federal STEM Education Funding FY2006, by Agency

Three distinct agencies monopolized approximately $622 million of the total federal
dollars dedicated to STEM education: the Health and Human Services (HHS, 27%), the National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF, 29%), and the Mathematics and
Science Partnership (MSP, ED, 23%) program (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012, p. 4).
Although the overarching goal of government support in STEM is to increase America’s
competitiveness in the global STEM workforce, the avenues in reaching this goal are numerous
and varied. The Ruth L. Kirchstein National Research Service Awards program, which is
administered by HHS and awards $274 million in STEM funding, targets postgraduate students
who are awarded individual fellowships to support their area of research, particularly in health-
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 38

related fields. Award applicants must be US citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008).
Similar to Kirchstein, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship awards about $198 million
in federal funding annually to students pursuing master’s and doctoral degrees. This program’s
goal is to increase the size and diversity of the US workforce in science and engineering, with an
emphasis on increasing the representation of women in engineering and computer information
services (Kuenzi, 2008). The program has a capacity to support approximately 1,000 fellows per
year; each selected candidate receives $40,500 in stipends and cost of education to complete
their research (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008). Enacted in 1952, the NSF fellowships
represent one of the longest-running federal STEM programs in the history of STEM grants
(Kuenzi, 2008). NSF also established the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
program; it is the largest of the NSF STEM education programs that supports undergraduates’
participation in active research in both individual and group projects (Kuenzi, 2008). Applicants
for the NSF graduate and undergraduate programs must also be US citizens, nationals, or
permanent resident aliens.
Both NSF and ED have established the Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP).
While NSF’s MSP program aims to create partnerships between businesses, communities, and
schools to improve K-12 student achievement outcomes, ED’s MSP program focuses on
community partnerships to improve the knowledge and skill set of STEM teachers (Kuenzi,
2008).
STEM Definitions
The U. S. Department of Education’s (2007 as cited in Brown, 2012) definition of STEM
education refers to the programmatic aspects,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 39

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education programs are defined as
those primarily intended to provide support for, or to strengthen, science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (STEM) education at the elementary and secondary through
postgraduate levels, including adult education. (p. 7).
Merrill (2009 as cited in Brown, 2012), however, defined STEM as:
A standards-based, meta-discipline residing at the school level where all teachers,
especially science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, teach an
integrated approach to teaching and learning, where discipline specific content is not
divided, but addressed and treated as one dynamic, fluid study. (p. 7).
Researchers argued that defining STEM is quite complicated due to its ties to federal
funding, vastness in program goals, and a variety of targeted subgroups (Gonzalez & Kuenzi,
2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi et al., 2006). The $3.4 billion earmarked, and the 207 plus
programs dedicated to STEM education, target a number of groups such as existing individuals
in the STEM workforce, postgraduate students, undergraduate students, kindergarten through
12th grade students, minority subgroups, and women (Bayer Corporation, 2012; Gonzalez &
Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi et al., 2006). Moreover, Gonzalez and Kuenzi (2012) and
Kuenzi (2008) asserted that STEM education programs define STEM based on the targeted
disciplines such as engineering and physical sciences, biological and biomedical sciences,
computer and information sciences, mathematics and statistics, and environmental sciences.
Program goals also affect the STEM definition; the study conducted by the GAO (2014)
on federally funded STEM programs in 2005 found multiple goals within and among the
identified 207 programs, which influenced the definition of STEM (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012;
Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi et al., 2006). Six major goals were found to recur throughout the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 40

programs: (1) attract and prepare kindergarten through postsecondary students to pursue and
persist in all areas of STEM coursework, (2) attract students to pursue and persist postsecondary
degrees and postdoctoral appointments, (3) provide college and graduate students with research
opportunities in STEM fields, (4) attract graduates to pursue careers in the STEM field, (5)
improve teacher education and preparation in STEM areas, and (6) improve or expand the
capacity of institutions to promote STEM fields (Kuenzi, 2008). These goals, along with the
targeted group of individuals, and the identified disciplines within the STEM field, have
generated an array of definitions in STEM education. Zollman (2012 as cited in Brown, 2012)
suggested that educators should “focus more on defining STEM education as a dynamic process
that changes over time, not as a set construct” (p. 7). Zollman also emphasized that “the overall
goal should be to move from learning for STEM literacy to the ability to use STEM literacy for
continued learning” (as cited in Brown, 2012, p. 7).
STEM Skill Set
According to Bayer Corporation (2012), STEM identified companies that expect 4-year
and 2-year STEM degree graduates to enter the workforce well equipped with a particular STEM
skill set. Moreover, Bayer Corporation’s (2012) study found that non-identified STEM
companies and industries are increasingly demanding candidates who possess STEM skills to fill
current and future positions. Talent recruiters who were interviewed in the study noted that
today’s candidates are lacking in certain competencies such as leadership, conflict resolution,
complex problem solving, and team building. Most Fortune 1000 companies have internal
trainings and mentorships to address the mismatch in the skill set needed to thoroughly fulfill the
job requirements, but they are hoping to have these skills incorporated into the higher education
curriculum for STEM degrees (Bayer Corporation, 2012, Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 41

STEM Pipeline
The conceptual metaphor of a leaky pipeline has been widely used to model the pathway
to careers in STEM (Augustine, 2005; Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf,
2010). The pipeline model is based on supply side economics, and describes the linear sequence
of steps that are necessary to become a scientist or engineer (Metcalf, 2010). Ever since the
leaky pipeline model was introduced, it has repeatedly been referenced to quantify the flow of
students who move from elementary and secondary education to higher education and STEM
occupations (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010). Additionally,
researchers have used this leaky pipeline model to project the future shortages of highly qualified
individuals entering the STEM workforce (Metcalf, 2010). Though, highly criticized, this
pervasive model has persisted for over 40 years, and remains a significant foundation and
framework for developing policies and practices with regard to STEM persistence (Cannady et
al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010). Largely conceptualized as a quantitative and statistical model, the
leaky pipeline has been the basis of recruitment and retention efforts of minorities and females in
STEM for the past 40 years (Metcalf, 2010).
In this section, a review of the salient literature surrounding the conceptual model of the
pipeline in STEM is provided. Specifically, a description of the pipeline model in STEM is
presented using relevant literature, which is followed by a summary of the key transitional
periods depicted in the pipeline model. Subsequently, the educational implication of a leaky
pipeline is examined through the lens of the previous research. Finally, literature is presented
which critically analyzes the shortfalls of the leaky pipeline model in STEM, and alternative
models that have been suggested are discussed in detail.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 42

Conceptual Model of the Pipeline of Students in STEM
The leaky pipeline model was first conceptualized and designed by engineers and the
National Research Council’s Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer
(Metcalf, 2010). The pipeline model was introduced to the NSF in the 1970s as a framework for
the movement of students through the educational system by tracking past events and projecting
future needs (Lucena, 2000; Metcalf, 2010). In the 1980s, the pipeline model was used as a basis
to make long-term projections and policy decisions as the US sensed technological competition
from Japan (Lucena, 2000; Metcalf, 2007; Metcalf, 2010). At this point in history, government
involvement in education was more acceptable as government funding was used to bolster the
competitiveness of the US in science and technology (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Metcalf, 2010;
Slaughter & Rhoades, 1996). Since the model’s inception, it has been widely referenced to
describe the attrition and persistence of students in STEM (Maltese & Tai, 2011), and it has
served as a model to illustrate that females and minorities are underrepresented in the STEM
fields (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005).
While the conceptual model has varied slightly with regard to the specific age and grade
of students who enter the pipeline, the overall metaphor is accepted as a logical model for the
number of students who leave the STEM field (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014; Metcalf,
2010). For example, Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman (2009) used data from the National Center of
Education Statistics (NCES, 2009) to trace the progression of all 9th grade students as water
flowing through a narrowing pipeline. Similarly, Allen-Ramdial and Campbell (2014) used the
pipeline analogy to describe the movement of pre-college students through advanced
postgraduate levels. Cannady et al. (2014) and Soe and Yakura (2008) suggested the pipeline
begins as early as elementary school and shows the leakage of students through middle school,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 43

high school, and beyond (see Figure 3). Though these models have slight nuances, they all stem
from a foundational ideology that has been used to represent the underrepresentation of
minorities and females in STEM careers.

Reprinted with permission
3

Figure 3. Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM

According to the conceptual model of the leaky pipeline, all students enter the pipeline
and flow through the ever-narrowing pipeline whereby they approach milestone junctions that
impact their pathway to a STEM career (Cannady et al., 2014; Snyder et al., 2009). As students
approach a pivotal junction or transitional education period, some students will leak out of the
pipeline, implying at each junction, there is a net loss of students (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005;
Cannady et al., 2014; Soe & Yakura; 2008). This pattern of successive leakage at specific
junctions continues as students progress through the pipeline to a STEM career. Cannady et al.
(2014) summarized this concept by suggesting, “fewer students select careers in STEM than earn
degrees in STEM; fewer students earn degrees in STEM than select majors in STEM; and fewer
students graduate from high school prepared to pursue majors in STEM than enter high school”

3
Reprinted from “What’s Wrong with the Pipeline? Assumptions about Gender and Culture in it Work,” by L. Soe
and E. K. Yakura, 2008, Women’s Studies, 37, p. 179. Copyright 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted
with permission.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 44

(p. 444). Thus, the implication is, at the end of the pipeline, there are relatively less students
who have persisted in STEM careers compared to the larger number of students who entered the
pipeline (Cannady et al., 2014).
The model was based on the principles of supply-side economics, flow modeling, and
social engineering and was used to depict the linear progression of individuals to a STEM career
(Metcalf, 2010; Soe & Yakura, 2008). During a designated span of time, the model attempts to
quantify the number of students who enter the pipeline, leave the pipeline, and persist to a STEM
occupation. Many US STEM workforce studies that have been conducted over the past four
decades are based on the pipeline model, which has been used to predict workforce shortages
based on the supply of individuals (Metcalf, 2010). Despite being highly criticized for its
supply-side focus and its faulty predictions, the pipeline model has survived for decades and has
become the pervasive model for recruitment and retention of individuals in STEM (Cannady et
al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010; Soe & Yakura, 2008). Moreover, the pipeline model has influenced
researchers to direct their attention to key transitions and populations along the pipeline in an
effort to bolster the supply of STEM individuals (Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010; Soe &
Yakura, 2008).
Pivotal Educational Transitions
There is little question that the pipeline to a STEM career is leaky – a term that is used to
explain the net loss of students from STEM disciplines (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014). The
leaky pipeline model is constructed to illustrate the key transitional junctions or stages that
impact students’ educational progression to a STEM career (see Figure 2) (Soe & Yakura, 2008).
It is at these transitional junctions that some students who entered the initial inlet of the pipeline,
leak from the pipeline, and end their pathway to a STEM career.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 45

Researchers have identified that there are certain points along the pipeline that are
especially leaky (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Blum, 2006; Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010).
These pivotal points along the pipeline include the transitions from middle school to high school,
high school graduation, college to graduate school, and graduate school to STEM occupation
declaration (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Maltese & Tai, 2011). Cannady et al. (2014) suggested
that these pipeline junctions were aligned with milestones in a student’s educational STEM
career path such as high school graduation, enrolling in college, majoring in STEM, and earning
a STEM degree. Knowing these milestones are critically associated with attrition in STEM,
researchers have focused their attention on determining who is leaking from the pipeline, where
the leakage is most severe, and how to increase the flow of students at each junction (Cannady et
al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010). However, there has been a considerable amount of debate as to which
milestones are correlated with the greatest amount of leakage.
Berryman’s (1983) landmark study suggested the initial pool of future STEM
professionals begins in elementary school and reaches its maximum size right before the 9th
grade. According to Berryman, during high school some students will enter the pipeline, but
even more will leave the pipeline. After high school, the resulting flow of students is out of the
pipeline, with little to none entering after this point, and the trend persists through graduate
school (Berryman, 1983). Furthermore, Berryman concluded that talent (achievement) and
interest were relevant to students’ persistence in the pipeline, but in different ways for different
subgroups. Berryman’s study was significant for many reasons, but most importantly, it
provided a framework to examine the loss of students from the STEM pipeline, and it led to
subsequent studies on the underrepresentation of subgroups in STEM.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 46

Elementary school experiences. During elementary school, students’ achievement in
mathematics and science is predominantly driven by their interest levels in mathematics and
science (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Armstrong (1980) found that in many schools, the
students who achieved the highest grades were the most likely to learn mathematics and science
and to develop interest in these fields. Armstrong suggested that high achieving students were
given more opportunities to participate in accelerated or enrichment programs than low
achieving students.
Middle school transition. Middle school is the first significant transition where students
leak from the pipeline. Opportunities to participate and enroll in mathematics and science
courses in middle school may be influenced by academic achievement in elementary school
(Oakes, 1990). Students who achieved high test scores and had high interest were the students
that enrolled in mathematics courses which prepared them for high school (Oakes, 1990). For
example, high achieving students were given opportunities to enroll in pre-algebra and algebra
during middle school, while low achieving students who were perceived to have low interest
were relinquished to remedial courses (Oakes, 1990). This is crucial to note because one of the
variables that has been found to distinguish STEM college graduates from their non-STEM peers
was taking algebra by middle school (Cannady et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011; Nicholls,
Wolfe, Besterfield-Sacre, & Shuman, 2010; Tai, Salder, & Mintzes, 2006). By placing students
with low test scores and low interest in remedial courses, students would be unprepared for the
higher-level thinking skills needed in advanced mathematics and science courses (McKnight,
1987; Oakes, 1985). Also, because they are not exposed to practical skills, it is unlikely they
will develop interest in mathematics and science, thus they are less likely to persist in the
pipeline (Oakes, 1990).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 47

High school transition. Hilton and Lee (1988) investigated college degree attainment in
STEM and concluded that high school was a period of flux for students as approximately equal
numbers of students lost interest in studying STEM in college as who gained interest in STEM.
While interest was a large indicator of which students persisted in STEM through middle school,
beginning in high school, the pool of future STEM professionals is influenced by achievement
(Berryman, 1983).
Students’ achievement and curricular choices are indicators of potential opportunities
post graduation (Oakes, 1990). Furthermore, Ware and Lee (1988) found that high school grade
point averages (GPAs) were significant predictors for STEM persistence in high school.
Typically, students who maintained higher GPAs would be afforded more opportunities and have
higher perceptions of their prospects of success because of their prior achievements (Oakes,
1990). Furthermore, high achieving students who plan to pursue 4-year college degrees will be
required to enroll in several years of mathematics and science courses, that will introduce
students to advanced concepts and processes in preparation for college (Oakes, 1990). In
contrast, Oakes (1990) suggested that lower achieving students, who were placed in remedial
courses, may pursue a non-academic or general curricula that includes taking less mathematics
and science courses. Moreover, low-achieving students are less likely to take rigorous
coursework, which impacts their preparation for college-level academics (Tyson et al., 2007).
Adelman (2006) suggested that high school curriculum intensity was a significant factor
for college degree attainment, yet his work was not specific to students in STEM degrees.
However, regression analyses conducted independently by researchers supported Adelman’s
ideas about the importance of curriculum intensity on STEM persistence. Data from their studies
indicated that enrollment and achievement in calculus by the end of high school was a significant
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 48

benchmark that influenced STEM persistence because it predicted college-level preparedness in
students (Cannady et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011; MESA, 2016; Tai, Salder, & Mintzes,
2006). Additionally, Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, and Thi (2014) found that students who earned
high grades in advanced and rigorous coursework were 1.6 times more likely to pursue STEM
majors as their peers.
George (2006) also reiterated that the transition from middle school to high school was a
threshold point where students, in particular, females, begin to lose interest in science. An
empirical study conducted by Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2011) demonstrated how during early
childhood, defined as kindergarten to third grade, boys’ and girls’ science interests were the
same. However, by the end of high school, the gap in science interest increased 20-fold, with
young males more interested in physics than young females (Baram-Tsabari & Yarden, 2011).
For females, positive attitudes fostered by positive classroom experiences in mathematics and
science were associated with choosing a STEM major (Tai, Sadler, & Maltese, 2007). Sadler,
Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai (2012) discussed as males and females prepare to declare their majors at
post-secondary institutions, young males are three times as likely to choose a STEM major as
young females.
In addition, Maltese and Tai (2011) investigated the variable classroom experiences of
students in mathematics and science and found that the type of learning experiences students had
impacted who entered STEM and who left. Students were more likely to have positive attitudes
towards STEM when their teachers utilized hands-on learning activities, incorporated relevant
topics, used cooperative learning, provided appropriate scaffolding, and employed pedagogical
strategies (Maltese & Tai, 2011; Myers & Fouts, 1992; Piburn & Baker; 1993).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 49

College major selection and graduation. Berryman (1983) stated that of the pool of
potential STEM professionals declines after high school. Similarly, Hilton and Lee (1988) found
that the greatest attrition of students in STEM occurred between high school graduation and
undergraduate matriculation. Students’ decisions to pursue college and pursue a major in STEM
are essential to pipeline persistence (Oakes, 1990). Students’ selection of a mathematics or
science major is contingent upon end-of-high-school academic performance and completion of
rigorous coursework in mathematics and science (Oakes, 1990; Tyson et al., 2007; Ware & Lee,
1985 as cited in Oakes, 1990).
The persistence in STEM majors is directly related to high achievement in high school as
indicated by high Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, class rank, and high achievement in
college courses (Maltese & Tai; 2011; Oakes, 1990; Strayhorn, 2011). However, Astin and
Astin (1992) conducted a study of 26,000 college students and determined that intention to enter
a STEM major during the freshmen year of college was the strongest predictor of completing a
STEM degree. Similar findings from Bonous-Harnmarth (2000) indicated that declaration of a
STEM major during the first year of undergraduate school was a more salient factor in STEM
persistence than high school GPA or SAT scores.
Graduate school. For those students who graduate with a STEM degree and elect to
pursue graduate study in a STEM field, persistence is affected by admission into a graduate
program and high achievement in college courses (Oakes, 1990). Specifically, high grades in
quantitative courses were a predictor of entrance and persistence in graduate programs
(Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990).
These pivotal junctions along the STEM pipeline help researchers understand the
particular points in students’ educational careers that are important for students’ success in
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 50

STEM. Through analysis of these pivotal milestones, three themes emerged regarding the
STEM pipeline. First, students must be afforded opportunities to learn mathematics and science
in order to persist in the pipeline. Second, students’ achievement in mathematics and science
courses, especially during secondary school, indicated students’ preparedness for more rigorous
coursework in college. Finally, students’ attitudes and interests in mathematics and sciences are
factors that are important to their enrollment in the appropriate courses that allow them to persist
through adversity.
However, the utility of these milestones in students’ pathways to STEM careers requires
the following two numeric assumptions about the pipeline metaphor: 1) the proportion of
scientists and engineers who actually flowed through the pipeline as suggested, and 2) the
uniqueness of these factors as being predictors of STEM outcomes (Cannady et al., 2014). This
means that the greater the number of scientists and engineers included in the pipeline, the more
general the criteria must be for differentiating scientists and engineers from the remaining
population (Cannady et al., 2014). Because the pipeline metaphor needs to be so broad, the
model leads to insufficient understanding of the variables for students who are likely to persist in
STEM (Cannady et al., 2014). Cannady et al. (2014) suggested that it might be possible that
some benchmarks, such as graduating from high school, are necessary and prevalent amongst all
STEM professionals, while others are not as essential.
Students Who Leak from the Pipeline
Berryman (1983) traced the progression of students in the STEM educational pipeline
and specifically studied persistence and field choice. Berryman’s study revealed that all
subgroups experience losses throughout the pipeline; however, there are specific subgroups that
experience more losses than others. Moreover, these losses occur at different points along the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 51

pipeline (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Using national data, Berryman examined the times that
losses from the STEM pipeline occurred and disaggregated the data by subgroup. The data
indicated that the loss of women from the STEM pipeline transpired at the end of secondary
school (pre-college years), and during college (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Moreover, the
loss of Hispanic and African-American students from STEM was found to happen significantly
earlier in their educational careers (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990).
Implications for STEM Education
The supply side, quantitative pipeline model has been the basis for targeted efforts of
recruiting and retaining females and students of color in STEM for the past 40 years (Clark
Blickenstaff, 2005; Blum, 2006; Metcalf, 2010). Policymakers and researchers alike have
referenced the pipeline to illustrate there will be a shortage of highly qualified individuals in
STEM to maintain a robust STEM workforce (Metcalf, 2010). In fact, the NSF (2007) used data
from pipeline studies to predict there would be a shortfall of 675,000 earned bachelor’s degrees
in science and engineering fields due to the leaky pipeline in STEM (Lucena, 2000; Metcalf,
2010; NSF 2007). In turn, the NSF claimed that females and minorities would be an optimal
untapped resource to fill in the ever-growing needs in STEM (Metcalf, 2010; NSF 2007).
Policymakers underestimate the difficulty of designing effective programs and initiatives
for recruiting and retaining females and minorities in STEM. A leaky pipeline presents overly
simplistic ideals to fix the issue of retention is STEM – find the leaks, and fix the patches
(Metcalf, 2010). Yet, despite the popularity of the STEM pipeline model, data continually show
there are still problems with inequities and underrepresentation in STEM (Clark Blickenstaff,
2005; Blum, 2006; Metcalf, 2010).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 52

The leaky pipeline has been a common reference point and model for developing broad
initiatives to increase the number of students in STEM. For example, California and Wisconsin
were among the states that tried to require all students to take algebra in 8th grade (Best, 2011;
Liang, Heckman, & Abedi, 2012). The rationale for the movement was based on the STEM
pipeline benchmark that suggested students who took algebra by 8th grade would be more likely
to persist in STEM (Best, 2011; Liang et al., 2012). However, researchers pointed out that there
is very little evidence that forcing all students to participate in a gatekeeper course such as
algebra, when they are unprepared, produces higher numbers of students entering STEM.
Berryman (1983) concluded that any intervention that could be implemented to stop the
flow of students must specifically occur right before high school and continue throughout high
school. In addition, Berryman proposed that strategies to prevent attrition should be
implemented throughout the pipeline because students leak at each point throughout the pipeline.
Berryman’s landmark study has no doubt contributed to the many subsequent studies that
followed which aimed to focus on retention along junctures in the pipeline. For example, a
number of summer bridge programs and pipeline programs in STEM have been created to bridge
the gap between high school and college (Strayhorn, 2011). Regardless of their popularity and
prevalence, there is little empirical evidence to indicate their effectiveness (Strayhorn, 2011).
Policymakers are still faced with the underlying issues that need to be reconciled regarding how
to recruit females and minorities to STEM, and which strategies to implement in order to retain
females and minorities and STEM.
Limitations of the STEM Pipeline Model
Even though the pipeline model has managed to serve as the predominant frame of how
students become a STEM professional for several decades, there are several critiques of the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 53

model that have emerged (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011;
Metcalf, 2010). First, Cannady et al. (2014) cautioned that the use of a leaky pipeline as a
conceptual model and solution for addressing the persistence of minority and female students in
STEM, may be insufficient to explain these students’ trajectories in STEM careers.
The oversimplification of the pipeline model as a single career trajectory with one inlet,
one outlet, and one direction of flow does not explore students’ variable experiences in STEM
(Cannady et al., 2014; Hammonds & Subramaniam, 2003; Metcalf, 2010; Xie & Shauman,
2003). According to Metcalf (2010) and Soe and Yakura (2008), the linearity of flow is
insufficient to explain students’ pathways in STEM because the model treated all students, even
marginalized populations, equally, resulting in ineffective patches to fix the leaks. Moreover,
Soe and Yakura (2008) noted, many students entered the pipeline at nontraditional junctures,
such as graduate school, and the pipeline model cannot account for these alternative pathways.
Cannady et al. (2014) elucidated that the use of one-size-fits-all benchmarks such as calculus by
12th grade are also misleading because the pipeline fails to account for inequities in education
and motivational pathways.
Second, the pipeline model was used to illustrate students who flow through the pipeline
as passive resources (Cannady et al., 2014). Cannady et al. (2014) stated that reducing females
and minorities to passive participants who merely flow through a pipeline, ignores personal
agency and perpetuates the marginalization of females and minorities. Furthermore, researchers
suggested that regarding females and minorities as passive resources ignores their personal
choices, abilities, and motivation that could contribute to their leakage from the pipeline
(Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010; Soe & Yakura, 2008).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 54

Third, the supply-side STEM pipeline model produced flawed data as to the shortfalls of
qualified individuals entering STEM. The pipeline model focused on creating adequate supply
through the recruitment and retention of individuals in STEM at key junctions and transitions
(Metcalf, 2010). However, as Metcalf (2010) noted, the measure of retention become a short-
term measure because it is defined as a supply for a given juncture in the pipeline, without much
concern for the demand at the subsequent juncture in the pipeline (Metcalf, 2010). A major
critique with this model is that the supply-side focus does not account for those individuals who
successfully earn a college degree or graduate degree in STEM, only to be unemployed from the
field due to lack of available positions (Metcalf, 2010).
Finally, as a frame to develop initiatives and policy, the pipeline model was severely
inadequate (Cannady et al., 2014). The metaphor of a pipeline has ill-served policy makers
because it suggested patching up the leaks at given junctures is the solution to increasing flow
through the pipeline. Yet, this notion is a very simplistic view that does not consider the
individual differences in the students who pursue STEM (Cannady et al., 2014). Also, it
suggested that all students must flow through a linear pipeline and experience the same set of
academic benchmarks (Cannady et al., 2014). Because the focus is on the homogenization of
students rather than scrutiny of the academic benchmarks, the path elevates the importance of the
benchmarks and narrows the range of acceptable and adequate political responses to fix the
underlying issues in underrepresentation (Cannady et al., 2014). Simplistic policies that indicate
students must develop an early interest in STEM and then take calculus in high school eliminates
a high number of individuals who did not fulfill this attribute yet still managed to become
scientists and engineers (Cannady et al., 2014). Cannady et al. (2014) found that three out of
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 55

five students who did not possess both of these attributes became scientists or engineers, while
16% have neither attribute.
Alternative conceptual models. Sensing that the linear pipeline model was inadequate
for addressing the attrition of educationally disadvantaged students, many researchers have
proposed alternative conceptual pipeline models that aim to conceptualize the trajectory of
students in STEM. Allen-Ramdial and Campbell (2014) re-envisioned the STEM pipeline as a
vertical structure where students enter the pipeline at the bottom of the structure and flow
upwards until they enter the STEM workforce. According to this model, the vertical STEM
pipeline is subject to the laws of physics, whereby downward forces such as lack of mentoring,
institutional culture, and poor academic preparation oppose students upward flow (Allen-
Ramdial & Campbell, 2014). This model is suggested to be an improvement from the original
horizontal flow model because it illustrates how students must overcome many built-in
challenges and innate obstacles to become a scientist or engineer.
Cannady et al. (2014) re-envisioned the pipeline as a multiple trajectory pathway
metaphor rather than a singular pipe with only one inlet and outlet. Cannady et al. used a four
pathway model to a STEM occupation with non-linear paths to better explain the various
trajectories experienced by students in STEM. Similarly, Museus et al. (2011) proposed a model
of a STEM circuit to better explain how students progressed to a STEM career. Museus et al.
suggested that their circuit model serves as an improved framework for guiding future research,
policy, and practice (see Figure 4).
Soe and Yakura (2008) used a cultural-layers approach to redesign the original linear
pipeline model. Their model incorporated the societal, occupational, and organizational cultural
layers that influence students’ pathways to STEM (Soe & Yakura, 2008) (see Figure 5).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 56

Reprinted with permission
4

Figure 4. Multiple Pathways Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM

Reprinted with permission
5

Figure 5. Alternative Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM

4
Reprinted from “Problematizing the STEM Pipeline Metaphor: Is the STEM Pipeline Metaphor Serving Our
Students and the STEM Workforce?,” by M. A. Cannady, E. Greenwald, and K. N. Harris, 2014. Science Education,
98(3), p. 455. Copyright 2014 by Wiley Periodicals. Reprinted with permission.
5
Reprinted from “What’s Wrong with the Pipeline? Assumptions about Gender and Culture in it Work,” by L. Soe
and E. K. Yakura, 2008, Women’s Studies, 37, p. 184. Copyright 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted
with permission.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 57

Students in STEM Education
In the following section, a review of the relevant literature surrounding students in STEM
education is provided beginning with a description of the STEM enrollment trends. Next, a
review of the literature pertaining to predictors of entering a STEM major that includes
curriculum and attitudes being essential predictors of persisting in STEM. Subsequently, the
educational implication of underserved and underrepresented students in STEM is examined
through the lens of the previous research. Finally, literature is presented which suggests possible
factors in low enrollment of underserved and underrepresented students in STEM.
Over the past several decades, it has been prominent that fewer students are entering into
STEM career fields (Bergeron & Gordon, 2015). The total number of bachelor degrees awarded
in the United States has tripled in the last 40 years; however students earning STEM degrees
have only accounted for a third of those bachelor degrees earned (NSF, 2010). STEM majors
accounted for 14% of all undergraduates enrolled in US postsecondary education in the years
2007 – 2008 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Chen (2009) found that a total of 56% of postsecondary
students who declared themselves as STEM majors in their freshmen year left the field over the
next six years. There has been evidence linking STEM attrition to such factors as weaker
academic backgrounds, motivation, confidence, and beliefs about one’s capacity to learn STEM
subjects (Burtner, 2005). The demand for graduates in STEM fields continues to grow at a
relatively rapid rate. The education pathway to major in a STEM field begins as early as middle
and secondary school, with the greatest loss of potential STEM majors transitioning between
secondary and postsecondary education (Tyson et al., 2007). STEM focused schools have
increased throughout the United States in the hopes that their availability will increase the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 58

percentage of secondary students who enter the higher education pipeline, anticipating a STEM
career and exit the pipeline as STEM professionals (Capraro, Capraro, & Morgan, 2013).
Enrollment Trends
The authors of the Institute of Education Science (IES) found that the percentage of
students entering STEM fields was higher among male students, younger students, students
financially dependent on family, Asian/Pacific Islander students, foreign students, students with
more advantaged family background, and students with stronger academic preparation than their
counterparts (Wang, X., 2013). When considering STEM completion rates in the US, data has
shown that White and Asian-American students outperform their African-American, Latino,
Native American, and women counterparts. A report by the Higher Education Research Institute
(as cited in Chang, Sharkness, Hurtado, & Newman, 2014) indicated “that 33% of White and
42% of Asian American students at a national sample of institutions completed their bachelor’s
degree in STEM within 5 years of entering college, compared to only 18% of African American
and 22% Latino students.” (p. 556).
There is a larger disparity between males and females; the U. S. Department of
Commerce’s Economics and Statistics Administration Census report (Langdon, McKittrick,
Beede, Khan, & Doms, 2011) stated that females make up more than half of the college
graduates (54%); however females are earning less than 15% of the collegiate degrees in STEM
programs whereas their male peers are earning 87% of collegiate STEM degrees. Out of the 3.8
million freshmen high school students, only one out of 100 will go on to pursue a STEM degree
(Lauff & Ingels, 2013) (see Figure 6).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 59

Reprinted with permission
6

Figure 6. Earned Bachelor’s Degrees in STEM by Race, Class and Gender

Predictors of Entering a STEM Major
The GAO Report (2014) stated that early preparation during K-12 in STEM emerged as a
factor in students’ decisions to pursue STEM degrees and careers. The UMass Donahue Institute
(UMDI, 2011) indicated that 94% of 8th graders make course-taking decisions related to
preparing themselves for a career or a postsecondary education. Additionally, middle school
students who do not consider a STEM degree or career may not enroll into the necessary high
school coursework to prepare them for STEM education (UMDI, 2011). Interestingly, Maltese
and Tai (2011) analyzed the data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
(NELS) and indicated that 80% of students who graduated with a STEM degree entered the
pipeline in high school or college, which is contradictory to the pipeline model.

6
Reprinted from “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science
and Math Coursework and Postsecondary Degree Attainment,” by W. Tyson, R. Lee, K. M. Borman, and M. A.
Hanson, 2007, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(23), p. 259. Copyright 2007 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc./Taylor and Francis Group.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 60

Research completed by Schneider, Marschall, Teske, and Roch (1998) found that the
effects of high school course taking were more of a factor for enrolling into a STEM discipline
rather than background factors such as parental education or income. STEM education and
student success in STEM has been well established and associated with supportive teachers, high
expectations, rigorous curriculum, and student engagement (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010;
Bodilly & Beckett, 2005; Kerr, 2005; Krause, Culbertson, Oehrtman, & Carlson, 2008; Lantz,
2009; Marzano, 2003; McComas & McComas, 2009; Morrison, 2006; Toldson, 2008).
Math and science curriculum. A number of studies have explored that the quantity and
level of science and mathematics courses have been an essential part to the educational pathway
to a STEM degree (Csikszentmihalyi & Schneider, 2000; Lee & Frank, 1990; Maltese & Tai,
2010). Students who initially expressed interest in STEM education had the inability to pursue
higher levels of math and science curricula in high school due to the fact that 75% of America’s
youth failed to meet 8th grade standards of mastery in math (U. S. Congress Joint Economic
Committee, 2012). Adelman (1999) found that success in high school mathematics and science
had a correlation with students aspiring to major and persist in a STEM discipline. Supported
later by Anderson and Kim (2006), strong performance in pre-college math and science
significantly correlated with college students persisting in a STEM discipline beyond their first
year. Advanced courses in math and science not only prepared students for the rigorous college-
level STEM courses, but also provided students with the academic confidence to be successful
and persist in STEM (Burkam & Lee, 2003; Horn & Kojaku, 2001). In addition, students taking
higher-level science courses made greater gains in proficiency on science assessments, regardless
of their initial levels. This indicated the academic level of courses mattered more than the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 61

number of classes completed (Madigan, 1997), as well as increased their chances in enrolling
into a postsecondary institution (Schneider, 2002).
Schneider et al. (1998) identified sequences of science and mathematic courses taken in
high school and categorized the courses into low, intermediate, and high levels of rigor. It was
organized by Burkam and Lee (2003) into a detailed category of eight levels for math, and seven
for science (see Figure 7 and Figure 8), which allowed for a better indicator for future behavior
and achievement in STEM-related coursework. Using previous research, Burkam and Lee
identified advanced courses in mathematics to be trigonometry, analytical geometry, statistics,
pre-calculus, and calculus. Chemistry 2 and physics were identified as advanced courses in the
sciences (Burkam & Lee, 2003).

Reprinted with permission
7

Figure 7. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Mathematics Courses

7
Reprinted from “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science
and Math Coursework and Postsecondary Degree Attainment,” by W. Tyson, R. Lee, K. M. Borman, and M. A.
Hason, 2007, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(23), p. 253. Copyright 2007 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc./Taylor and Francis Group.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 62

Reprinted with permission
8

Figure 8. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Science Courses

Burkam and Lee (2003) concluded only a small percentage of students completed
advanced levels of mathematics and sciences; students who progressed further into the higher
levels for mathematics courses took those courses based on personal interest and majored in a
STEM discipline; students who took physics had the largest increase in science proficiency.
Since 1990, the trend in US high school students taking advanced mathematics and science
courses has increased (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Specifically, the percentage of high school
students who completed calculus doubled (7% to 16%) between the years of 1990 – 2009, and
25% more students completed algebra II and trigonometry (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Moreover,
approximately 20% more high school students had taken science courses in chemistry and
physics (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Trusty (2002) concluded that there was a positive correlation
between high school coursework and selection of a STEM major; specifically, high school
females who enrolled in advanced mathematics and males who enrolled in physics were more
likely to choose a major in STEM. Although Tyson et al. (2007) found that females completed

8
Reprinted from “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science
and Math Coursework and Postsecondary Degree Attainment,” by W. Tyson, R. Lee, K. M. Borman, and M. A.
Hanson, 2007, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(23), p. 254. Copyright 2007 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc./Taylor and Francis Group.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 63

more advanced coursework than males, they were less likely to complete the highest level of
math and science than males. Moreover, significantly fewer Latinos and African Americans
completed advanced math and science coursework when compared to their White and Asian
counterparts (Tyson et al., 2007).
Attitudes and aspirations in STEM. A data report by the NSF (2004) indicated gender
differences in students’ interests in math and science and self-perceptions of their abilities among
4th, 8th, and 12th graders. At each grade level, females were less likely than males to say they
liked mathematics and science and had the self-perception of not being good at those subjects.
For the majority of the students across racial/ethnic groups, interests and self-concepts in math
and science were lower in 12th graders compared to 4th and 8th graders, with the exception of
Asians, who liked mathematics and science more in high school (NSF, 2004). The NSF (2004)
added that mathematics and science scaled scores between those females and males were similar
at the elementary, middle, and high school, which suggested that females may demonstrate equal
achievement, but their self-perceptions play a significant factor in their decision to persist in
STEM.
Even when students succeed academically, literature suggested that success in STEM
requires deep content knowledge with STEM self-confidence (Hartman & Hartman, 2008). Self-
confidence was shown in multiple studies as a common theme in persisting in STEM (Soldner,
Rowan-Kenyon, Inkelas, Garvey, & Robbins, 2012). Building STEM self-confidence involved
mentoring, real-life experiences, and collaboration in coursework (McInnes, James, &
McNaught, 1995; Sonnert, Fox, & Adkins, 2007; Tinto, 1997). Understanding attitudes in
mathematics and science has been a focus in STEM education due to the degree of influence in
STEM persistence, particularly stressing the importance of positive attitudes toward their fields
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 64

of study (Myers & Fouts, 1992; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Weinburgh, 1995). Students with
positive self-concepts and high levels of self-efficacy to learn mathematics and science were
most likely to choose a STEM degree (Huang, Taddese, & Walter, 2000; Leslie, McClure, &
Oaxaca, 1998).
Educationally Disadvantaged Students in STEM.
As the US strives to maintain global economic competitiveness, there is a pressing need
to encourage, support, and increase underserved and underrepresented minorities in pursuing
STEM field careers. Underserved and underrepresented students in STEM fields can assist the
US in remaining competitive in an increasingly diverse economy (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2011).
Multiple studies have found that females, minorities, first-generation students, and low-income
backgrounds leave the STEM fields at higher rate than their counterparts (Lauff & Ingels, 2013).
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST, 2010) presented a
wide range of recommendations and identified the most critical priorities for rapid action. The
recommendations included the following: preparation of all students while maintaining a focus
on females and minorities who are underrepresented in the STEM fields, proficiency of all
students in STEM, and motivation and encouragement of all students to learn STEM and pursue
STEM careers (PCAST, 2010).
Research indicated there are differences in the persistence of students in STEM based on
gender and ethnicity. In 2009 females completed 72% of the degrees in life science, whereas
males completed significantly more degrees in physical sciences, geosciences, mathematics,
computer science, and engineering (NSF, 2010). White and Asian students earned the majority
of STEM degrees compared to their counterparts. Women and minorities are less likely to
persist in a STEM field major during college than male and non-minority students (National
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 65

Science Board, 2007). Females and Latinos are underserved and underrepresented not only in
STEM careers, but also in STEM courses (Halpern et al., 2007).
Possible Factors in Low Enrollment of Females and Minorities in STEM
Burkam and Lee (2003) suggested that males and females have the capacity to compete at
the same level in mathematics and science, but when they enroll in more advanced courses,
females do not persist at the same rates. Past research has attributed the low enrollment of
females and minorities in STEM to a number of factors: (1) a lack of students’ understanding of
the career opportunities available to them, (2) a misunderstanding of what STEM education is,
(3) a lack of mentoring opportunities, especially for females, (4) a low number of females and
minorities teaching advanced mathematics and science courses, with the exception of Asians,
(5) the perception of their ability to succeed in mathematics and science, and (6) personal interest
and self-efficacy in excelling at mathematics and science (National Academy of Sciences, 2007;
Rinn, McQueen, Clark, & Rumsey, 2008).
Females. Females may elect to engage in higher-level coursework in mathematics and
science in high school, but are less likely to pursue STEM degrees and careers than their male
peers due to lack of interest in mathematics and science, and lack of self-identity in STEM
(Tyson et al., 2007). Interest related to STEM is developed during elementary education and
reinforced both negatively and positively throughout experiences in secondary and
postsecondary education. Females are discouraged from pursuing STEM disciplines due to the
competitive nature of the courses and the perceived male-dominant culture in STEM (Riegle-
Crumb et al., 2012). Hewlett, Luce, and Servon (2008) examined the responses from 2,493
workers in science fields and concluded 52% of those who enter the STEM field eventually leave
due to the perceived masculine culture.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 66

Oakes (1990) suggested that as early as elementary school, females experience gender-
related differences in mathematics and science. For example, males are more likely than females
to be placed in the high-ability mathematics groups (Oakes, 1990). Additionally, research into
educational practices in the science classroom demonstrated teachers interact more often and in
more detail with boys than girls, resulting in young men being twice as likely to participate in
course discussions as young women (Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Tindall & Hamil, 2004).
Tindall and Hamil (2004) described societal factors such as gender stereotypes and
familial obligations as explanations for the lack of female interest in STEM fields. Traditional
gender roles, which are imposed upon boys and girls from a very young age, can foster or
dissuade a child’s interest in science. While girls are encouraged to draw and sew, activities
which develop verbal and fine motor skills, boys are encouraged to build models and play sports,
activities which promote spatial visualization and mathematics aptitude (Tindall & Hamil, 2004).
Due to this discrepancy in child-rearing practices, Tindall and Hamil (2004) concluded girls do
not have the same opportunity to develop basic mathematics and science skills, and are,
therefore, less likely to pursue them in secondary and postsecondary education
Motivational elements that heavily influence persistence and choices for females in
STEM include their self-identity and self-concept in STEM. Females have difficulty viewing
themselves as scientists and have difficulty reconciling and achieving a work-life balance (Xu &
Martin, 2011). Previous literature showed that role models, specifically faculty role models, may
influence female students’ persistence in STEM (Griffith, 2010). While the data are
inconclusive regarding same gender mentors, the relationship between faculty and student is
influential in females’ persistence in STEM at the college level. These findings indicated that
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 67

females, even when they have the academic capacity to excel in STEM courses, opt out of these
disciplines due to negative attitudes related to STEM (Tyson et al., 2007).
Self-efficacy and self-identity. Self-efficacy is conceptualized as the judgments that
individuals hold about their own capabilities to learn or to perform courses of action at specific
levels (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986a). Unless individuals believe they are capable of
completing a task and their actions can produce desired outcomes, they will have little incentive
to choose the task, exert mental effort, or to persist (Schunk et al., 2012; Zeldin, Britner &
Pajares, 2008).
Female students’ persistence in STEM is theorized to be correlated to their self-efficacy
beliefs in mathematics and science (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Many females in STEM report
lower self-efficacy in STEM courses than do males, and these self-beliefs are greater predictors
of academic outcomes than are previous achievements (Bayer Corporation, 2012; Marra,
Rodgers, Shen, & Bogue, 2009). Females form their self-efficacy beliefs by interpreting
information from enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, and
physiological reactions (Putney & Broughton, 2011). Vicarious experiences and social
persuasions have been found to be extremely critical sources for developing and maintaining
females’ self-efficacy beliefs, and females reported these incidents were more influential than
previous performance accomplishments (Zeldin et al., 2008). Zeldin et al. (2008) stated the self-
beliefs of females were developed by familial-, peer-, teacher-, and work-related influences.
Females who have limited enactive mastery experiences, and also have a lack of exposure to
female social influences have negative ramifications for developing their self-efficacy in STEM
(Bayer Corporation, 2012; Marra et al., 2009).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 68

Females reported low self-efficacy can also directly influence their inability to visualize
themselves in STEM leading to poor self-identity (Bayer Corporation, 2012). Females have a
difficult time reconciling their role in a male-dominated field such as STEM (Riegle-Crumb et
al., 2012). Moreover, females fear achieving a work-life balance in a STEM field is more
difficult than other industries because they lack relevant role models in STEM (Xu & Martin,
2011). Research showed that university programs that incorporated mentoring and informal
professional networks have been instrumental in helping females advocate for themselves,
reshape their role in STEM, and increase their self-efficacy (Xu & Martin, 2011).
Minorities. Latino and African American students begin their exit out of the STEM
pipeline as early as elementary school due to lower achievement in mathematics courses
(Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Researchers found that White and Asian children were
identified in elementary school to exhibit higher achievement in mathematics and science than
non-Asian minorities despite reporting equal enthusiasm and positive attitudes about
mathematics and science (Carpenter, Hiebert, & Moser, 1983; Dossey, Mullis, Lindquist, &
Chambers, 1988; Mullis & Jenkins, 1988; Oakes, 1990). Subsequently, as Latino and African-
American students progress through middle school and high school, the gap in achievement in
mathematics and science continues to widen and the number of students who exit the STEM
pipeline grows (Oakes, 1990).
Researchers investigated the reasons why minorities were less likely to persist through
the STEM pipeline and found that minorities were less academically prepared than their White
and Asian peers for college coursework. Studies conducted by Klopfenstein (2004) and Mayer
and Tucker (2010) suggested that racial and ethnic minorities, first-generation students, and low
income students are disproportionately placed in remedial classes and special education courses
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 69

in high numbers, regardless of comparable test achievement to their White peers (Klopfenstein,
2004; Mayer & Tucker, 2010). Additional data suggested that minorities are more likely to
attend high schools with fewer resources, less qualified teachers (McDonough & Fann, 2007,
Strayhorn, 2011), lower academic expectations (Mayer & Tucker, 2010; Werkema & Case,
2005), and insufficient opportunities to participate in honors and advanced placement (AP)
courses (Zarate & Pachon, 2006). As a result of these challenges, minorities are likely to
underperform on college entrance exams, express feelings of low confidence in their abilities to
earn college degrees, and engage in remedial courses in college (Strayhorn, 2011).
Furthermore, Ogbu and Simons (1998) suggested that minorities face additional cultural
and community forces that exacerbate their underachievement and inadequate preparation to
pursue STEM as compared to their White and Asian peers. First, minority students are more
likely to be pressured to work and they may have the added burden of family responsibilities that
deter them from taking more rigorous courses in high school even when such courses are offered
(Klopfenstein, 2004). Second, minorities are faced with language barriers that adversely lead to
limited access to high paying jobs, and result in living in poverty and attending schools with
inadequate resources (Tienda & Haskins, 2011; Yun & Moreno, 2006). Third, parents of
minority students, specifically involuntary minorities, lack the social capital to advocate for their
students to be in higher-level courses, which are gateway courses to STEM majors (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). Finally, minorities are not provided with an adequate number of relevant role
models and supportive peer groups to stress the importance and value of a STEM career
(Klopfenstein, 2004). These findings suggest that the lack of adequate preparation and
institutional barriers in access during high school present significant barriers for minorities who
seek to pursue STEM.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 70

Tyson et al. (2007) suggested that for those minorities who are able to navigate the
system and take rigorous courses in high school, data indicated they are equally likely to pursue
STEM majors in college as their White peers. For example, Allen-Ramdial and Campbell (2014)
stated that between 2000 and 2010, 34.8% of underrepresented minorities (URM) and 37.6%
non-URM college students declared STEM majors during their first year of college. However,
the total number of URMs enrolled as undergraduates was 24.1% as compared to the 75.9% of
non-URM undergraduates enrolled (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014). These data are
misleading because they indicated there were comparable percentages of students from both
populations declaring STEM majors, yet the overall number of URMs enrolled in college is
significantly less than non-URMS. Thus, the potential pool of STEM graduates is much smaller
for the URM subgroup.
Outreach Programs
Underrepresented populations deal with a significant number of educational
disadvantages that impact access to higher education, such as lack of access to information and
resource networks, lack of peer support for academic achievement, segregation, ineffective
counseling, low expectations, and aspirations (Gándara & Bial, 2001). According to Adelman
(1999), educationally disadvantaged students are overrepresented in schools that are underfunded
and lack resources; as a result, the schools are less likely to offer challenging curriculum,
including rigorous math courses, which is one of the most important predictors to succeed in
STEM. Not only has the educational system failed to prepare educationally disadvantaged
students academically, the system has also failed to address the social and psychological barriers
(Gándara & Bial, 2001). As a result, institutions of higher education have invested a substantial
amount of time to develop outreach programs for educationally disadvantaged students with the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 71

opportunity to be college and career ready (Villalpando & Solorzano, 2005). Outreach programs
serve to compensate for the inadequacies that the education system has placed and aim to find
ways to promote and maintain students’ interests and achievement in academic and social
success (Armstrong, 1980; Berryman, 1983; Cannady et al., 2014; Oaks, 1990; Schultz &
Mueller, 2006; Swail & Perna, 2001). Research indicated that educationally disadvantaged
students significantly benefit from attending an outreach program, especially improving their
access towards college (Macy, 2000; Gándara & Bial, 2001; Vargas, 2004). In fact, moderate- to
high-risk students doubled the odds of enrolling into a postsecondary education when attending
an outreach program in high school (Horn & Chen, 1998).
The National Survey of Outreach Programs (NSOP) estimated that two million students
are enrolled in outreach programs across the United States each year (Swail & Perna, 2001).
According to NSOP (Swail & Perna, 2001), two-thirds of the programs offer services to students
K-9 and one-third focusing on the later years of high school, targeting low-income, first-
generation, and minority students. Figure 9 shows the frequency of outreach program goals with
the highest goals of promoting college attendance, college awareness, and college exposure
(Swail, Quinn, Landis, & Fung, 2012).
Although services provided by outreach programs may vary, mostly all programs that
reported to the NSOP (Swail et al., 2012) included services that prepare students for the
academic and social life experiences of college (Figure 10 and Figure 11).

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 72

Source: Reprinted from 2012 Handbook of Pre-College Outreach Programs, by S. Swail, K. Quinn, K. Landis, &
M. Fung, 2012.

Figure 9. Top Program Goals Selected by Survey Respondents

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 73

Source: Reprinted from 2012 Handbook of Pre-College Outreach Programs, by S. Swail, K. Quinn, K. Landis, &
M. Fung, 2012,

Figure 10. Percentage of Programs that Offer Academic Services, by Service Type

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 74

Source: Reprinted from 2012 Handbook of Pre-College Outreach Programs, by S. Swail, K. Quinn, K. Landis, &
M. Fung, 2012.

Figure 11. Percentage of Programs that Offer Non-Academic Services, by Service Type

Key Features of Effective Programs
Schultz and Mueller’s (2006) report complied key features of effective programs based
on previous research, literature reviews, program evaluations, and commonalities found in
programs with the best evidence for effectiveness.
a. Prepare students academically. Effective outreach programs help prepare students
academically by providing academic counseling, enrichment, remediation, study skills,
and allowing for personalized learning environments (Gándara & Bial, 2001).
b. Balance academic support with social support. Strong social networks support students’
academic and emotional development, influencing each other to enroll in college
(Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001).
c. Intervene early. Programs with the strongest evidence for effectiveness begin serving
students prior to high school (Schultz & Mueller, 2006).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 75

d. Involve and encourage parents/family. Parents who are knowledgeable about college
allow them to know how to support their child’s education and are more likely to attend
college (Corwin, Colyar & Tierney, 2005; Perna, 2002).
e. Help students navigate the college admissions process. Helping students complete
college admissions and prepare for entrance exams are important initial predictors of
enrolling in college (Horn & Chen, 1998).
f. Provide comprehensive, long-term support. Programs that are comprehensive and offer
support for at least four years showed a strong correlation on student success and college
enrollment (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Swail et al., 2012).
g. Encourage systemic reform. Programs that partnered between secondary schools and
postsecondary institutions ensured that students completed graduation and college
entrance requirements (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
h. Provide financial assistance. Programs that provide students with information and assist
students in applying for financial aid positively associated with college enrollment
(St. John, Chung, Musoba, Simmons, Wooden, & Mendez, 2004). Students who receive
financial aid persist in college more than those who do not receive aid (Hu & St. John,
2001).
Out of the thousands of available outreach programs nation-wide, only 13 programs had
acceptable levels of evidence for effectiveness (Gándara & Bial, 2001). Swail and Perna (2001)
stated that evaluating the effectiveness of outreach programs is challenging due to the
availability of empirical data, along with appropriate use and reporting of data for many
programs.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 76

MESA Program
The Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) program is one of the core
members of the University of Southern California (USC) Community Educational Academy
(CEA, Hong, 2009). The MESA program was founded in 1970 with the mission to promote
persistence for educationally disadvantaged students in STEM, beginning in elementary through
university (MESA, 2016). The MESA program was chosen for 35 years of motivating and
preparing students for STEM majors in the greater Los Angeles area (MESA, 2016). Moreover,
MESA reported that 53% of MESA pre-college students go to college in STEM majors and 97%
of MESA community college students transfer to four-year institutions in STEM majors (MESA,
2016). According to MESA’s mission, students who participate in the MESA program succeed
for the following reasons (MESA, 2016):
● Academic support based on high standards
● Individual counseling to ensure that college prerequisites and transfer/college graduation
requirements are met
● Industry involvement in activities and strategic planning
● Reinforcement of California math and science standards through hands-on projects and
collaborative learning
● Supportive student communities based on academic success
● Professional development for math and science teachers in low-performing schools
● Networks of parents, educators, industry leaders, and community resources to support
students

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 77

Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of literature that examined the
historical perspective of STEM education in the United States, the leaky pipeline that fails to
meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged students such as minorities and females at key
transitional points, barriers that deter educationally disadvantaged minorities and females in the
persistence of STEM, and lastly, outreach programs that support and provide opportunities for
educationally disadvantaged minorities and females for 21st century college and career
readiness.
The literature review revealed in order to remain competitive in the STEM workforce the
United States needs to strengthen the number of students who enter STEM fields. As a result,
several federal initiatives including the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, NDEA Act,
NCLB, ESSA Act, America COMPETES Act, and Obama’s STEM 5 Year Strategic Plan have
increased the accountability measures for mathematics and science achievement in public
schools. These federal initiatives have also sought to address the underrepresentation of
minorities and females in STEM as typically indicated by a leaky pipeline model. According to
previous literature, minorities and females are more likely than their peers to exit the STEM
pipeline prior to obtaining STEM careers because they are inadequately prepared for the rigors of
college coursework, are provided less opportunities to engage in mathematics and science
courses, and report lower levels of interest in mathematics and science courses.
Moreover, educationally disadvantaged students deal with additional barriers such as lack
of access to information and resource networks, lack of familial support, ineffective counseling,
and low expectations, which hinder their persistence in STEM. Many higher education
institutions have invested substantial amounts of funding for outreach programs to level the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 78

playing field and close the inequities in STEM. One such outreach program that has
demonstrated success for educationally disadvantaged students in STEM is the MESA Program
in California. The MESA Program provides students with academic and social support,
community partnerships, college counseling, and research opportunities outside of the classroom.
For this reason, the MESA Program was investigated for its effectiveness in retaining
educationally disadvantaged students in STEM. In Chapter Three, the research design,
participant selection, study site, data collection approach, and data analysis techniques are
discussed in detail to further investigate how the MESA Program operates and its effectiveness
for promoting student retention in STEM.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 79

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the research design and methodology of this
study. The first part of this study restates the problem, purpose, and research questions from
Chapter One. Next, the methodological design, participants and setting, data collection protocol,
data analysis, and ethical considerations are described. Finally, this chapter summarizes and
introduces Chapters Four and Five.
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions
The literature has revealed that while US was once the frontrunner in science and
technology, as a result of globalization, competition from growing nations is threatening the
US’s position as a global leader. The National Academy of Science (Augustine, 2005) suggested
that the scientific and technical building blocks of the US’s economic leadership are collapsing at
a time when other nations are garnering strength. The gradual decline of the US’s economic
prosperity has been attributed to the declining numbers of highly qualified individuals entering
the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training fields and the STEM
workforce. In order to compete with nations such as Finland, China, and India, whose
economies are growing, the US must optimize its knowledge, leverage its resources, and refocus
its attention to bolstering the STEM pipeline from primary through postsecondary education
(Augustine, 2005).
Previous research indicated that strengthening the pipeline in STEM would require that
appropriate interventions target the retention of females in STEM fields beginning as early as
primary school, and continue on through postsecondary education. However, because females
are highly vulnerable to leaking from the STEM pipeline, a concerted effort must be made to
track the progression of female students through the pipeline (Cannady et al., 2014; Griffith,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 80

2010). Berryman (1983) suggested that subsequent age and gender specific interventions must
continue to occur at each pivotal junction within the pipeline to maximize the retention of
females in STEM fields.
Moreover, research has indicated that female students’ participate in high school
mathematics and science courses at equal rates as male students (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000).
Moreover, data indicated that females are enrolling in higher education at rates equal to males
(Strayhorn, 2011; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). However, female presence in the STEM majors
remains disproportionately low when compared to males. The STEM majors are still heavily
dominated by male students, and this gender gap in STEM majors has translated to the STEM
workforce (Thoman et al., 2014). Whereas, females are equally capable of succeeding in STEM,
the perceived male-dominated culture of the field has deterred females from pursuing STEM
majors in higher education (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012). The literature review revealed the
additional reasons for the low numbers of females in STEM included the lack of institutional
support such as academic interventions and mentoring (Griffith, 2010), motivational issues such
as attitudes, self-efficacy, and self-identity (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013), and negative gender
stereotypes (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012).
The underrepresentation of females in STEM majors is important to address for a number
of reasons. First, a lack of female graduates in STEM contributes to the inadequate numbers of
highly qualified individuals needed to meet the projected growth of careers in the STEM field
(Chen, 2009). Second, as the number of jobs in STEM is expected to increase, the compensation
is also expected to rise comparably as well (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). The U. S.
Department of Commerce (2011) estimated that STEM workers earn 26% more than non-STEM
workers. Thus, it is essential that the number of female students pursuing STEM disciplines
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 81

increases in order to remain representative of the population demographics of the US and to
close the compensation gap (Carnes et al., 2006; Foltz et al., 2014). Finally, females could bring
a much needed diversified perspective on how to approach global issues that impact traditionally
underserved populations; thus, their absence in the field is considered a missed opportunity for
all of society (Foltz et al., 2014; Hill, Corbett, St. Rose, 2010; Milgram, 2011).
Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) has received a great deal of
recognition for their effort in recruiting and retaining educationally disadvantaged populations in
STEM. MESA provides academic, social, networking, and motivational supports to retain
students in STEM fields beginning in elementary school and continuing on through higher
education. At the postsecondary level, MESA offers the following two programs: MESA
Community College Program at two-year colleges, and MESA Engineering Program at four-year
colleges and universities. As such, current female students in higher education may have
participated in MESA at previous pivotal junctures throughout their educational careers, and may
still be participating in MESA at the postsecondary level. The primary purpose of this study was
to discover and identify how effective MESA is in retaining females in STEM disciplines at the
postsecondary level. A second goal of the study sought to evaluate the components of the
MESA Program that have been widely publicized as increasing females’ persistence in STEM.
A final goal of the study included understanding how former and current female participants of
MESA perceived how the program impacted their persistence in STEM.
Research Questions
Research questions are essential for the researcher to design an effective methodology,
and they help the researcher articulate what he/she would like to answer from the study
(Maxwell, 2013). For this study, it was necessary to understand how MESA access programs at
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 82

a four-year university were providing support to first generation females in STEM majors.
Moreover, additional components of the research study investigated the impact that MESA had
on graduation rates of first generation females in STEM and the required resources needed to
promote persistence within STEM majors. Finally, it is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of
MESA on increasing females’ persistence toward degree completion at a four year-university.
As such the following research questions served as the framework that guided this research
study:
1. How is Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) being implemented by
university administrators and faculty at two- and four-year colleges to support the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged female students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
2. How do (did) educationally disadvantaged female students in higher education perceive
MESA has (had) influenced their graduation from STEM majors?
3. What resources from the MESA program are needed to influence the persistence and
retention of educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
4. How effective has the MESA program been for influencing the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the postsecondary level?
An Introduction to MESA
The research study was conducted on the effectiveness of MESA for retaining
educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors and disciplines. MESA was
founded in 1970 to promote the retention and graduation of educationally disadvantaged students
in mathematics-based academic degree programs (Hong, 2009). The MESA program is
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 83

dedicated to ensuring that educationally disadvantaged students are provided the necessary
resources to enter a four-year institution or transfer to a four-year institution and persist with
STEM (MESA, n.d.).
MESA provides individual academic support, study skills training, hands-on
competitions, career and college exploration, parent leadership development, teacher training
opportunities, field trips, and workshops. Due to the unique combination of enrichment activities
MESA has been nationally recognized for being innovative and having an effective academic
development program for STEM (MESA, n.d.). In 2004, MESA served as a model for Hewlett-
Packard Diversity in Engineering Program, preparing more educationally disadvantaged minority
students at community colleges and successfully transferring to a four-year institute as
engineering and computer science majors (Hewlett-Packard Philanthropy & Education Annual
Report, 2005). In 2006, “MESA was named by Bayer Corporation as one of 21 exemplary
programs to help K-12 students especially educationally disadvantaged and girls to participate
and succeed in STEM fields (Bayer Corporation, 2006 as cited in Wikipedia, 2017, para. 4); and,
“The Silicon Valley Education Foundation named MESA its 2013 STEM Innovation awardee in
math” (Wikipedia, 2017, para. 4). MESA has received awards from the White House and the
Ford Foundation and has been replicated in 11 states, and is the basis for many other programs
(MESA, n.d.).
In 2011-2012, MESA served a total of 28,192 students within the state of California. The
largest MESA program serves the pre-college (K-12) level, followed by the MESA Community
College, and the MESA Engineering Program (USC Viterbi School of Engineering, n.d.).
Among the 20,299 students serviced in the pre-college K-12 program, 53% of those students
entered college declaring a STEM major and of the 4,707 students who represented the MESA
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 84

Community College program, 97% of the students transferred to a four-year institution (MESA,
n.d.).
History
In the late 1960s, educators from California launched a study to determine why few
African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians were enrolling into the Engineering
Department at University of California at Berkeley (MESA, n.d.). As a result, educators
developed a solution based on a pre-college intervention program and began the MESA program
at Oakland Technical High School in 1970 with the goal to develop academic and leadership
skills and build confidence for students historically educationally disadvantaged in engineering,
physical science, and math-based fields (MESA, n.d.). Over the years, other states such as
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and
Washington have partnered with MESA to become a National program. California MESA
serves students in pre-college (K-12) through the MESA schools program, community college
through the MESA community college program, and four-year college level students in the
MESA engineering program (MESA, n.d.).
The MESA program operates based on a partnership with local industries, higher
education as well as K-12 institutions. MESA is funded by the State of California and
administered by the University of California and the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office. MESA services students who are the first in their families to attend college and most are
in low-income and attend low-performing schools with few resources.
USC-MESA Program Description
Currently, the MESA programs in California serve students in middle school, high
school, community college, and four-year universities through local centers throughout
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 85

California, joint partnerships with institutions of higher education, and connections within the
private sector (USC Viterbi School of Engineering, n.d.). MESA is divided into three sub-
programs that respectively serve the educationally disadvantaged students at each corresponding
educational level. The description for each of the individual programs is included below.
• MESA Schools Program (MSP): This program provides students in middle school and
high school opportunities to foster an early interest in mathematics and science and
prepares students to pursue majors in STEM fields. MESA Schools Programs are often
funded and operated through joint partnerships with institutions of higher education, such
as the California State University System (CSU) and the University of California System
(UC) , and local school districts. The program supports students through individual
academic plans, study skills training, common-core aligned competitions, career and
college exploration, and teacher professional development (MESA, n.d.).
• MESA Community College Program: This program supports postsecondary students
enrolled in two-year community colleges throughout 33 community colleges centers in
California. The program prepares students to successfully transfer to four-year
institutions and pursue majors in STEM fields. The program includes such components
as academic workshops, orientation courses, academic advising, a study center,
networking and career development, and assistance with the transfer process (MESA,
n.d.).
• MESA Engineering Program (MEP): This program focuses on assisting students at
four-year universities pursuing engineering and computer science degrees. Currently,
there are 13 universities in California that offer this program. Program components
resemble those offered at the community college level–academic workshops, career
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 86

development, connections with student and professional organizations, and professional
development workshops (MESA, n.d.).
At USC, MESA is operated under the USC Viterbi School of Engineering and the Center
for Excellence in Diversity. USC-MESA has provided a pipeline of academic services for
students from the Los Angeles region that are in middle school through university level for the
past 35 years. At the secondary level, USC-MESA serves 12 middle schools and 15 high schools
through the MSP, a pre-college program, which targets secondary students. The MSP at USC
(under contract with the University of California) aims to improve student achievement and
increase the number of educationally disadvantaged students who graduate with a STEM degree
in the greater Los Angeles region. Student participation is based upon their personal interest and
potential in math and science. MESA advisors cultivate their interest and potential by
facilitating workshops and clubs, organizing competitions and incorporating high-interest
activities during the MESA period.
Through the MSP, middle school students begin the process of developing academic
study skills, meeting STEM career professionals, engaging in hands-on experiments, and
participating in field trips to high schools and colleges. During high school, USC-MESA
students receive a full range of services to be prepared and eligible to the university or college of
their choice and major in a STEM-based field. Furthermore, MESA high school students
continue to receive ongoing academic support, career exploration opportunities, hands-on math
and science competitions, leadership training, college counseling, and participation in various
MESA pre-college events.
As students matriculate to colleges and universities, USC-MESA continues to provide
support to MESA graduates by collecting student profile data on where students attend college,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 87

which majors they pursue, and graduation rates. In addition, student graduates of USC-MESA
are often asked to volunteer or give back to the community at MESA sponsored events. USC-
MESA operates in conjunction with three additional four-year universities to serve the
educationally disadvantaged populations from the greater Los Angeles region. At the
postsecondary level, these institutions of higher education collaborate and communicate through
professional development workshops, regional meetings, and oversight committees.
Additionally, USC-MESA partners with local and regional community colleges to facilitate the
transfer process for students as they continue their studies in STEM. Table 1 provides a list of
the four regional universities, which operate an MSP in the greater Los Angeles region, along
with one community college that operates a MESA Community College Program in the greater
Los Angeles region. Enrollment data for each higher education institution is shown to provide a
context for the research study.

Table 1
USC-MESA Programs Affiliates within the Greater Los Angeles Region
MESA Sites Program Type University Enrollment Data
Site A
9

University of Southern
California
MESA Schools Program
(K-12)
Total Enrollment: 43,000
Females - 22,790

Site B
10

University of California,
Los Angeles
MESA Schools Program
(K-12)
MESA Engineering
Program (Postsecondary)
Total Enrollment: 43,301
Females - 22,929
Engineering Total - 3,238
Females in Engineering - 748

9
Source: University of Southern California, USC, 2016
10
Source: University of California at Los Angeles, 2015
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 88

Table 1 (Cont’d)

MESA Sites Program Type University Enrollment Data
Site C
11

California State
University,
Los Angeles
MESA Schools Program
(K-12)
Total Enrollment: 27,680
12

Females - 16,117
CSU System Engineering Total - 27,287
CSU System Females in Engineering - 3,826
Site D
13

California State
University,
Long Beach
MESA Schools Program
(K-12)
Total Enrollment - 37,446 (see Footnote 12)
Females - 21,299
CSU System Engineering Total - 27,287
CSU System Females in Engineering - 3,826
Site E
14

Ventura Community
College
MESA Community
College Program
(Postsecondary)
Total Enrollment - 6,403
Females - 3,591

Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Study
This study employed a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed-methods design as shown
in Figure 12 (Creswell, 2014). The first phase of the mixed-methods design entailed the
collection of quantitative data through survey administration, analyzing the results, and using the
results to plan and inform the second phase (Creswell, 2014). The second phase of the
methodology utilized the quantitative data analysis and results to purposefully design a
qualitative research study to meaningfully answer the research questions (Creswell, 2014). The
overall intent of an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was to have the qualitative
data help explain, in detail, the initial quantitative results, and develop to a better understanding
of changes needed for a marginalized group through a combination of both types of data
(Creswell, 2014). Figure 12 illustrates the sequence of phases associated with a the research
design.

11
Source: California State University (CSU) Los Angeles, (2016)
12
Source for Site C and Site D: California State University (CSU) System, 2015
13
Source: California State University (CSU) Long Beach, 2016
14
Source: Ventura College, 2016b
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 89

Figure 12. Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Approach

Quantitative Approach
The quantitative research method is a deductive approach that examines a relationship
between and among variables, which is central to answering questions and hypotheses through
surveys and experiments (Creswell, 2014). As part of the researcher’s quantitative approach, an
electronic survey was administered through SurveyMonkey™ to female undergraduate and
graduate students who are pursuing STEM, and recent female graduates from STEM disciplines.
In both cases, females who were selected to partake in this study had previously participated in
one of the MESA programs at the middle school, high school, or higher education level. The
survey design provided objective numeric description of trends, attitudes, and opinions of a
sample population (Creswell, 2014). From the survey results, the researcher then generalized
and drew inferences about the population sample (Creswell, 2014).
For the study, a quantitative approach was appropriate to include for the following
reasons. First, the researcher sought to determine the association and relationship between two
variables. Specifically, the researcher investigated whether there was a correlation between
participation in the MESA access programs and college females’ persistence in STEM majors.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 90

Second, the baseline data collected from the surveys was used to purposefully select participants
for the qualitative methodology, and develop a line of questioning that would appropriately
expand on the survey responses. Finally, the quantitative approach was appropriate because the
sample size is larger and sample data can be extrapolated to represent the given population of
study (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative Approach
Qualitative research is distinguished from quantitative research because it is an inductive
process that includes gathering data, analyzing data, and making interpretations from the data
(Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research focuses on uncovering the meaning of a phenomena
rather than making predictions and examining cause and effect relationships (Merriam, 2009). A
researcher may elect to use qualitative methods when he/she is interested in understanding how
individuals interpret and construct meaning from their experiences (Merriam, 2009).
Furthermore, qualitative research is effective when the objective of research is to gain rich,
descriptive data.
The use of a qualitative research approach was appropriate for this study because the
researcher was interested in gaining meaningful data about the experiences of postsecondary
MESA graduates including female undergraduate and graduate students in STEM, and recent
graduates (graduated within the past five years). The qualitative portion of the study sought to
explore how females who participated in MESA constructed meaning from their experiences in
MESA, and how they perceived the effectiveness of the MESA on influencing their decision to
pursue a STEM major or discipline. Understanding the experiences of female students who
participated in the MESA program prior to declaring a STEM major was essential to providing
insight into their decisions to persist in STEM majors.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 91

In qualitative research, interviews are essential because they provide information that
cannot be obtained through direct observations such as feelings, thoughts, and actions that
occurred in the past (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, a researcher cannot observe how another
person constructs meaning from an experience; a researcher would have to ask about that
(Merriam, 2009). Thus, the qualitative design included conducting interviews with former
MESA participants who are female, over 18 years of age, and educationally disadvantaged.
Furthermore, the use of a qualitative research approach is justified because there is a gap in the
literature pertaining to female students’ experiences in access programs (Strayhorn, 2010). A
review of the literature surrounding the topic of persistence in STEM revealed that while access
and bridge programs are increasingly popular, much of the research that has been conducted is
largely quantitative in nature and excluded the experiences and perspectives of the students who
participate in the programs (Strayhorn, 2010).
Population and Sample
Participant Selection
Units of analysis. According to Patton (2002), a particular population may be selected as
a unit of analysis based upon characteristics the population has which are important for
understanding the phenomenon studied. The units of analysis for this study included currently
enrolled and recently matriculated (within the past five years) female students from two- or four-
year colleges and universities who participated in a regional, university-partnered MESA
program prior to or concurrently with enrollment in an institute of higher education. In all cases,
participants who took part in MESA are considered educationally disadvantaged, and for this
particular study, females who are considered first-generation were selected to complete the
survey.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 92

This population sample was selected in order to best ascertain the effectiveness of MESA
for supporting and retaining educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM at the
postsecondary level and the professional level. The rationale for selecting female students from
both two-year community colleges and traditional four-year colleges was to determine if there
were statistically significant differences between the effectiveness of MESA at these levels, and
to ascertain a longitudinal profile of females’ pathways in STEM. Furthermore, by including
recent graduates of colleges and universities in the unit of analysis, there would be additional
data to understand what career and professional paths former STEM graduates pursued. In other
words, the data would allow us to understand whether former students of STEM stay in STEM
disciplines, or whether they leave the field.
Recruitment of participants. The first step in recruiting the intended sample population
was to create meaningful relationships with gatekeepers who could facilitate connections with
potential survey participants and interviewees. For this reason, the MESA Program Office at the
University of Southern California was approached about a collaborative study that could be
mutually beneficial regarding the information about the effectiveness of MESA for retaining
educationally disadvantaged students in STEM.
An initial meeting with the director of MESA, associate director of MESA, and the
research study group was held in February 2016 to determine if the research study could be
feasibly conducted and whether the data produced could be informative for the MESA program.
At this time, potential recruiting techniques, intended study population, and methodologies were
discussed and refined. Feedback regarding the survey instrument was discussed in order to
establish validity of the tool. Also, a follow-up meeting was held in May 2016 once the study
was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 93

At the follow-up meeting, the finalized survey instrument was reviewed and approved by
the director and associate director of MESA. It was determined during the May 2016 meeting
that the researchers would attend an in-person Virtual MESA Academy for Science and
Mathematics Educator (vMASME) event held on the campus of the USC on July 6, 2016. The
purpose of this conference is to encourage the sharing of mathematics and science strategies
amongst regional MESA teachers and MESA program directors at the middle school level
through postsecondary education. The vMASME was a whole day event whereby MESA
teachers and directors participated in professional development and foster collaborative learning
techniques to improve the effectiveness of MESA.
The vMASME event served as the initial point of contact to facilitate distribution of the
electronic survey to MESA teachers and former MESA graduates. Current MESA middle school
and high school teachers from the greater Los Angeles region were asked at vMASME to
complete the teacher survey during their lunch break. MESA teachers were informed that
participation in the survey was voluntary and confidential, and that their responses would be
used for the purposes of the research study. Participants were also informed about the potential
benefits of participation in the research study such as the evaluation of the MESA program and
its effectiveness for retaining students in STEM (See Appendix A for Participant Information
Sheet). An electronic web link to the survey and access to a computer lab with desktop
computers were provided for teachers to complete the anonymous survey if they elected to
participate.
MESA program directors from four-year universities within the greater Los Angeles
region were asked to help distribute the survey to former female MESA graduates of the MSP
and current MESA Community College or Engineering Program students enrolled at two- and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 94

four-year universities. To facilitate the distribution of the survey link to former MESA female
students, MESA directors were provided with recruitment postcards that contained a description
of the research study, the researcher’s contact information, and a QR code to scan using an
electronic device. The researcher printed 100 color postcards to recruit study participants and
approximately 25 postcards were passed out to each of the four MESA program directors present
at the vMASME event. The recruitment postcard was also scanned into an electronic document
and emailed to each of the four program directors to distribute to their former female MESA
graduates who fit the study criteria (See Appendix B for Recruitment Letter).
To ensure equal representation of MESA programs in the data collection process, the
researcher obtained permission via IRB and Ventura College, a two-year college, to administer a
paper-and-pencil survey to currently enrolled students in the MESA Community College
Program. The director of the MESA Community College Program at the site was contacted
about participation in the research study. The researcher described the research study,
importance of the study, and intended sample population. The director of the MESA program at
the community college agreed to administer a paper-and-pencil survey to current female
enrollees of the MESA Community College who intended to transfer to a four-year university
with a declaration of being a STEM major.
Sample
Quantitative approach. For the quantitative portion of the study, a survey instrument
was created with the intended sample population in mind, and the survey was distributed during
the summer of 2016. The instrument consisted of 19 closed-ended, forced response items that
were anchored at a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly
Agree” (5). The instrument also included three optional open-ended response items to gain
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 95

meaningful data regarding participants’ perspectives of the effectiveness of MESA on their
persistence in STEM. This data regarding participants’ experiences could be impactful and may
not have otherwise have been elicited without a follow-up interview.
A total of 140 electronic questionnaires were distributed to the sample population. An
additional 50 paper-and-pencil surveys were administered at one specific sampling site at the
request of the MESA program director at Ventura College. The survey instrument was
distributed to participants through an emailed electronic web link to SurveyMonkey™ beginning
in July 2016. The web link remained active through the end of August 2016. As a secondary
measure to ensure sufficient sample size, the SurveyMonkey™ was emailed to four greater Los
Angeles area regional MESA directors at four-year universities and one MESA director at a two-
year university. The rationale for distributing a total of 150 electronic surveys and 50 paper-and-
pencil surveys was based on achieving an adequate sample size based on need, answering the
research questions, and generalizability of the data (Patton, 2002). Also, the large number of
surveys distributed was designed to take into consideration a 95% confidence level, margin of
error, and a conservative 50% response rate (Creswell, 2014; Fowler, 2009). A detailed
description of the sampling methodologies employed in this study are discussed below.
Sampling approaches. For the purposes of survey completion, it was imperative to
collect a large enough sample size that could be representative of the study population (Fink,
2013; Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). The sample population consisted of former female
MESA students and graduates who intended to pursue STEM majors and/or disciplines. As this
population is highly specific and is traditionally educationally disadvantaged in STEM, it was
imperative to utilize a multi-pronged sampling approach to obtain a robust sample size for the
quantitative portion of the study.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 96

To obtain a robust sample size that would be representative of the study population, the
researcher used a combination of the following two types of sampling methods: stratified
sampling and snowball sampling. Initially, a potential sample population was identified using an
online database of former female MESA students, over the age of 18, who participated in a
university-affiliated MESA Program within the greater Los Angeles region. The electronic
database, accessible to university MESA directors, contains former participant data such as email
contacts, phone numbers, university transfer rates, and university enrollment. Using this
database, the sample population that met the aforementioned criteria, were divided into five
subgroups (Sites A-E) based on the university MESA Schools Program or Community College
Program in which they had previously participated. Within each identified subgroup, purposive
convenience sampling was used to target a robust sample size of 50 participants, which ensured
the data collected was representative of the target population (Fink, 2013).
In addition to stratified sampling, snowball sampling was employed as a secondary
measure to increase the robustness of the sample size. Snowball sampling is effective when
previously identified participants within the sample, assist in the identification of additional
potential participants (Fink, 2013). Furthermore, snowball sampling is a form of convenience
sampling that is effective because the sample is readily available, and access to the sample saves
the time and expertise needed to develop a sampling plan (Fink, 2013).
The multi-pronged sampling methodology was appropriate for this research study
because female MESA graduates currently enrolled or graduated from STEM majors are likely
to provide data that is inherently valuable to answering the research questions (Maxwell, 2013).
Because the research questions focused on understanding the persistence of females in STEM
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 97

disciplines at the postsecondary level, it was imperative that the sample population fulfilled the
following criteria:
• Female,
• Over the age of 18
• Educationally disadvantaged
• Former or current participation in a university-sponsored MESA Program (within past
five years)
• Former or current intended STEM major, and
• Former or current undergraduate/graduate student at a two- or four-year college.
Furthermore, snowball sampling was also appropriate for this study because voluntary
participants selected through purposive and stratified sampling are likely to facilitate the
selection of additional voluntary participants who meet the same criteria for the study. In the
case of this study, former female MESA graduates and MESA regional directors were likely to
be able to identify and recommend other members of the targeted population to complete the
electronic survey.
Qualitative approach. For the qualitative portion of this study, multiple layers were
used to collect data. The first layer entailed a review of MESA documentation, which included
MESA program descriptions, information regarding affiliate Los Angeles regional colleges and
universities, graduation rates, transfer rates, and other pertinent information publically available
through the California MESA website. Next, the program directors at the USC-MESA office
accessed the private MESA database to obtain a list of local and regional females eligible to
partake in the survey and interview portions of the study. Search data was constrained to
females that were over the age of 18, former MESA graduates within the past five years, and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 98

intended STEM majors. Important to note, the database was private and retains personal
information about former students, thus the database was only accessed by the program directors.
The next layer was informed by the results of the quantitative data analysis. Of the
participants surveyed, five participants were purposefully selected to participate in the interview
process. The criteria for selecting these participants included voluntary participation, which was
indicated on the previously administered electronic survey, and whether participants’
experiences would provide deeper insight about how MESA influenced female persistence in
STEM fields. First generation females who participated in a MESA Program at any point during
their educational careers and who also indicated a willingness to participate in an in-depth
interview after completing the electronic survey, were contacted for the qualitative interview
process.
Site Selection
Site selection was determined by accessibility, proximity to the Greater Los Angeles
Area, and ability to survey and interview criterion-based populations. The researcher selected
the MESA Program that is housed and operated by the University of Southern California (USC)
MESA program. The researcher selected the USC Viterbi School of Engineering to conduct the
research study. The Viterbi School of Engineering works in partnership with the MESA
Program to recruit educationally disadvantaged students who have completed the MESA high
school program, and are currently enrolled as STEM majors. The goal for USC Viterbi is to
support and matriculate students who have been through the MESA pipeline in the greater Los
Angeles region, and in turn, increase the number of students earning STEM degrees.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 99

Site Specifics
Participants for this study were either former graduates of the MSP or are current students
of a MESA Community College Programs. MSP is operated in partnership with four universities
in the greater Los Angeles region. MEP is operated at one university within Los Angeles. These
four universities (Sites A-D) were selected for the study because of their participant data. The
MESA Community College Program is operated at selected colleges and universities, one of
which was chosen for this study due to its proximity to the research study and feasibility of
obtaining access (Sites C and E). A description of the university sites and their MESA programs
are included below.
Site A: Private, four-year research institution located in Los Angeles (University of
Southern California, USC, 2016). MSP is operated through the Center for
Engineering Diversity and Viterbi School of Engineering, which assists the Viterbi
School of Engineering with recruitment, retention, and graduation of historically
educationally disadvantaged populations. The MSP at the university has been in
operation for over 35 years and serves students through innovative academic, college
and career counseling, and hands-on science competitions.
Site B: Public, four-year research university located in Los Angeles that is part of the UC
system (University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA, 2015). The university
supports educationally disadvantaged students through the MSP operated by the
Center for Excellence in Engineering and Diversity (CEED) and the Henry Samueli
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. The program began in 1997 with only
five schools from the region, but now the program serves 20 schools and over 800
students in the Los Angeles Unified and Inglewood Unified School Districts.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 100

Site C: Public, four-year university that is located in Los Angeles and is part of the CSU
system (California State University (CSU) Long Beach, 2016). MSP and MEP were
initiated at the university in 1978 and both programs are operated through the
College of Engineering, Computers Science and Technology. MSP currently serves
middle and high school students from the Los Angeles region while the MEP
supports currently enrolled engineering and applied science majors at the university.
University students apply to become members of MEP, and once they are members,
they receive academic, social, and peer support.
Site D: Public, four-year CSU located in Long Beach (California State University (CSU)
Long Beach, 2016). The university operates a MSP through the Engineering Student
Success Center (ESSC) within the College of Engineering (COE). As a part of the
university K-12 outreach efforts, the MSP serves more than 1000 students annually
from Los Angeles, Long Beach, and other surrounding districts.
Site E: Public, accredited two-year institution of higher education that is part of the
California Community College District. Located northeast of Los Angeles, the
college was established in 1925 (Ventura College, 2016a). It is considered a
medium-sized public college offering certificates and associate’s degrees in two
engineering programs. Currently operates a MESA Community College Program
facilitated through the Sciences Department (Ventura College, 2016b). In education
to educational, career, and transfer opportunities, the college offers students a study
center, on-site job visits, and an annual banquet dinner.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 101

Access/Entry
Negotiating relationships with the participants in the study and with gatekeepers who can
either facilitate or inhibit the study is a key part of designing an effective qualitative study
(Maxwell, 2013). Gaining access to the study site and participants needed to be considered prior
to conducting the study to ensure that data could be collected ethically and without harm, and so
that the information collected will answer the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). After the
university’s IRB office approved the research study, the program directors of USC-MESA were
the main gatekeepers that facilitated access and entry to conduct the study. The program
directors had access to former MESA graduates from university MESA Schools Programs.
Furthermore, USC-MESA program directors held regional MESA events such as vMASME,
which facilitated connections with other Los Angeles regional university program directors.
Access to the participant database was granted through the regional MESA program
offices, and their respective program directors, who provided the pertinent connection. The
researcher informed the program directors about the proposed research design to ensure the
gatekeeper was fully aware of the intentions and purpose of this study. When required, IRB
approval for individual sites was obtained through following the procedure outline by each
respective college or university. This was the case for conducting research at the community
college as participants were actively enrolled on the campus. However, in the case of the four-
year universities, IRB approval was not needed as the MESA graduates were no longer students
within the universities’ MESA Schools Program as they matriculated onto higher education.
Data Collection
Prior to conducting any surveys or interviews, the study design was approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California. An explanatory
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 102

sequential mixed-methods approach, including a quantitative phase followed by the qualitative
phase, was used for this study (Creswell, 2014). The quantitative data were collected through the
surveys administered to the initially selected participants. In accordance with the explanatory
sequential mixed-methods research design, quantitative data were collected and analyzed prior to
initiating the second phase of qualitative data collection (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative data collection occurred subsequently in order to provide rich, meaningful
data that elaborated upon the survey responses. Qualitative data consisted of collecting interview
data from five participants who volunteered to be interviewed. Because the researcher is the
instrument of data collection in qualitative research, research bias is a potential limitation of the
study (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009). The process of triangulation, or the use of various data
sources, was essential in providing checks and balances on the results (Maxwell, 2013).
Triangulating the data allowed the researcher to increase the validity in the findings and reduce
the risk of any bias based on the use of only one method (Maxwell, 2013).
Data Collection Protocols
Both the survey instrument and interview protocol were influenced by the conceptual
framework and literature review. There were several factors that were outlined in the literature
which narrowed down the focus for this study. Specifically, the literature pertaining to the
persistence of first generation females in STEM majors suggested that they are uniquely
challenged by the lack of institutional support (Griffith, 2010), negative gender stereotypes
(Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012), and issues self-efficacy (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013). Using these
challenges to frame the study, the study was designed to address the research questions and
understand the reasons for how MESA influences female students to persist in STEM majors.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 103

Quantitative Data Collection
The data collected from the quantitative survey administered through SurveryMonkey
TM

served as a springboard to design a meaningful, in-depth interview protocol that provided
detailed explanations for how MESA has influenced the persistence of first generation females in
STEM majors (Creswell, 2014). The researcher elected to utilize SurveyMonkey
TM
for its
capacity to analyze open-ended results, create comparison reports, and filter responses.
A total of 200 electronic surveys were administered using SurveyMonkey
TM
in July 2016
via a web link to former female MESA graduates, over the age of 18, from four regional four-
year university partnered MESA School Programs at Sites A-D (see Table 2). Of the total
number of surveys administered, 124 surveys were completed and collected in August 2016 for
quantitative data analysis. In addition, 50 paper-and-pencil surveys were mailed to the director
at Ventura Community College (Site E) at the end of July 2016 as a means to survey female
MESA students currently involved in the MESA Community College Program. A total of 31
completed paper-and-pencil surveys were collected and returned via pre-paid mailing envelope
at the end of August 2016.

Table 2

Survey Responses Collected by Four-Year University

Sites

Survey Format
Number of Surveys
Distributed
Number of Surveys
Collected
A (USC) Electronic 50 40
B (UCLA) Electronic 50 26
C (Cal State LA) Electronic 50 31

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 104

Table 2 (Cont’d.)

Sites

Survey Format
Number of Surveys
Distributed
Number of Surveys
Collected
D (Cal State LB) Electronic 50 27
E (Ventura College) Paper-and-Pencil 50 31
TOTAL 250 155

Survey Collection. Upon beginning the electronic or paper based surveys, participants
were notified their responses would be considered confidential, their names would not be
associated with their responses, and their participation was completely voluntary. Participants of
this research study were given a time frame of approximately one month to complete the
confidential and anonymous survey. Beginning in July 2016, the electronic link for the survey
on SurveyMonkey
TM
became active and accessible to the participants, and the link remained
open for responses through the end of August 2016 to accommodate the collection of data from
snowball sampling. Responses were gathered and stored directly on the SurveyMonkey
TM

website, which was password protected and only accessible to the research team. On August 31,
2016, the link to the electronic survey became inactive and no further responses were recorded.
Paper-based surveys were distributed and administered during the months of July and
August 2016. Once the completed surveys were returned, all 31 closed-ended responses from
the paper-and-pencil surveys were manually entered into SurveyMonkey
TM
by the researcher
during the early part of September 2016. In order to manually add in the responses from the
paper surveys, the previously recorded results from the electronic survey were collected using
the “Collect Responses” feature in SurveyMonkey
TM
. Subsequently, each participants’ survey
had to be entered in its entirety using the “Manual Data Entry” function, beginning with the first
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 105

question and ending with the last question, prior to entering the next participants’ responses.
Manually entered responses from the paper-based surveys were double-checked by another
member of the research team to ensure accuracy of the data entered.
Once all survey data had been entered, item responses for the closed-ended questions
were prepared for analysis by exporting the results from SurveyMonkey
TM
into an SPSS
Statistics, a software tool that allows for statistical analyses of quantitative data. Open-ended
responses from the surveys were exported from SurveyMonkey
TM
into Microsoft Excel to
prepare data for coding.
Confidentiality. Confidentiality was established through the use of an anonymous and
confidential survey. Through the use of SurveyMonkey
TM
, a web-based survey application,
participants were able to complete the electronic survey without identifying themselves. The
researcher ensured the feature which encrypts IP addresses was selected to ensure complete
anonymity of electronic surveys. For the paper-based surveys, the research team provided 50
copies of the survey to the MESA program director at Ventura College. The participants were
administered the surveys independently, in a separate location, without the research team present
to identify participants. Furthermore, as the sample participants have no association or previous
connection with the research team, there is no way to identify participants based on hand-writing
or other feature. Thus, the responses from the paper-based surveys were unable to be traced back
to the participants who completed the surveys.
In the case of both the electronic and paper-based surveys, an open-ended item was
included which allowed for participants to indicate whether they were willing to be contacted for
a follow-up interview. Participants could respond by selecting “No” and there answers would be
stored as completely anonymous. Alternatively, if participants selected “Yes,” they were
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 106

provided a text box to provide their personal contact information such as their name, email, and
phone number. In this case, the participants who volunteered to move forward with the
interview process were granted confidentiality by having an assigned code name. Throughout
the data collection and data analysis process, the researcher separated participants’ contact
information from participants’ respective code names, and stored each list on two different
password protected laptop computers. Furthermore, when not in use, the two laptop computers
were stored under lock and key in separate locations. Only the team of researchers coded all
surveys and had access to the survey data collected.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data collection occurred subsequent to quantitative data collection and data
analysis. In order to identify the effectiveness of the MESA program for increasing the
persistence of females in STEM majors, four interviews with former MESA graduates were
conducted during the summer of 2016. One additional interview with a current MESA female
STEM major was also conducted during the summer of 2016. First generation females, over the
age of 18, who were participants of MESA during their educational careers, who intended to
major in STEM, and who indicated a willingness to provide in-depth responses via their
electronic surveys, were contacted for follow-up interviews.
Two of the five interviews were conducted in-person on the campus of USC because the
participants were current graduate students at the university. The interviews were conducted on
the patio in front of the main library on campus as this is a neutral location away from where
students’ regularly attended class, and where participants did not feel they needed to refrain from
being honest for fear of being overheard by their peers. Also, the location was relatively quiet
and there are limited distractions so it was easy to hear participant responses. Both interviews
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 107

were conducted on the same afternoon of August 9, 2016. Verbal and written consent were
obtained to conduct and audio record the interviews (See Appendix C for Informed Consent
Form). In both cases, participants indicated they understood the objective of the study,
consented to be interviewed, and allowed audio recording of what was said. Interviews lasted
approximately 30 minutes, but varied for each individual.
The remaining three interviews were conducted over the telephone during the month of
September 2016. Participants indicated their preference to be interviewed over the phone as
opposed to in-person for various reasons including scheduling conflicts, participant location, and
access to transportation. For all phone interviews, participants were informed of the goals of the
interview and anticipated length of the interview. Subsequently, participants were asked to
provide verbal consent to be interviewed and written consent via a signed and returned email
consent form. In two cases, participants consented to the interview, but did not want to be audio
recorded. In both instances, it was imperative to take very detailed interview notes in order to
capture the essence of the interview.
The first phone interview was conducted on September 3, 2016 with a former MESA
graduate who is now a graduate student in chemical engineering at a university in northern
California. The second interview was conducted on September 8, 2016, with a former MESA
participant who majored in a STEM field, but is now working in a different industry. Finally, the
third interview took place on September 12, 2016 with a participant who is currently enrolled in
the MESA Community College Program at Site E.
For all five interviews, a semi-structured interview protocol was formulated to gain rich,
meaningful data (Merriam, 2009). The interview protocol, including an anticipated sequence of
questions and appropriate probes, was predetermined prior to conducting any interviews, but was
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 108

adapted to fit the needs of each interview. One of the reasons the researcher employed the use of
a semi-structured interview protocol was it allowed for a structured approach when specific data
needed to be elicited, and it provided flexibility to include probes or follow-up questions if more
information from the respondent was needed (Merriam, 2009). For this study, a semi-structured
interview was also advantageous because it utilized the time allotted efficiently and afforded the
ability to collect the data necessary to answer the research questions.
During the actual interview, all participants were reassured their responses would only be
used for this purposes of this study and that their responses would be anonymous. Also, each
participant was verbally asked if they would consent to being audio recorded to accurately
capture the data. During each interview, the researcher wrote down key responses via paper and
pencil in addition to audio recording. The researcher remained neutral, but reassuring through
use of non-verbal cues such as nodding and frequent eye contact. Post data collection, the audio
records were transcribed via a neutral outside source who was not affiliated with the research
study.
Confidentiality measures were also established for the qualitative data collection. The
materials were transcribed by a professional third party transcriber, rev.com, a website that has
no affiliation to the MESA program. Additionally, the transcribed interview responses, audio
recordings, and codebook were stored in separate locations on two password secured laptop
computers.
Data Analysis
The researcher analyzed the data collected from surveys using a quantitative method, and
the data collected from interviews and documents using a qualitative method (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam, 2009). Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately in accordance to the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 109

explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative data were analyzed
first so that the results of the data could inform the sampling procedure and the planning of the
qualitative data collection and analysis approach (Creswell, 2014).
Quantitative Data Analysis
The analysis of quantitative data began in early September 2016. The first step of
analyzing the quantitative data was to ensure all completed participant surveys were collected
electronically via the “Collect Responses” function in SurveyMonkey
TM
. Participant responses
were then informally analyzed for basic descriptive statistics in SurveyMonkey
TM
. Data

analysis
included obtaining frequencies, percentages, and means, which were subsequently used to
identify preliminary patterns and trends in responses and determine target participants with
whom to conduct interviews during the qualitative phase.
The formal data analysis of the survey responses involved exporting the response data
from SurveyMonkey
TM
and importing the resulting .SAV file into SPSS Inferential Data
Statistics. SPSS was selected for more complex data analysis because of its capabilities to
effectively manage data, wide selection of analytical and calculating tools, and organizational
output options. SPPS was used to clean and package data, create scale and subscale scores, run
descriptive statistics, analyze data, and interpret data. The steps for performing the SPSS
analysis are elaborated upon below. Important to note, after each step of analysis was performed
in SPSS, the resulting data file was renamed and saved to ensure all the data was preserved and
accessible.
In SPSS, data were first cleaned by deleting unnecessary columns, re-labeling variables
that were measured, and assigning the file a new name. After the data file was cleaned, the next
step involved running an analysis of basic descriptive statistics using SPSS. Running basic
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 110

descriptive statistics for central tendencies and variability allows the researcher to ensure there
are no outliers, input errors, and coding errors, and provides an essential set of characteristics
that can be used to understand a population distribution (Salkind, 2012). Descriptive statistics
including mean, standard deviation, and range, for continuous variables that were measured
using the Likert-type survey instrument created for this study. Similarly, basic descriptive
statistics such as frequencies were performed on categorical variables including gender, level in
school, major, and first-generation status.
To perform further analysis, SPSS was used to create scale and subscale scores for the
survey response data. The “TRANSFORM” function in SPSS was used to calculate total scores
for individual research questions (i.e., scale scores, summed scores, etc.). This type of analysis
allowed the researcher to identify total scores for each of the subscales that were assessed by the
research questions. In addition, once scales were created, Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of
internal consistency of survey instruments, was run on each scale and subscale using the
“ANALYZE” function in SPSS (Fink, 2013).
Finally, SPSS was used to perform more complex statistical analyses including
correlational analysis of all major variables measured by the survey instrument, followed by a
regression analysis, and lastly, T-tests for significance. These types of data analysis provide
additional information that descriptive data cannot. For example, correlation coefficients can
inform how two variables are related, or how the value of one variable changes with a change in
another variable (Salkind, 2012). Correlational matrix for all major variables was generated in
SPSS using the “ANALYZE” function. Subsequently, regression analyses were performed using
the correlation coefficients to understand how well one variable can predict the other (Fink,
2013). As a last measure of significance, t-tests were performed to determine whether there were
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 111

significant differences between individual sample populations. T-tests were conducted in SPSS
using the “ANALYZE” function, and choosing the dependent and independent variables.
Results generated through SPSS analysis, including descriptive statistics, correlation
coefficients, linear regressions, and t-tests were used to interpret the distribution of the sample
population. Specifically, the survey data analysis was used to interpret and generalize findings
about MESA has influenced the persistence of educationally disadvantaged females in STEM
majors and STEM careers. Additionally, the analysis was used to identify the variables which
MESA addresses in their outreach program that can impact females’ persistence in STEM. On a
final note, the quantitative data analysis was utilized to inform the selection of interview
participants and determine an appropriate protocol for interview questions. By analyzing the
quantitative data first, the researchers could identify patterns and trends, locate gaps in the
knowledge, and consequently, determine which participant volunteers could elicit the most
meaningful, rich data from the process of interviewing.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Prior to analyzing qualitative data collected in the form of interviews, documentation and
data provided by the MESA program was analyzed first. The USC-MESA administrator
provided a list of MESA administrators housed at each college in the Los Angeles County
region, and a database containing students who completed the K-12 MESA Schools program and
immediately enrolled in a two- or four-year educational institution. After analyzing the data
provided by the USC-MESA advisor (administrator), the interview data collected by the
researcher were coded using two steps. First, the researcher conducted an informal debrief
immediately following each interview and second, the researcher employed a thorough analysis
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 112

using the Constant Comparative Method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The process of data analysis
is elaborated upon in more detail below.
The first step involved the data analysis involved an informal process of reflective
commentary following each interview as recommended by Bogdan and Bilken (2007). Initially,
all data were handwritten with pen and paper, and interview data were audio recorded. Audio
recordings were securely submitted to rev.com for transcription. Rev.com keeps all client
information confidential (rev.com, 2016). The files for this research study were securely stored
and transmitted using 128-bit SSL encryption, which is currently the highest level of security
available (rev.com, 2016). Rev.com does not share files or personal information with anyone
outside of the rev.com company. Files are visible only to the professionals who have signed
strict confidentiality agreements. Once the service was complete, rev.com deleted the study’s
files at the research team’s request (rev.com, 2016).
Following each interview, audio recordings and interview notes were compared to
confirm consistency of recorded responses. In addition, each evening after an interview had
been held, questions and memos were jotted down near the raw data to begin developing ideas
(Maxwell, 2013). Finally, to prepare the handwritten data for analysis and interview, data were
imported into Microsoft Excel to facilitate the coding process.
Next the researcher analyzed the patterns identified from Excel, and applied the Constant
Comparative Method to code the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The Constant Comparative
Method is rooted in the Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The goal of using
the Grounded Theory approach is to develop a theory to explain how an aspect of the social
world operates, thus the theory that emerges is connected to the reality from which it was formed
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggested that when the Constant
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 113

Comparative Method is used to generate a theory, the process includes the following steps:
selecting a phenomenon to study, identifying key concepts, making decisions about the data
collection techniques, and determining a relevant study sample. Using these ideals, the
researcher ensured the study sample was appropriate for understanding the phenomena studied,
and that the data collected would directly address the research questions.
The first cycle of coding in the Constant Comparative Method was Open Coding (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). During Open Coding, each line of text was typed into an Excel spreadsheet
and organized, compared, and contextualized at the broadest level while trying to maintain the
integrity of interviewees’ responses. Each code was highlighted in Excel and a comment was
added in the margins. The process of Open Coding continued until saturation was achieved and
no further codes could be derived from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Following Open Coding, the next cycle of coding, Axial Coding, was used to identify
larger recurring themes and ideas within the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During Axial
Coding, the researcher systematically categorized the smaller Open Codes based on emergent
cross-cutting themes in the literature, and common ideas within the interview and observation
data.
Finally, the researcher used the Axial Codes to complete the final step of Selective
Coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The Selective Codes were the core themes that were used to
construct meaning from the data collected and derive a working theory grounded in the research.
All Open, Axial, and Selective Codes were recorded in the Excel application.
Merriam (2009) and Creswell (2014) indicated that the final step in data analysis involves
a period of intensive analysis with findings. Using data collected, in addition to literature review
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 114

and theoretical framework, the researcher was able to triangulate the data to determine if each of
the findings supported other findings, and whether they were aligned with the research questions.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation selected to collect data for this study was based on the requirements
of conducting an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. The first instrument used was
an electronic questionnaire, followed by the researcher as the instrument to review MESA
documents, and lastly, the semi-structured interview protocol to interview participants. A
summary table of the instruments used for this research study is included in Table 3.

Table 3
Instrumentation Usage

Tool/Instrument

Purpose/Evidence

Source
Time of
Administration
Analysis
Needed
MESA Higher
Education Survey
Self-report, Likert-
type questionnaire
assessing
participants’
perceptions of
MESA Program
Invented tool July 2016 -
August 2016
Quantitative
Pre-existing MESA
Documents
Public documents
regarding program
creation, objectives,
and support
systems

Private database of
former MESA
graduates
Pre-existing
documents
available through
MESA website
August 2016 Qualitative
Semi-structured
Interview Protocol
Capture in depth
experiences and
feelings about how
MESA operates,
and how it
influences
persistence in
STEM
Invented protocol

Audio Recorded

Transcribed
September 2016 Qualitative Coding
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 115

Quantitative Data Collection Instrument
Pilot Testing. Approval to conduct the research study was granted by the Internal
Review Board (IRB) at USC May 2016. Once IRB approval was obtained, a small-scale pilot
test of the research study was conducted to ensure the survey was usable, clear and
understandable, and elicited the necessary information to answer the research questions (Fink,
2013). The guidelines that were followed during the pilot testing phase are listed as follows.
First, the researchers attempted to anticipate the actual circumstances under which the survey
would be administered (Fink, 2013). For this study, the anticipated method of survey completion
included distribution of a web link to an electronic survey, thus the pilot test also utilized an
electronic survey. Next, with the exception of the two university administrators, the pilot testing
participants were respondents comparable in age, education, and gender to the target sample
(Fink, 2013). Third, to focus on reliability, the clarity of the research questions was investigated
by looking for skipped responses to specific questions, checking for multiple responses to a
single question, and reviewing participant notes post-survey completion (Fink, 2013).
The pilot testing commenced in June 2016, a month prior to distributing the live survey
link to the sample population. An electronic survey link to complete the electronic survey was
emailed to ten volunteers, including the director and associate director of MESA at USC. All ten
volunteers completed the survey within the time frame of one week. Pilot testing established that
the survey average completion time was between 10-15 minutes. Moreover, pilot testing
revealed two significant factors that were reconsidered prior to distributing the survey to
participants. First, five of the 19 closed-ended items from the survey were slightly reworded to
be more clear for participants, and the aesthetics of the survey were redesigned to include the
MESA logo and pictures to further appeal to participants. However, the minimal revisions did
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 116

not significantly affect the content of the survey questionnaire or the information that was
assessed. Once these changes were made to the survey questionnaire, the link was redistributed
two weeks after the original administration of the pilot test to the same ten volunteers to establish
test-retest reliability.
Instrument. The survey instrument used to collect data in this study was an anonymous,
self-report questionnaire which is reproduced in Appendix D. The questionnaire was distributed
to first generation females, over the age of 18 years, who were previously enrolled in a
university-affiliated MESA Program within the past five years, or who are current
undergraduates enrolled in a college-level MESA Program. The survey questionnaire consisted
of three parts. Part one included a brief description of the research study, which was followed by
a section for participants to indicate informed consent regarding their willingness to voluntarily
complete the survey questionnaire. In addition, part one asked participants to complete
demographic data (i.e., gender, year in school, college attended, intended major, profession, and
type of university-affiliated MESA program participated in).
Part two consisted of a 19-item forced response, self-report survey that was created
specifically for this research study (in this context, “forced response” items were those that could
not be skipped). The 19-item instrument was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” (Fink, 2013). Point values were assigned to each
response in order to facilitate data analysis and values are indicated as follows: Strongly
Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree or Disagree (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5).
The decision to provide participants with a neutral response was based on the principle that not
all items would be applicable to each participant completing the survey (Fink, 2013).
Furthermore, because the survey required an answer for each of the closed-ended items, this
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 117

allowed participants to denote their neutral stance without skipping an item or quitting the
survey.
The third and final part of the survey consisted of four optional open-ended responses.
Three of the prompts were purposefully designed to elicit participant responses that were more
detailed and provided meaningful insight into females’ experiences in MESA in the event that
participants elected not to be interviewed. The final question asked participants to indicate
whether they would like to be contacted for a follow-up interview, and provided a space for
participants to denote their contact information. For part three, participants were told to limit
their responses to two or three sentences, but were also informed that the open-ended responses
were optional to complete. The rationale for adding open-ended responses in the survey
stemmed from a request by the MESA Program Directions at USC, but also served to offer
participants a forum to describe how impactful MESA was in their own words. Table 4 provides
a summary of the questions that were asked and the corresponding research question addressed.
With regard to parts two and three of the survey questionnaire, the items were
constructed in order to address one of the four research questions guiding the study. The
following indicates the item breakdown for the -item survey instrument as they relate to each
research question: research question one (4 items), research question two (7 items), the types of
resources needed to influence the persistence and retention of first generation females (6 items),
and the effectiveness of the MESA program for promotion the retention of females in STEM
majors (5 items). A detailed item breakdown for each research question is included in Table 4.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 118

Table 4
Survey Item Breakdown Per Research Question
QUESTIONS SURVEY ITEM
Research Question 1

How is Mathematics Engineering
Science Achievement (MESA) being
implemented by university
administrators and faculty at two-
and four-year colleges to support the
persistence of educationally
disadvantaged female students in
Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
9. The MESA teachers I had in middle school, high school, and
college cared about my educational experiences.

16. The MESA program and staff continued to support me
(academically, emotionally, socially) while I pursued my
college degree.

21. MESA staff recruits former MESA students to volunteer in
university events such as campus visits, tutoring, mentoring,
etc.

22. The MESA program introduced me to role models and mentors
in the STEM field.
Research Question 2

How do (did) educationally
disadvantaged female students in higher
education perceive MESA has (had)
influenced their graduation from STEM
majors?
15. I have positive attitude toward math and science courses
because of my experiences in the MESA program.

18. Females are less likely to graduate and be scientists or
engineers than males.

19. I'm confident in my ability to network and form connections
because of the preparation I received in MESA .

20. I am confident that I could pursue a career in STEM as a result
of being in MESA .

24. I would encourage other students to participate in MESA while
in college.

26. I am more knowledgeable about the STEM field because I
participated in MESA .

27. Please describe your personal and educational experiences with
the MESA program.*

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 119

Table 4 (Cont’d.)
QUESTIONS SURVEY ITEM
Research Question 3

What resources from the MESA
program are needed to influence the
persistence and retention of
educationally disadvantaged female
students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
10. The MESA program provided me with opportunities to
network with like-minded people.

11. I have increased self-efficacy (self-confidence) because of the
emotional support I received in the MESA program.

13. I attribute the grades I earn in college to the academic support
and skills I was taught in the MESA program.

14. I am interested in the STEM field because of my academic,
social, and networking experiences in the MESA program.

17. The supplemental opportunities (competitions, events, campus
visits, etc.) offered by MESA influenced my decision to pursue a
STEM major.

29. In your opinion, what program aspects (resources, support,
etc.) could be improved to make MESA more effective?*

Research Question 4

How effective has the MESA program
been for influencing the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged female
students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
8. MESA has motivated me to persevere in my STEM-related
courses.

12. I earn (earned) high grades in my mathematics and science
major-related courses.

23. I am motivated to graduate from a STEM discipline as a result
of my time and experience in MESA .

25. I feel confident entering into a STEM career after graduation as
a result of being in MESA .

28. Is there any additional information you would like to share
about how MESA has influenced your decision to pursue
STEM?*
*An asterisk denotes that the survey item was an optional, open-ended response

Validity and reliability. Threats to the validity and reliability of quantitative data can
occur when the instrument has not been tested prior to being administered to the sample
population (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Validity is a measure of how well the
instrument measures what it is intended to measure. To address validity, prior to the survey item
generation, the researcher thoroughly investigated the literature and theories related to the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 120

effectiveness of outreach programs such as MESA in influencing the persistence of first
generation females in STEM majors (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). By grounding the
survey items in research, it allowed the researcher to ensure content validity because each
question was developed to answers research questions directly linked to the theories discussed in
the literature. Also, face validity was established through scrutinizing each item and having
experts in the field (i.e., MESA administrators) preview the survey instrument which determined
whether each item contributed to building a strong test by analyzing whether the content matches
the information, attitude, character, or behavior being assessed (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford,
2006).
Reliability of the instrument was established through test-retest of the survey during the
pilot testing phase (Salkind, 2012). A group of volunteers were administered the survey two
times, approximately two weeks apart, and the answers provided by participants were within the
same range. Furthermore, internal reliability of the instrument was calculated by calculating the
Cronbach’s alpha for the instrument and each subscale within the instrument.
Qualitative Data Collection Instruments
The researcher used MESA program descriptions and data on graduation rates, program
effectiveness, etc. that were provided by MESA administrators at USC, to examine patterns that
corroborated the previous literature in the field, the conceptual framework, and the survey data.
After analyzing descriptive statistics generated by the quantitative survey and reviewing
documentation provided by MESA, the interview data protocol was established to ascertain
additional, meaningful data that would inform the research questions..
Interview protocol. Interviews were conducted in the qualitative research with the
intent to gain insight into another person’s mind (Merriam 2009). In qualitative research,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 121

interviews are essential because they provide information that cannot be obtained through direct
observations such as feelings, thoughts, and actions that occurred in the past (Patton, 2002). The
interviews were semi-structured, which included open-ended questions and probes (Merriam,
2009). The semi-structured interview protocol allowed the researcher to gain rich data about
how female students construct meaning from their experiences. Moreover, though the protocol
was established prior to conducting interviews, the use of a semi-structured approach allowed for
flexibility in the interview process.
For this study, the interview protocol consisted of a participant consent form, structured
introduction informing participants of the research study, and the semi-structured interview
portion. Former female MESA participants over the age of 18, were targeted for interviews and
the interview questions asked about participants’ experiences in the program and their
perceptions of the program’s effectiveness on their persistence in STEM. The actual interview
portion of the protocol consisted of nine questions and was intended to last approximately 30
minutes depending on participant responses and the need to utilize probes. Each of the interview
questions was written to gain insight into one of the four research questions. An item breakdown
by research question is provided in Table 5, and the full interview protocol is included in
Appendix E.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 122

Table 5
Interview Questions Per Research Question
QUESTIONS RESEARCH QUESTION
Research Question 1

How is Mathematics Engineering
Science Achievement (MESA) being
implemented by university
administrators and faculty at two-
and four-year colleges to support the
persistence of educationally
disadvantaged female students in
Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
2. Based on your personal knowledge, what are the types of support
services are available to students through MESA at the university
level?

7. How do you feel MESA (academic, social, emotional) has
supported your persistence in a STEM major? In what ways could
MESA have supported you more?
Research Question 2

How do (did) educationally
disadvantaged female students in higher
education perceive MESA has (had)
influenced their graduation from STEM
majors?
1. Could you please describe your personal experience of being a
student in MESA ?

6. What do you feel are the reasons that you have persisted in your
STEM major?

9. Some people would argue that females are less likely to graduate
from STEM majors. What are your thoughts on the issue? Do you
think MESA can help keep females in STEM?
Research Question 3

What resources from the MESA
program are needed to influence the
persistence and retention of
educationally disadvantaged female
students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
4. Have you faced (or are you currently facing) any challenges in
your STEM major?

8. What types of academic/social/emotional supports should be
included in a successful STEM outreach program geared toward
supporting females?
Research Question 4

How effective has the MESA program
been for influencing the persistence of
educationally
disadvantaged female students in STEM
majors at the postsecondary level?
2. Why did you (or why did you not) choose to pursue a STEM major
at your college or university?

5. Do you feel MESA contributed to your success in your STEM
major?

Credibility and trustworthiness. According to Merriam (2009), internal validity deals
with the question of how well the findings from a research study are congruent with reality.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 123

Because humans are the primary instrument for data collection in qualitative methods, assessing
validity is relative to how people construct the meaning of reality (Merriam, 2009). In turn, it is
almost impossible for qualitative researchers to objectively declare one truth or reality; instead,
qualitative researchers must ensure they employ strategies to increase the credibility, or
trustworthiness, of their research findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that trustworthiness of findings is contingent upon
establishing the following: credibility, confirmability, transferability, and dependability.
Throughout the inquiry process of answering research questions, the researcher established
credibility and trustworthiness through peer review/examination, triangulation, and an adequate
amount of engagement in the data collection (Merriam, 2009; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana,
2014).
Triangulation is a well-known practice to increase credibility of the researcher’s findings
(Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014). When data is extrapolated from a variety of sources, the
researcher is able to cross-check for consistencies and inconsistencies (Merriam, 2009). The
researcher selected the explanatory sequential mixed-methods design to collect data from
multiple sources. For this study, survey responses, longitudinal data, and MESA document
analysis were corroborated through interview data with undergraduate females in STEM majors
and relevant literature surrounding females’ experiences in STEM fields. The researcher cross-
checked the data from each source and analyzed whether it validated or contradicted the
findings. In addition, to ensure credibility, all participants were fully informed of the purpose of
the study (Shenton, 2004).
The researcher was part of a team of three individuals who had similar research topics.
The team worked together to reach saturation of the relevant literature on STEM education, craft
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 124

research questions, and design the interview protocols. The team engaged in frequent
discussions about how to analyze the data collection findings. In the early stages of analysis, the
team reviewed the raw data and discussed whether the codes and emergent themes were logical,
plausible, and tied to the literature reviewed (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher also devoted an adequate amount of time engaging in the raw data
collection to the point of saturation (Merriam, 2009). The researcher reviewed the raw data
repeatedly to generate an extensive list of codes and emergent themes. The time spent
exhausting the raw data is what allowed the researcher to extrapolate variations and themes that
were not necessarily evident in the early stages of data analysis (Merriam, 2009).
Confirmability, is analogous to objectivity in science, and ensures the data collected is
the true voice of the informants (Patton, 2002). Additionally, the researcher used
position/reflexivity throughout the entire inquiry process. Merriam (2009) suggested that the
researcher keep a journal, use observer comments, and record one’s thinking post observations
and interviews in order to continuously monitor for personal biases. The research team shared
the reflective journals, observer comments, and voice recordings, and cross-checked the raw data
to look for evidence of biases or misinterpretation.
Transferability refers to showing the findings are applicable in other contexts, while
dependability shows that the findings are consistent and repeatable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
With regard to transferability and dependability, limitations in the duration of the study, as well
as the small sample size and single sampling site, constrain the results of the study. However,
corroboration and triangulation attempted to address these issues. More data would need to be
collected over a larger scale and longer time frame to ensure transferability and dependability
(Merriam, 2009).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 125

Ethical Practices
Patton (2002) stated that credibility includes “intellectual rigor, professional integrity,
and methodical competence” (p. 570). These characteristics are important to any study because
all research must be conducted with integrity and the researcher should maintain an ethical
stance at all times (Merriam, 2009). Thus, it is important that research be conducted in an ethical
manner so that participants are protected from harm, given the right to privacy, are fully
informed of the study design, and are shielded from deceptive practices (Merriam, 2009).
In the quantitative portion of the study, the researcher maintained ethical practices by
creating a sound survey instrument and respecting the confidentiality of the participants who
took part in the survey. Furthermore, using Patton’s (2002) literature as a reference, Merriam
(2009) stated that the researcher’s level of credibility, rigorous methods of ensuring validity and
reliability, and upholding a deep respect for the qualitative inquiry process are the essential
components of true qualitative research. The researcher constantly monitored the process for
collecting data by employing multiple credibility and trustworthiness strategies, as well as
preserved the confidentiality of the participants and the educational institution. Additionally,
Corbin and Strauss’ (2008) analytic tools were used to help the researcher dissect the data
through a lens that was not skewed by personal biases.
Ethical interviews. In order to ensure ethical practices were maintained, the researcher
reflected upon one’s own personal values and ethical beliefs prior to designing the study and
conducting any interviews. One of the strategies the researcher implemented was inform all
participants of the purpose of the study. Furthermore, the researcher ensured confidentiality of
their responses and obtained each participant’s verbal and written consent to interview and audio
record prior to beginning each interview (Merriam, 2009). The researcher’s goal in doing this
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 126

was to show the participants that their time, perceptions, and experiences were valued, but more
importantly, their expertise of knowledge was well respected. It was very important to preserve
the integrity of the interviewees’ responses and to construct meaning from their perspectives.
Finally, while conducting interviews, the researcher consciously avoided passing judgments on
participant responses by maintaining a warm, but neutral stance.
The following are additional ethical practices guided by Creswell (2014) that were
persistently monitored during the data collection, analysis, and interpretation process:
a. Protecting the anonymity of individuals
b. Storing data in a safe location
c. Debriefing between the researcher and respondents to check for accuracy of the data
d. Anticipating repercussions of conducting the research on certain audiences and not
misusing results to the advantage of any one group, which is part of the IRB process.
Summary
The explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was utilized to support the
researcher in the investigation of how MESA access programs at a four-year university provided
support to first generation females in STEM majors, the impact that MESA had on graduation
rates of first generation females in STEM, the required resources needed to promote persistence
within STEM majors, and the effectiveness of MESA on increasing females’ persistence toward
degree completion at a four-year university. Data were first collected using surveys provided to
female students who were currently attending a four-year university, declared a STEM major,
and had participated in the MESA program in high school. Then MESA documentation was
analyzed, and finally purposefully selected individuals from the surveyed population participated
in interviews conducted by the researcher. In Chapter Four, the researcher will present the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 127

findings, including emerging themes, on MESA ’s impact on the persistence of females in STEM
majors. Chapter Five will connect the findings from the data with the literature and theoretical
practices reviewed in Chapter Two. The researcher will also evaluate MESA’s effectiveness for
supporting and retaining educationally disadvantaged minorities in STEM as well as promising
practices for the MESA program, the study’s limitations, and recommendations for future
studies.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 128

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Background
The U. S. Department of Commerce (2011) has estimated that the number of STEM jobs
has increased three times as fast as non-STEM jobs over the past years. However, businesses
within the US continue to lament the inadequate supply and availability of highly qualified
STEM workers to meet industry needs (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). STEM workers
are a vital component to the nation’s innovativeness and competitiveness. In response, the US
has emphasized repairing the leaky pipeline in STEM to address the projected shortfall workers
needed in STEM.
Females represent one group that has traditionally been left out of the STEM workforce.
As the leaky pipeline model theorizes, females enter the pipeline in primary school alongside
their male peers, but at each pivotal junction, females leak out of the STEM pipeline at a higher
rate than their peers. As such, the model conceptualizes that the number of female students who
actually persist and select a major and career in STEM is much smaller than those that entered
the pipeline (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady, Greenwald, & Harris, 2014). Female students
exit the pipeline for many reasons including educational barriers, gender stereotypes, academic
preparation, feelings of isolation, and low academic self-efficacy.
To increase the number of female students who persist in the STEM pipeline, the US
government has developed and funded a multitude of outreach programs. The Mathematics
Engineering Science Achievement (MESA, 2016) Program is one such program that has targeted
the retention of educationally disadvantaged students in STEM. Outreach programs such as
MESA aim to provide students with comprehensive support in the form of academic skill
development, individualized academic and career counseling, social networking, and career
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 129

building opportunities. Since the program’s inception in 1970, MESA has continued to focus
their efforts on providing educationally and economically disadvantaged students with essential
skills to achieve academic success in school, embark on careers, and thrive in STEM disciplines
(MESA, 2016).
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the MESA Schools Program
(MSP), the MESA Community College Program (MCCP), and the MESA Engineering Program
(MEP) on the persistence of educationally disadvantaged first-generation females in STEM
majors and disciplines. An additional goal of this study was to explore the resources and support
services that contribute to a successful STEM outreach program and examine how MESA is
incorporating these key components in their programming. Through utilization of a mixed-
methods explanatory research study, the unique perspectives of first-generation females were
captured through quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The findings from this research
study will provide future implications for rethinking and restructuring current MESA outreach
programs, and ensure outreach programs provide equitable services for all educationally
disadvantaged populations.
A preliminary review of the literature as it relates to the persistence of women in STEM
provided insight into four key concepts that can be used to re-conceptualize the metaphorical
leaky pipeline in STEM. Patching up the leaky pipeline serves only as a superficial solution to
an ongoing problem (Cannady et al, 2014). Rather, based on the gaps in the literature, the
primary goal of STEM outreach programs should be to understand the perspectives of female
students, determine those components that work to increase retention, and seek to explain why or
how females persist.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 130

In turn, the research-based components of successful STEM outreach programs has
contributed to the development of the conceptual model used in this study. There are four key
components that comprise the holistic and comprehensive support offered through outreach
programs and they are illustrated in Figure 13. The first key concept that should be implemented
in outreach programs that promotes student persistence is academic support. Research indicates
that the lack of academic preparation in high school coupled with inadequate tutoring can cause
students to leave STEM (Szelenyi et al., 2013). Thus, an examination of the types of academic
support provided by MESA, the nature of the programs, duration of support, and opportunities
for career training would be necessary to explore.
A second key concept that should be included in STEM outreach programs is social
support. Previous literature shows that collaboration with like-minded peers and role models,
may influence female students’ persistence in STEM (Griffith, 2010). It will be essential to
examine if and how MESA is providing females in STEM with opportunities to build meaningful
relationships with peers and faculty.
A third key concept emphasized in the conceptual model is motivational support.
Successful STEM outreach program should focus on the psychological elements that influence
the persistence of females in STEM. This includes female students’ self-efficacy, interest, and
motivation to persist in a male-dominated field (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013). Female students
are often discouraged from pursuing STEM majors by their instructors, which adversely impacts
their self-efficacy (Bayer, 2006). Females who can overcome their self-efficacy are faced with
societal norms that portray females as the caretaker in the household. Ultimately, personal utility
value for raising a family may conflict with students’ desire to achieve success in STEM (Xu &
Martin, 2011).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 131

The final concept that should be addressed in STEM outreach programs are the
networking and professional development opportunities. Female students are more likely to
have preconceived notions regarding what constitutes a STEM major and who works in STEM
fields (Bayer, 2006, Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012). Without being fully informed and exposed to
what STEM majors do, female students’ preconceptions about STEM may discourage them from
persisting in the field. Providing students with job-shadowing, career training, and internship
opportunities are features included in MESA, and they are important components to evaluate for
effectiveness.

Note: This figure illustrates effective elements in outreach programs.

Figure 13. Conceptual Framework of how Outreach Programs such as MESA Target
Disadvantaged Populations.

This chapter will contain a restatement of the guiding questions that framed the research
study and helped to contextualize the problem. Next, this chapter will include a review the
methodological design and instrumentation within the context of the participants, universities,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 132

and organizations involved in the study. Then, this chapter will provide an in -depth analysis of
the quantitative and qualitative data as they pertain to each research question. The discussion
will include the relevant themes that emerged from the analysis of the survey data and
participants’ interview responses. Finally, a summary of the key findings from the research
study and an introduction to Chapter Five will be included.
Guiding Questions
The following research questions served as the framework that guided the methodology
and design of this research study:
1. How is Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) being implemented by
university administrators and faculty at two- and four-year colleges to support the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged female students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
2. How do (did) educationally disadvantaged female students in higher education perceive
MESA has (had) influenced their graduation from STEM majors?
3. What resources from the MESA program are needed to influence the persistence and
retention of educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
4. How effective has the MESA program been for influencing the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the postsecondary level?
Research Study Participants
This study was completed with the support of the USC-MESA program directors.
Research participants were surveyed and interviewed based on availability during the data
gathering process. Electronic and pencil-and-paper surveys coupled with in-person and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 133

telephone interviews were used to help triangulate the data collected in order to present
descriptive information, reduce bias, and increase credibility and reliability of data (Creswell,
2014). Participants’ names have been kept anonymous for confidentiality and to ensure
authentic information was obtained. In addition, the school sites utilized in this study are
denoted by a qualifying descriptor such as “Site A.”
Participant Response Data
Surveys were distributed via a combination of stratified convenience sampling and
snowball sampling. To obtain a robust sample, 200 electronic surveys were distributed to female
participants at four public and private universities (Sites A-D) affiliated with the MESA program
via an email link. Using a stratified sampling approach, 50 electronic surveys were distributed
per four-year university. An additional 50 paper-and-pencil surveys were mailed to a two-year
community college (Site E) with an active MESA Community College Program (MCCP). Of the
250 surveys that were administered to former and current first-generation female MESA
participants, a total of 155 completed surveys were submitted electronically and/or returned by
mail. This yielded a 62% response rate of completion for all surveys that were administered.
Table 6 provides the demographic data of the university including a site description, site
location, MESA program type offered, and the breakdown of the response rate of completed
surveys.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 134

Table 6
Response Rate by College/University

Sites

Site
Description

Site
Location
MESA
Program(s)
Offered

Total Surveys
Distributed

Total Surveys
Collected

Response
Rate
A Private, 4-year Los Angeles MSP 50 40 80%
B Public, 4-year Los Angeles MSP 50 26 52%
C Public, 4-year Los Angeles MSP 50 31 62%
D Public, 4-year Long Beach MSP, MEP 50 27 54%
E Public, 2-year Ventura MCCP 50 31 62%
TOTAL 250 155 62%

From the table, it is apparent that the largest number of participants’ responses was
collected from Site A. This result is to be expected as Site A housed the USC-MESA program,
which is the organization that facilitated this research study. The lowest survey response rate
was obtained from Site B, followed closely by Site D. Both of these sites were included through
snowball sampling, thus it was much more difficult to regulate completion of the electronic
survey.
Quantitative Participant Demographics
Participants for this study were asked to respond to eight demographic questions in order
to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of the surveyed population. Table 7 provides
a list of the demographic data that were collected for the quantitative portion of the study. A
complete list of the survey questions asked with response choices is provided in Appendix D.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 135

Table 7
Demographic Data from Survey Instrument
Question Number Demographic Data Survey Questions
1 What is your gender?
2 Which MESA Program site have you been enrolled at?
3 What MESA Programs have you participated in?
4 Where do you (did you) attend college?
5 What is (was) your intended college major?
6 If you are currently enrolled in college, what year of school are
you in?
7 Are you the first person in your family to attend college?
8 If you are currently employed, what is your current profession?

In order to answer the research questions, participants were selected for the study based
on meeting a certain set of criteria. Once a sample population was identified, female participants
were recruited using a combination of convenience and snowball sampling facilitated through
USC-MESA program office. Survey participants were required to have been former graduates or
current members of a university-sponsored MESA Program (see Figure 14).
Figure 14 shows the distribution of survey responses by enrollment in each MESA
sponsored site. Figure 14 shows that 95 of the 155 female respondents, or 61.3%, were former
MESA graduates from Site A, the site that facilitated the research study and serves a diverse
community in the Greater Los Angeles region. The next largest group of respondents,
approximately 21.3%, were former or current members of the MESA Program affiliated with
Site E. This site was provided the paper-and-pencil surveys that were administered and collected
by an on-site MESA administrator. The remaining 17.4% of respondents comprised former or
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 136

current participants of university-sponsored MESA programs from Site B, Site C, and Site D or
other universities outside the Greater Los Angeles area.
In addition to indicating the university-sponsored site of the MESA Program, surveyed
participants were also asked to note the MESA program type – MESA Schools Program (MSP),
MESA Community College Program (MCCP), or MESA Engineering Program (MEP) – they
were a part of. The results in Figure 15 show the distribution of participation by the respective
MESA program type. An overwhelming 118 of 155 respondents, equivalent to 76.1%, indicated
they were former MSP participants. Additionally, 22.6% of respondents indicated they were
former or current members of the MCCP, while only 1.3% of participants reported being part of
the MEP. As the MSP is the most widely funded program type, and is the overrepresented at the
research study sites, these data are expected.

Figure 14. Survey Responses Showing the Distribution of Participants by School Site
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Other
Number of Responses
MESA Program Sites
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 137

Figure 15. Survey Responses Showing the Distribution of Participant Enrollment in MESA
Programs

All surveyed participants (100% of respondents) had to meet the conditions of being a
female, over the age of 18, and considered educationally disadvantaged. For the purposes of the
study, first-generation status referred to students who come from families without a college-
going history. Of the 155 survey responses received, 136 participants, equivalent to 85%,
reported that they were the first person in their family to attend college, while the remaining 15%
indicated they were not the first in their family to attend college.
While participants were mostly members of university-sponsored MESA programs in one
of the five study sites in Greater Los Angeles region, the distribution of colleges and universities
attended by participants was quite diverse. Figure 16 illustrates that more than half of the
females surveyed, about 56.2%, attended one of the University of California (UC) campuses or
one of the California State Universities (CSUs). Both of these state-based university systems are
public, four-year universities with several locations distributed throughout California. Slightly
less than a quarter, 23%, of survey participants indicated they attended a two-year community
college.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
MSP MCCP MEP
Number of Responses
MESA Program Types
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 138

Figure 16. Enrollment of Students by University

With regard to their year in school, nearly 81% of participants reported they were
undergraduates (Figure 17). Moreover, within this population, the largest subpopulation sampled
indicated they were enrolled in their second and third year of colleges, about 29.1% and 26.5%,
respectively. About 7% of the participants indicated they were graduate students, while the
remaining 11% stated they were college graduates. Furthermore, in order to ascertain whether
females were persisting in STEM majors, participants were asked about their (intended) majors
in college. Response data in Figure 18 showed that 45 survey participants, the largest number of
participants, reported declaring engineering (Eng) as their majors. This was followed by 28
participants indicating they declared biological sciences (Bio Sci) as their college majors. Five
participants, the smallest number of respondents, reported they intended to major in mathematics
(Math).

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
UC CSU USC Other 4-Yr 2-Yr Vocational
Number of Response
College or University Attended
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 139

Figure 17. Distribution of Students’ Year in School

Figure 18. Distribution of Students’ Majors in College

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Grad
Student
Other
Number of Responses
Year in School
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Eng Math Phys Sci Bio Sci Other Sci Non-Sci None
Number of Responses
College Major
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 140

The final demographic data question asked participants about their current professions.
This question was designed to see if university students and graduates were interning in STEM
fields or pursuing a career in STEM post-graduation. Respondents were directed to select the
single best response choice for this question. In other words, even if a student had multiple jobs,
i.e., student and tutor, they were informed to pick the one that best represents their profession at
the time of survey completion. Figure 19 demonstrates the highest number of respondents, 109
participants, 70.3%, reported their professions as student. Of the total 155 responses collected,
19 respondents, 12.3%, indicated they were professionals outside of the STEM field, while 14 of
the 155 total responses, or 9%, reported having a career as STEM professionals.

Figure 19. Distribution of Survey Respondents’ Careers

Qualitative Interviewee Description
Participants for the qualitative portion of the study were selected using purposive
convenience sampling using the volunteer pool of surveyed respondents who were willing to be
contacted for follow-up interviews. A total of 10 potential interview candidates were contacted
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Student Educator MESA Tutor STEM
Professional
Non-STEM
Professional
Number of Responses
Profession
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 141

by email invitation to participate in the interview, with ultimately, six participants responding
with dates and times to conduct the interviews. Potential interviewees were selected based on
demographic data, survey responses, and variable experiences in MESA females. All six
interview participants reported in survey data they were females, over the age of 18, and had at
one time during their educational careers participated in MESA. An overview of the participant
sample and data collected from interviews are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8
Interview Participants

Interview
Participants
MESA
Program
Affiliation

School Enrollment

Declared
Major

Reason for/against selecting
STEM major
Respondent 1

MSP
MCCP
3rd year transfer
undergraduate
UC campus
Mechanical
Engineering
Enjoyed mathematics in
middle school
Teacher Influence
Respondent 2

MSP 2nd year graduate
student
4-year public
university
Molecular
and Cell
Biology
Participated in MESA
science competitions
Enjoyed hands-on lab
experiences/field trips
Respondent 3

MSP
MEP
4th year
undergraduate
CSU campus
Civil
Engineering
High self-efficacy in
math and science
Parental influence
Respondent 4 MSP

2nd year graduate
student
4-year private
University

Counseling
Education
Negative teacher attitudes
Lack of role models
Difficulty with content

Respondent 5 MSP Graduated; Career
Professional in
Education

Education Lack of role models
Desired having work/life
balance

Respondent 6 MSP
MCCP
2nd year
undergraduate
2-year community
college
Physics Friends were in MESA
MESA events

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 142

Table 8 illustrated the commonalities and differences among the participant interviews
that are highlighted below. Collectively, the interviewees ranged from community college
students to career professionals. Interviewees attended both private and public universities
within the Greater Los Angeles Region. Four of the six participants stated they intended to
major in a STEM discipline, while two indicated a career in education. All six of the
interviewees reported membership and participants in the MSP Pre-college Program. However,
during the interview process, it was ascertained that three respondents were also current
participants in a university-sponsored MESA Program Type. Interview Respondent 1 and
Interview Respondent 6 indicated they were current members of the MCCP, while Interview
Respondent 3 is currently in MEP. These same respondents described themselves as
undergraduates in their third or fourth years of college with declared majors in STEM. Interview
Respondent 2 and Interview Respondent 4 reported they were graduate students enrolled at the
same private, four-year university in non-STEM disciplines. Interview Respondent 2 had
declared a major in a biological science field, while Interview Respondent 4 reported being in the
educational counseling program. Interview Respondent 5 was the only interviewee that was a
career professional who had graduated with a university degree.
Reporting of Results
Through analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data, several themes emerged
that are imperative to discuss in order to better understand the experiences of female graduates of
MESA and their persistence in STEM at the postsecondary and career level. The data was
disaggregated by research question and will be presented as such in order to generate a clear
picture of the emerging themes from this study. Moreover, for each research question, the
findings for quantitative data will be presented first, and then subsequently, the qualitative
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 143

findings will be presented to supplant and make meaning from the survey data. Closed-ended
quantitative data were analyzed by coding each Likert-type response into a numerical value in
SPSS. The respective codes were as follows: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree 3=Neutral,
4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree. Open-ended responses were analyzed in EXCEL using the
constant comparative method to identify patterns in the response data. Qualitative data was
analyzed using the constant comparative method and a constructivist lens. As the knowledge
garnered is socially constructed by all individuals who are active in the study, a constructivist
lens assumes there are multiple socially constructed realities, and therefore, it is improbable there
is only one true answer to explain what is occurring within the study phenomenon.
Research Question 1
How is Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) being implemented by university
administrators and faculty at two- and four-year colleges to support the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged female students in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
The instruments that were used to determine the factors underlying the effectiveness of
MESA for promoting educationally disadvantaged females in STEM included surveys
administered through both electronic and paper-and-pencil formats and in-person and over-the-
phone interviews. Together, the quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to Research
Question 1 were synthesized and analyzed to understand how MESA is being implemented at
two-and four-year higher education institutions.
Prior to exploring the stories and perceptions of former female MESA graduates, it was
imperative to elicit some baseline data about the three MESA programs. This baseline data was
best obtained through a survey because it could easily be administered to a large population and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 144

would help generalize participants’ feelings regarding how the MESA program operates at
higher education institutions, and whether there were components of MESA that were more or
less effective. There were four survey items that specifically pertained to how MESA is
implemented in higher education and these survey questions were separated into subscale one in
SPSS during data analysis in order to address Research Question 1. Combined, these four
research questions provide relevant data as to how two- and four-year colleges are using MESA
to support their female students in STEM degree programs. The survey questions that served to
inform Research Question 1 were 9, 16, 21, and 22. The survey questions corresponding to these
numbers are listed below:
9. The MESA teachers I had in middle school, high school, and college cared about my
educational experiences.
16. The MESA program and staff continued to support me (academically, emotionally,
socially) while I pursued my college degree.
21. MESA staff recruits former MESA students to volunteer in university events such as
campus visits, tutoring, mentoring, etc.
22. The MESA program introduced me to role models and mentors in the STEM field.
Response data pertaining to these survey questions were disaggregated from the entire
dataset and then were analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS generated for the subscale.
For the subscale pertaining to Research Question 1, the data showed a mean score of 3.96
(SD = 0.61, N = 155). Table 9 provides the complete output of descriptive statistics for the
subscale. The data suggests that the average number of survey respondents that participated in
this research study were in agreement with the survey questions related to how MESA is being
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 145

implemented at colleges and universities. Response data showed that participants’ responses
ranged from a minimum score of 2.50 to a maximum of 5.00.
In addition to generating the descriptive statistics for the subscale of survey questions,
SPSS was used to determine the Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal reliability. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the four items consisting the subscale measuring Research Question 1 was
calculated to be 0.64. This value shows that there was a moderate level of interconnectedness
between survey items. This is to be expected as the survey instrument utilized in this study was

Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale One

Research Question N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
1: How MESA is
implemented at colleges
and universities?
155 2.50 5.00 3.96* .61*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree,
2=Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

self-generated and has only been utilized for this research study. The instrument was not an
established tool that has undergone rigorous assessment and calibration. A higher alpha value
could have been obtained by eliminating one or more of the survey items, but for the purposes of
this study, it was important to get the greatest amount of data, thus the alpha value is considered
acceptable.
Analyzing the data for each of the survey questions within this scale provides further
insight into the participants’ responses pertaining to how MESA is implemented in higher
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 146

education. Table 10 shows the descriptive statistics for individual survey questions within
subscale one.

Table 10
Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale One
Survey Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
9 155 3 5 4.45 .63*
16 155 2 5 3.74 1.12*
21 155 1 5 3.75 .95*
22 155 1 5 3.89 .97*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree,
2=Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

The results indicated that the mean responses for all four questions range from 3.74 to
4.45 (N = 155). Survey item 9, had the highest reported mean score (M = 4.45, SD = .63,
N = 155) of all the subscale items. The mean score suggests, that on average, participants
indicated some degree of agreement that their MESA teachers in secondary and postsecondary
education cared about students’ educational experiences. This idea is further supported by the
range in responses, which indicated that no participants reported a response of “Disagree” or
“Strongly Disagree.”
Survey item 16 had the lowest reported mean score (M = 3.74, SD = 1.12, N = 155). This
item was designed to assess whether females continued to receive academic, social, and
emotional support through MESA in higher education. The distribution of responses ranged
from a minimum of 2, corresponding to “Disagree” to a maximum of 5, corresponding to
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 147

“Strongly Agree.” For item 16, the standard deviation was highest, thus suggesting there was a
greater degree of variability in responses.
The mean score of survey item 21 was determined to be 3.75 (SD = .95, N = 155). The
item sought to understand if MESA in higher education settings, recruits former members to
participate in MESA university-sponsored events. A mean score of 3.75 suggests a higher than
neutral response, leaning towards agreement. However, the range in responses from 1 to 5 show
there was some variability in responses.
The final item on this subscale was survey item 22. This item was included to ascertain
whether MESA programs in higher education were introducing female students’ to mentors and
role models in STEM. Similar to the previous two items, the mean score of 3.89 (SD = .97,
N = 155) suggests a response between neutral and “Agree,” slightly leaning toward “Agree.”
The range in responses for this item span from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5.
Linear regression analysis was used to test whether MESA program type (MSP, MCCP,
or MEP) significantly predicted university implementation. The results of the regression
indicated a significant regression equation was found (F(1, 152) = 5.95, p <0.016), with an R
2
of
0.04. These results suggest that MESA program type significantly predicted university
implementation of MESA support systems (β = .19, p<.016). Regression analysis also showed
that pre-college MESA site was a statistically significant predictor of MESA program
implementation (R
2
= .05, F(1,152)=2.90, p<0.004). The MESA sites that participants’ were
enrolled in significantly predicted how MESA operated at the university level (β = .23, p<.004).
A correlation analysis showed a significant, positive correlation between MESA
university implementation and females’ perceptions of STEM, r=.52, p < .01. There was also a
significant correlation between available resources and university implementation, r=.57,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 148

p < .01. Finally, university MESA implementation and retention of females in STEM were
positively correlated, r=.54, p < .01.
Overall, the survey items pertaining to Research Question 1 show that former and current
female MESA participants tended to indicate some agreement that MESA is being implemented
effectively at the higher education level. Participants indicated the highest level of agreement
that MESA teachers and faculty cared about their education experiences in middle school
through college. Participants indicated less agreement with the items assessing whether MESA
continued to support female students during college, recruited former MESA students to
participate in university events, or introduced students to role models in STEM. Moreover, their
significant relationship between MESA implementation at the university level and females’
persistence in STEM majors. These data indicate that students’ experiences in MESA within the
higher education setting are unique and their respective experiences are accounting for their
responses.
Qualitative interview data reinforce the notion that participants’ experiences with MESA
at the university level are highly variable and unique. Key findings from the interview data
reveal there were four themes that emerged from the data. Table 11 shows a summary of the key
findings, frequency of occurrence and respective definitions.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 149

Table 11
Key Findings Related to Research Question One

Key Findings
Number of
Responses

Definition
Lack of
Inclusion
2 Refers to feelings of being the only female in STEM courses, lack of sense
of belonging in STEM, and isolation in the major.
Program
Type
5 Includes the various type of MESA Program participants’ were members of –
MSP, MCCP or MEP.
Academic
Support
5 Refers to remediation in math and science skills improvement in grades, peer
tutoring, college and career training, and study skills acquisition that resulted
from participation in MESA.
Networking 5 Refers to making connections, developing relationships, and securing future
job opportunities by interactions in STEM.

Among the findings that emerged, results from interview data suggested that MESA
program type influences females’ experiences in STEM and their perceptions of MESA in higher
education. That is, female interview respondents alluded to differences in program availability
of MESA based on higher education institution attended. To an extent, the qualitative data
explained the neutrality of the survey data, with the exception of the first survey item within
subscale one.
When participants had access to MESA in higher education, the female interview
respondents reported access to academic and networking support that enhanced STEM
experiences in the major. However, where no institutional support existed, MESA was not
offered to females in STEM. For students who were prior MSP members, the absence of MESA
in higher education was a source of frustration and led to more challenges within the STEM
major.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 150

Female participants who attended two-year community college and participated in the
MESA Community College Program (MCCP) reported positive experiences with STEM and the
MESA program. For example, Interview Respondent 6, an aspiring physics major currently
enrolled at a two-year college, stated the following when asked about how supported she felt in
STEM:
I think it really depends on the college you go to. The MCCP at my college emphasizes
academic tutoring in math and science so that we have the skills to transfer to a four-year
college. We also have close connections with the faculty that allows us to form a
network. Finally, there are opportunities like volunteering to be a STEM tutor which
helped you realize if you really want to go into the field.
The previous respondent emphasized the academic support, close relationships with
faculty, and extracurricular opportunities available through MCCP, which operates at two-year
higher education institutions. Similarly, Interview Respondent 3, a fourth-year senior enrolled in
a four-year university reported feeling supported through the MEP program. She stated,
MESA at my university helped me connect to other student organizations (SHPE, SWE,
NSBE, etc.), mentoring programs (JUMP), tutoring, and much more. Personally, I was
heavily involved with the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE). MESA
provided mentorship, professional and leadership development, and most importantly, it
helped me create a professional network that I continue to utilize.
Thus, the MESA program in higher education can be a form of academic, social, and career
support for females in STEM if colleges and universities are implementing them.
However, not all higher education institutions are providing females with opportunities to
participate in MESA. The lack of MESA programs in larger four-year universities was described
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 151

by Interview Respondent 2. She explained that while in MSP in high school, she felt empowered
to study STEM, but later realized that at her university, no such program existed. She said the
following during her interview when asked to describe her experiences with STEM in higher
education:
I became part of MESA in ninth grade and continued until college. Back in the late 90's,
belonging to MESA felt empowering as a young girl. I felt that I was equal in
intelligence as my male peers. At my university, there was no MESA program, and I felt
I could have used some academic support and networking connection in my major. I felt
I was on my own, particularly when searching for laboratory experience. I was not
accepted into a single lab position to which I applied.
Interview Respondent 2 brings up the notion that she felt isolated and alone once at the
university, a sentiment that was reiterated several times throughout the interview process.
Another aspect of her response that was noteworthy was the lack of academic support that was
offered to her in the STEM major. Finally, Interview Respondent 2 suggested the lack of
networking due to an absence of MESA in higher education led to an inability to obtain relevant
laboratory experience. Despite these challenges, Interview Respondent 2 is currently pursuing a
STEM major, but suggested, “My interest in STEM and support from my friends within this
major have kept me going.”
Interview Respondent 5, a former MSP member and university graduate who is now
working in education reiterated some of the same concerns about the absence of MESA in higher
education. She offered the following description:
Once I got to the university scene, I didn't feel very supported by MESA anymore and the
classes in these areas were very male dominated! I even felt like the professors favored
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 152

more of the men in class. My growth mindset took a dip and so I decided to change
majors.
Similar to Interview Respondent 2, Interview Respondent 5 shared a similar story about
not being supported by MESA at the four-year university level. Both Respondents attended
large, public universities in California; one attended a CSU, while the other attended a UC.
Neither of these institutions offer MESA Programs for undergraduates, which corroborates their
experiences.
However, unlike the previous respondent’s experience, Interview Respondent 5 reported
a sentiment of male-dominance in STEM. The sense of male-favoritism in her STEM classes in
higher education ultimately impeded her ability to persevere in STEM. Interview Respondent 5
continued,
My dad, who is of Mexican descent, also encouraged me that going into a profession in
that area would take longer and he could not keep helping me out and it really was
careers for boys! He encouraged me to pursue a career that was more ‘woman dominate’
such as a social worker, teacher, or something in the arts!
Interview Respondent 5 decided to leave STEM as a result of familial persuasion and
personal responsibilities. She suggested that her family believed a career in STEM would
require excessive time and resources, thus was not worth the utility value. Due to the pressures
from her family coupled with the lack of support received in higher education, Interview
Respondent 5 is a prime example of a female who had the interest in STEM, but left the pipeline
prior to obtaining a degree. In her current job as an educator, she stated, “I've been thinking of
going to school to get a single subject in math or science! My interest is still high even though I
took a different route with my career choice. I attribute that to MESA.” Her experience in
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 153

STEM may offer insight into why other females do not persist in STEM. Had MESA been
offered at her university, Interview Respondent 5 may have had the support needed to overcome
the personal and academic challenges she faced.
Research Question 2:
How do (did) educationally disadvantaged female students in higher education perceive MESA
has (had) influenced their graduation from STEM majors?
The second research question focused on obtaining the perceptions of the former and
current females’ regarding the effectiveness of the MESA program on their persistence in STEM
majors. There were five closed-ended survey items that addressed Research Question 2, and
they were disaggregated during the data analysis phase to create subscale two. The five items
correspond to items 15, 18, 19, 20, and 24 on the survey instrument. There was also one open-
ended item that was coded that directly addressed Research Question 2, which corresponded to
question 27 on the survey instrument. Together these six survey items elicited females’ beliefs
of the MESA program and its influence on their decision to continue in STEM majors and
careers. Listed below are the five closed-ended survey items and one open-ended survey item
has an asterisk and bold text pertaining to Research Question 2:
15. I have positive attitude toward math and science courses because of my experiences in
the MESA program.
18. Females are less likely to graduate and be scientists or engineers than males.
19. I'm confident in my ability to network and form connections because of the preparation I
received in MESA.
20. I am confident that I could pursue a career in STEM as a result of being in MESA.
24. I would encourage other students to participate in MESA while in college.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 154

*27. Please describe your personal and educational experiences with the MESA
program.*
The data indicated that for the 155 participant responses, the mean score for subscale two
was 3.75 (SD = .54). The distribution of participants’ responses range from a minimum score of
2.20 to a maximum score of 5.00. Detailed descriptive statistics for the subscale pertaining to
Research Question 2 can be found in Table 12. A mean score of 3.75 (SD = .54, N = 155)
suggests that former and current MESA females had some degree of agreement that MESA
positively impacted their persistence in STEM majors.

Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Two

Research Question N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
2: How do females
perceive MESA
impacted graduation in
STEM majors.
155 2.20 5.00 3.75* .54*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree,
2= Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

The Cronbach’s alpha for the five closed-ended items within subscale two was
determined to be .62. Accordingly, the alpha value suggests that the closed-ended items on this
subscale have a moderate internal reliability. A value of .62 indicates that generally, the items in
subscale two are measuring the same construct. In essence, this is an acceptable level of internal
reliability for this research study and the alpha value confirms that the items are assessing what
they were intended to measure.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 155

The closed-ended survey items were analyzed individually for descriptive statistics and
the data are included in Table 13. Examining the results by survey item showed that the mean
for each of the items ranged from 2.70 to 4.66, with two items, numbers 15 and 24, indicating
mean scores above 4.00. Survey item 15 was included in the instrument to determine if female
MESA participants attributed to having a positive attitude toward math and science as a result of
MESA. The results of this item (M = 4.19, SD = .82, N = 155) suggested that the average
number of responses indicated an agreement with the aforementioned statement.

Table 13
Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale Two
Survey Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
15 155 2 5 4.19 .82*
18 155 1 5 2.70 1.50*
19 155 1 5 3.68 1.02*
20 155 1 5 3.43 1.08*
24 155 3 5 4.66 .52*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree,
2= Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

Item number 18 had the lowest mean score within subscale two. This item elicited
participants’ perceptions of who is likely to become a STEM worker. Specifically, the statement
asserted that females are less likely to pursue STEM than males. The results showed (M = 2.70,
SD = 1.50, N = 155) that females generally indicated a level of disagreement with this notion.
The range in responses from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of a 5, reveals there is variability in
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 156

the female MESA respondents’ beliefs about who can be or who is traditionally classified as a
STEM worker.
For items 19 and 20 on the survey instrument, the mean scores showed that participants
somewhat agree about their confidence with regard to their abilities to network and form
connection, and their ability to pursue a STEM career as a direct result of being in MESA. Item
19 measured whether females felt they could network in STEM based on the preparation they
received from MESA, and the results showed the average response was 3.68 (SD = 1.02,
N = 155). The results from item 20, females’ perceptions of their confidence in pursuing STEM
careers, was found to be slightly lower with a mean of 3.43 (SD = 1.08, N = 155). Both survey
items had a range in scores from a minimum value of 1, implying “Strongly Disagree” to a high
score of 5, indicating “Strongly Agree.”
The final closed-ended item in this subscale was item 24. The mean score for this item
was 4.66 (SD = .52, N = 155) and this is the highest mean score for all the items on this subscale.
Item 24 was designed to see if former and current MESA female students would recommend that
others participate in MESA during college. A mean score of 4.66 indicates that participants of
this study agreed, and many strongly agreed, that they would encourage their peers to participate
in MESA during college. Interesting to note, the range for this survey item was from a minimum
of 3 to a maximum of 5. Thus, the minimum range is evidence to show that for all 155
participants of this survey, none indicated any degree of disagreement with encouraging others to
join MESA in higher education.
A regression analysis revealed there were two predicting variables that had a statistically
significant relationship with females’ perceptions of the impact of MESA on persistence and
graduation in STEM majors. For the 155 participants of this study, the MESA program type and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 157

the MESA pre-college site showed a low positive correlation that was statistically significant.
Pre-college university site was a statistically significant predictor of females’ persistence in
STEM (R
2
= .05, F(1, 152)= 8.14, β =.07 p<0.005). In addition, the MESA program type that
participants’ were members of also was a significant predictor of their decision to stay in STEM
majors until graduation (F(1, 152) = 8.63, p <0.004), with an R
2
of 0.05. These results suggested
that MESA program type significantly predicted graduation in STEM (β = .23, p<.004). A
significant regression equation was found (F(1, 152) = 23.89, p < .000), with an R
2
of 0.20 for
college major selected. That is, program type was found to be a significant predictor of the
college major (β = .37, p < .000).
Correlation analysis was conducted in SPSS and revealed that university implementation
of MESA was significantly correlated to females’ perceptions of their increased retention in
STEM, r = .57, p < .01. Furthermore, females’ perceptions of their own retention in STEM and
their overall persistence in STEM were positively correlated, r =.59, p < .01. MESA Program
type and females’ perceptions of STEM was significantly correlated, r =.23, p < .01.
An optional open-ended response pertaining to Research Question 2 asked participants to
describe their experiences with the MESA program. The open-ended item, corresponding to
item 27 on the survey instrument, was added specifically to elicit participants’ perceptions of the
MESA program in their own words. Additionally, this allowed participants to specify
components of the program that were not addressed in the closed-item responses. There were 81
participants who responded to this optional item, but only 69 of the responses were included.
This yielded an 85% completion rate for those that attempted to answer this optional item.
Responses that were denoted with a “N/A” or “not applicable” were disregarded, as were item
responses that were left blank. Four key findings related to Research Question 2 emerged from
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 158

the response data and these are shown in Table 14. In addition, Table 14 provides a definition of
the key findings used to code the data, shows the number of survey responses for each theme,
and examples of open-ended responses provided by the survey respondents.

Table 14
Open-Ended Example of Survey Participant Data for Subscale Two

Key Findings
Number of
Responses

Definition

Example(s) of Participant Response
Motivation 9 Includes active choice,
persistence, and mental effort.
Also, includes self-confidence
in STEM and self-identity or
the ability to view oneself as a
STEM major/professional.
“MESA has motivated me, and has enlightened
me of the various facets of STEM, as well as
proven that engineers aren’t limited to any one
race or gender.”

“I am the first to attend college from my family.
The MESA program has helped me maintain
focused and motivated.”
STEM
Learning
Experiences
17 Includes both the classroom
and outside learning
opportunities such as field
trips, competitions,
networking, etc. Refers to
both the positive and negative
experiences that
encouraged/inhibited STEM
persistence.
“The fun competitions, field trips, and
experiences I had in the MESA program
inspired me to achieve more. Because of this
program, I want to be an engineer to design
rides at theme parks.”

“This program has introduced me to
opportunities I didn’t have before. Networking
amongst MESA has given me the opportunity to
acquire an internship working in a STEM field.”

Academic
Support
21 Refers to remediation in math
and science skills
improvement in grades, peer
tutoring, college and career
training, and study skills
acquisition that resulted from
participation in MESA.
“The MESA program provided me with
supplemental support in math and science
during middle and high school that I would not
have been able to receive elsewhere. The
program made it possible for me to pursue a
college education.”

“Ever since I’ve been with MESA, my good
grades stay consistent because of the support
they provide.”

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 159

Table 14 (Cont’d.)

Key Findings
Number of
Responses

Definition

Example(s) of Participant Response
Social
Support
22 Includes the environment of
success created through
networking, interactions with
like-minded peers,
overcoming isolation, and
shared interests in STEM.
“The MESA program allowed me to make more
friendships with others who share my interest in
STEM, and thus helped start my networking
process.”

“Encouraged me to excel in my classes and
created an environment of success.”

From Table 14, it is clear that female respondents in this study felt MESA supported their
persistence and graduation in STEM through fostering motivation, creating relevant learning
experiences in STEM, providing academic support, and encouraging positive interaction with
peers in STEM. Consistent with the previously discussed quantitative findings pertaining to
Research Question 2, there are indications in the open-ended responses that former and current
students of MESA feel the program positively influenced their persistence and retention in
STEM majors. For example, one survey respondent recalled how MESA was a key factor in
helping her persist in STEM. She stated:
MESA has greatly helped me achieve my goals as a STEM major. It was a place I could
engage with like-minded students. I studied here for countless hours and got tutoring
help. I learned from internships and it has been a saving grace as a female in a STEM
major, which at first seemed daunting.
This excerpt is one of several that explicitly reflect how MESA was important to females’
success and retention in STEM. Interview responses echoed the sentiments shared in the open-
ended survey responses. Interview Respondent 3 shared the following about MESA:
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 160

MESA program really helped me understand hands-on science at a level that was fairly
easy to understand and to hone in on skills such as deductive reasoning, precision, and
most of all creativity. Many of the skills I learned during my time in MSP, I still use in
MEP and in my STEM education.
Interview Respondent 3 reiterated the importance of learning skills through MESA that she now
feels support her success in STEM.
One of the themes that was uncovered through both the open-ended survey responses and
interview data was how female respondents reported increased self-confidence and self-efficacy
from participating in MESA. One anonymous survey response stated the following:
When I first joined MESA I didn't know what I was capable of doing. I thought of
myself as just ‘the girl with the good grades,’ but throughout my years in the MESA
program, I learned that I was more than that, I was a resilient young girl with high goals
to achieve in STEM.
The above excerpt from the female survey respondent exemplifies how female MESA
participants felt empowered and motivated through gaining self-confidence through the program.
Interview respondents shared similar feelings about increased self-confidence in STEM
as a result of MESA. For example, Interview Respondent 4 stated, “MESA encouraged me and
gave me the confidence needed to continue in the [STEM] field because it is hard to be a girl in
STEM.” However, some participants indicated that it was a combination of personal motivation
and participation in MESA that motivated them to stay in STEM majors. For example, Interview
Respondent 1 stated the following when asked why she chose to stay in STEM:
I believe it’s a mix between my support system in MESA and my personal drive. I had
two amazing female engineering friends who were facing the same struggles as I and that
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 161

honestly helped immensely. Additionally, receiving my degree in engineering was a goal
of mine and I was willing to put in the work to reach that.
Thus, as the data reflected, females attribute MESA to increased self-confidence and motivation
to pursue STEM majors, even if it was coupled with personal goals.
Another theme that emerged from the survey and interview data was female participants
of MESA reported the experiences they had within the program influenced their decision to stay
in STEM majors. Female participants indicated that relevant experiences within MESA were
important to their retention in STEM. An anonymous survey respondent said, “Through MESA
activities and field trips I gained not only more experiences related to a science or health field,
but I also gained leadership skills that I still value to this day.” Yet, while many females
reported positive learning experiences in MESA, some indicated that positive experiences alone
was not enough to keep them in STEM majors.
One survey respondent suggested, “I loved the STEM field in high school and MESA
allowed me to express that. I wish the program had provided professional development
opportunities. I had the passion, but not the confidence to pursue STEM.” Despite enjoying
MESA in high school, and having passion for the STEM field, this student still left the STEM
pipeline. Still others reported neutral to negative experiences with MESA at the university level.
Interview Respondent 6 said, “The MESA program at my community college focused too
heavily on engineering and ignored the physical sciences. Therefore, as a student, I received
little support in my field.” The above excerpt suggests that specific majors within STEM can be
more emphasized than others. If students are not receiving the opportunities or support they feel
they need from MESA, their perceptions of their own retention in STEM are ultimately affected
by these experiences.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 162

An additional theme that emerged related to Research Question 2 was how females felt
that their retention in STEM was supported through the academic support they received through
MESA. One survey response indicated, “MESA taught me to plan out and fulfill a hypothesis
using the scientific method. As well as not giving up when the experiment goes wrong, but to try
and try again.” The skills that were reinforced through MESA were essential to preparing
students for STEM majors. Interview Respondent 4 reiterated how the skills that were taught in
MESA were valuable when pursuing STEM in college. She stated, “MESA prepared me with
the following through workshops that were offered: time management and scheduling,
balancing social life and school, help seeking for resources, tutoring, and meeting
deadlines.” The academic support and skill development provided by MESA ensured
students were successful and college and career ready.
The final theme that emerged relevant to Research Question 2 was the social connections
that were fostered through MESA. Female participants valued the ability to have a community
or network in the STEM majors. One survey respondent suggested, “The MESA program
allowed me to interact with other like-minded individuals.” The ability to connect with peers in
the same field appeared to be a significant factor in females’ retention in STEM. Interview
Respondent 2 elaborated on the importance of having a network in STEM. She said,
I have many female friends who have graduated from STEM. However, I think I was
surrounded by many self-motivated students. If my major had less females, I could see
feeling more isolated and less supported. It could make it harder to stay in the major.
Females felt that surrounding oneself with a community of support from peers, faculty, and
mentors was essential for their retention in STEM majors.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 163

Research Question 3
What resources from the MESA program are needed to influence the persistence and retention of
educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the postsecondary level?
Research Question 3 sought to determine the resources that are currently utilized by two-
and four-year college and university MESA programs to support females in their pursuit of
STEM majors. In addition, this research question also looked at what resources might be needed
to better support females in STEM that are not currently being implemented by MESA.
Specifically, these survey items were looking to confirm the previous literature that emphasized
the importance of academic, social, and emotional support systems that are needed to motivate
female students in the pursuit of STEM majors. There were five closed-ended survey items,
along with one optional open-ended survey question, which sought to answer this research
question. These items constituted subscale three and they are listed below (an asterisk and bold
text indicates an optional open-ended response):
10. The MESA program provided me with opportunities to network with like-minded people.
11. I have increased self-efficacy (self-confidence) because of the emotional support I
received in the MESA program.
13. I attribute the grades I earned in college to the academic support and skills I was taught in
the MESA program.
14. I am interested in the STEM field because of my academic, social, and networking
experiences in the MESA program.
17. The supplemental opportunities (competitions, events, campus visits, etc.) offered by
MESA influenced my decision to pursue a STEM major.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 164

*29. In your opinion, what program aspects (resources, support, etc.) could be
improved to make MESA more effective?
Subscale three had an average mean score of 4.02 (SD = .53, N =155). This score hovers
right at the point value corresponding to “Agree” suggesting that, on average, participants felt
they were adequately supported by university sponsored MESA programs. The complete set of
descriptive statistics are included in Table 15 for reference. From the table, it is evident that the
range in responses were from a minimum of 2.40 to a maximum of 5.00 for the 155 responses
included in the study.

Table 15
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Three

Research Question N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
3: Resources needed to
support females in
STEM in higher
education?
155 2.40 5.00 4.02* .53*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree,
2= Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

The Cronbach’s alpha for subscale three was calculated in SPSS. The alpha value was
determined to be .62, which is the same value for internal reliability as for subscale two. An
alpha value of .62 indicates there is an appropriate level of internal consistency between the five
closed-ended survey items. It also indicates that the items constituting subscale three are
measuring the same construct, and that is important for ensuring the items in the survey are
measuring what they were intended to measure.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 165

Each survey question in subscale three was designed to assess whether a resource was
being utilized by MESA to support females in STEM, or to determine if there was a lack of
resources that were implemented by MESA at the university level. Moreover, items within
subscale three sought to determine which, if any, of the available resources students found most
effective. Table 16 shows the means, standard deviations, and range for each of the survey items
in subscale three. From the table, it is clear that the average response for the survey items in
subscale three ranges from 3.71 to 4.30. This reaffirms that participants in this study showed
some level of agreement when asked about whether they felt supported by MESA program while
studying STEM.

Table 16
Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale Three
Survey Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
10 155 2 5 4.30 .70*
11 155 1 5 4.19 .72*
13 155 1 5 3.76 .94*
14 155 2 5 4.12 .80*
17 155 2 5 3.71 .98*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

Survey item 10 asked participants whether they felt that MESA allowed for opportunities
to connect with like-minded individuals. The mean score for this item was a 4.30 (SD = .70,
N = 155) and it was the highest reported mean of all the survey items in this subscale. The range
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 166

in values was from a minimum of 2.00 to a maximum of 5.00, suggesting that no participants
indicated “Strongly Disagree” for this survey item. The mean value is above 4.00, thus
demonstrating that female participants felt they were given chances through MESA to network
with other STEM individuals
The next item to be discussed corresponds to survey item 11. This item was included to
determine whether females reported higher self-efficacy from participating in the MESA
program. Participants received a definition of self-efficacy in order to ensure they understood
the concept being addressed. For this item, the mean was determined to be 4.19 (SD = .72,
N = 155), while the range was from 1.00 to 5.00. The mean value suggests that, on average,
participants agreed that their self-efficacy improved as a result of the emotional support received
through MESA.
The next item, 13, within subscale in three focused on learning whether females who
participated in MESA attributed their college grades to the academic support they were taught in
the MESA program. The mean for survey item 13 was determined to be 3.76 (SD = .94,
N = 155). In addition, the range for the data included a minimum of 1.00 to a maximum of 5.00.
The descriptive statistics for item 13 suggested that females who participated in MESA ranged
from neutral to somewhat agreeing that MESA played a role in the grades they earned in their
college STEM courses. However, the mean for this item is slightly lower than the previous two
items indicating that participants did not agree as strongly about the impact of MESA on their
grades as they did for the networking and emotional support they received.
Item 14 within subscale three sought to determine whether females were more interested
in STEM because of their participation in the MESA programs. For this item, the mean was
found to be 4.12 (SD = .80, N = 155) and this shows that females agreed that their interest in
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 167

STEM was attributed to the academic, social, and networking support from MESA. However,
on average, females did not indicate the same level of agreement with this item as survey items
10 and 11.
The final closed-ended item in this subscale was item 17. This item was created to
understand whether MESA competitions, events, and campus tours influenced females to pursue
STEM. From Table 16, it can be seen that the mean for this item was 3.71 (SD = .98, N = 155),
while the range was found to span from 2.00, corresponding to “Disagree” to 5.00,
corresponding to “Strongly Agree.” This mean was the lowest of all the items for subscale three,
and indicates there is a portion of the participants who were neutral, but slightly leaned toward
agreeing with the item. Thus, though students somewhat agreed that the competitions led them
to pursue STEM, it was not as strong a factor as the networking and emotional support they
received from MESA.
A regression analysis for this subscale indicated a significant regression was found (F(1,
152) = 9.75, p < .002), with an R
2
of 0.06 for MESA program type. That is, program type was
found to be a significant predictor of the types of resources offered by the MESA program
(β = .25, p < .002).
Correlation analysis found there was a significant relationship between the number of
resources and persistence in STEM, r = .56, p < .01. The types of resources offered was also
significantly correlated to university implementation of the MESA program, r = .57, p < .01.
One optional open-ended question was included in subscale three. The question asked
participants to share the resources they believed MESA should include at the university level to
support females’ persistence in STEM majors. A total of 50 responses were received for this
optional item on the survey. Of the 50 responses, 37 were analyzed, yielding a 74% response
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 168

rate for those that attempted to answer this item. The remaining 13 responses were omitted from
the survey as they were either blank or indicated a response of “N/A.” A summary table of the
key findings from the open-ended response is included in Table 17.

Table 17
Open-Ended Example of Survey Participant Data for Subscale Three
Emerging
Themes
Number of
Responses
Definition Example(s) of Participant Response
Mentoring 6 Includes the importance of
faculty-student interaction,
access to STEM professionals,
and alumni connections.
“I would love having a closer relationship
with my STEM professors. I wish MESA
could help foster more faculty-student
interaction.”

“Networking with STEM professionals
would be nice, or with companies. So
getting more guest speakers.”
Same Gender
Role Models
7 Refers to the need to see more
females in STEM courses and
the desire to have female
mentors to develop self-
identity.
“I wish I had more female professors in
chemical engineering.”

“My favorite part of MESA was that I am
surrounded by other females who love
science. MESA should try to introduce to
more professionals who are females.”

Professional
Development
10 Involves the desire for more
opportunities in college to
attend relevant conferences,
job shadow, engage in
professional development,
and interact with STEM
professionals.
“Have events that encourage students to
pursue careers in STEM as well as more
clubs that students are interested in.”

“There needs to be more conferences at the
community college. We need to be exposed
to the careers in STEM.”
Financial
Assistance
14 Refers to the need for
additional funding sources to
support new study facilities,
textbooks, staff, and expansion
of MESA in higher education.
“MCCP needs more funding to pay more
tutors, more resources, more opportunities
to attend conferences and allow more
students to go on the trips.”

“We need a better MESA office to study in
because right now we don’t have
technology, books or space.”

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 169

Table 17 showed there are four main types of resources females feel are essential
components of MESA. Interview data corroborates these themes as well. To effectively support
females in their pursuit of STEM majors, MESA should include mentoring, role models,
professional development, and financial support. Interesting to note, survey data indicated
females only slightly agreed with the notion that the grades they earned were attributed to the
academic support provided by MESA. However, when asked about the resources that MESA
should offer, very few participants mentioned needing academic support. As shown in the table,
academic support was not one of the resources females desired from MESA in higher education..
Female participants believed it is important to have professional mentors from the STEM
field in order to support their persistence in STEM. While survey data indicates that females
reported they had opportunities to network with like-minded individuals, detailed responses
suggested that females desire having professional mentors from the field. Interview Respondent
4 summarized the need for mentoring in the following passage:
By reaching out further to professors in STEM about presenting how STEM has affected
their lives, to not only create a more well-established relationship between professor and
student, but to also approach students more directly about how interesting a degree/career
in STEM can be.
In order to see how applicable STEM can be in the real world, females need to be shown
explicitly how STEM impacts their daily lives through mentors in the profession. Interview data
suggested that peer mentoring could also be a useful tool for allowing females an outlet to seek
help when necessary. Interview Respondent 1 stated the following:
There should be peer mentoring and more opportunities to engage in research with
faculty. I wish there were alumni or graduate students who could just give me advice
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 170

about what courses to take or what to expect in engineering. It’s easier to ask a mentor
than an advisor or faculty because they have actually experienced the courses and know
what it is like.
In addition to peer mentoring, Interview Respondent 1 offered the following rationale for
why it is important to have connections in the field. She continued, “And, most graduate
programs expect that you have done research in undergrad, but it’s hard to contact faculty and
get opportunities to work with them.” Mentors and connections in the field are seen as a way to
gain opportunities in STEM which otherwise might not be able to be obtained.
Similar to wanting mentors to connect within the STEM fields, females reported needing
same gender role models. One anonymous survey response stated, “I loved having female
professors come in and be completely available. I would definitely recommend that to other
MESA's if they have not already done so.” Being exposed to females in STEM professions
might help to combat the feelings of isolation students report in STEM majors. For instance,
interview data revealed that there are still concerns with STEM being a male-dominated field.
Interview Respondent 1 offered,
Being a female in a male populated major is difficult in itself; therefore, the individual
must really like what they’re studying and want to complete it. Unfortunately, some
females cannot take the pressure and difficulty of taking engineering courses but I do
think we are capable of that and more.
Moreover, all six interview respondents indicated they felt there was a lack of females in
STEM, and that males out-numbered females in these disciplines in STEM. In her interview,
Interview Respondent 3 reported that there were significantly less females in her engineering
courses than males. She recalled, “I think there were three females in my advanced math classes
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 171

out of about 30 students total. There just aren’t that many female students or professors in
engineering at this school.” Similarly, Interview Respondent 2 reported that there are less
females than males within her biology major. She stated, “My specific area of specialty within
MCB is Genetics. Genetics is a small specialty – few students choose it and there are more
males than females.” Interview Respondents 2 and 3 are in two separate STEM disciplines, yet
both students perceive there is an underrepresentation of female faculty and students in their
courses and STEM majors.
Females also suggested that MESA in higher education should incorporate more
opportunities for professional development. Participants felt that it was important to get
opportunities to experience STEM careers first hand. One survey response stated, “It would be
helpful if MESA could set up opportunities to job shadow professionals in the STEM field. How
can we know if we actually like the job unless we get to try it first.” In addition to being able to
try out STEM careers, some participants voiced their desire for opportunities to attend more
conferences and network with other organizations on university campuses. Interview
Respondent 4, a former MSP participant, mentioned the following:
We have a lot of organizations on campus that provide social support with STEM, but I
think STEM programs should partner with other schools/departments on campus to create
more awareness of what STEM is. We feel so isolated as STEM majors. People don’t
know what we do.
Along with partnering with other university organizations, some females suggested there
should be opportunities to volunteer within MESA and give back to the STEM community. An
anonymous survey response stated, “MESA should allow for science related volunteer
opportunities or ways to give back to the community.” The request for additional professional
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 172

opportunities within MESA is consistent with the survey data. Although females tended to agree
that MESA activities (field trips, conferences, etc.) were a reason for their persistence in STEM
(M = 4.12, SD = .80), there was still room for improvement and growth.
The final resource that former and current MESA females felt was needed at the
postsecondary level was increased funding. A total of 14 survey responses from MESA students
suggested that a lack of funding was the reason they did not have continued support from the
program in higher education. One survey response stated,
At the college level, it’s like MESA doesn’t exist. There are other clubs to join, but it is
not the same. I feel the reason is because there is not enough funding for the program or
colleges use the money for other things.
Another survey response echoed the need for more financial resources, but went further
to state funding would be essential for keeping students within the STEM field. The response
said, “Give MESA a bigger budget. Start lobbying hard for it. You want these kids to succeed
and run companies like Google, so they need an adequate level of funding.” It was apparent
from participant responses that inadequate funding for MESA in higher education was felt by the
students.
While many of the females felt MESA lacked funding for resources such as textbooks
and facilities, interview respondents were quick to add that financial resources were needed for
scholarships and financial aid. Interview Respondent 5 suggested that scholarships and financial
aid from MESA could help keep students in STEM. She said, “MESA could have supported me
more in STEM if they provided financial assistance and scholarships.” Interview Respondent 5,
a student who ultimately left her STEM major, revealed that she suffered economic difficulties
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 173

during college that may have been ameliorated with financial scholarships through MESA. She
explained:
While pursuing my degree in STEM, I faced challenges that were economical . . . My
first two years I was provided with some financial aid, but it decreased in the last two
years. I had to get a job and have to learn how to balance all aspects of my life with
school, employment, and my social life.
The need to have to support herself and family caused Interview Respondent 5 to have to choose
a STEM major or a job during college. A similar story was shared by Interview Respondent 1,
who persisted in her mechanical engineering major, but struggled to achieve work/life balance
while in school. She shared the following:
Most of my challenges that I experienced in my major have been related to supporting
my family. I have to work to support my family and go to school and that has been
difficult. A grant or internship opportunity through MESA could help because I would
get experience without having to find an outside job.
Interview Respondent 1 suggested that providing females in MESA with opportunities to earn
money while they receive real-life training in STEM could help students persist in STEM as they
would be able to devote more time to their academic endeavors.
Research Question 4
How effective has the MESA program been for influencing the persistence of educationally
disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the postsecondary level?
Research Question 4 aimed to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the MESA program
for retaining females in STEM majors in higher education. There were six survey items, five
closed-ended items and one open-ended item, that attempted to answer Research Question 4.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 174

The survey items are listed below, and the bolded item with an asterisk indicates an optional
open-ended item:
8. MESA has motivated me to persevere in my STEM-related courses.
12. I earn (earned) high grades in my mathematics and science major-related courses.
23. I am motivated to graduate from a STEM discipline as a result of my time and
experience in MESA.
25. I feel confident entering into a STEM career after graduation as a result of being in
MESA.
26. I am more knowledgeable about the STEM field because I participated in MESA.
*28. Is there any additional information you would like to share about how MESA has
influenced your decision to pursue STEM?
By including Research Question 4, the study sought to determine whether former and
female MESA graduates felt participation in the program was influential in their persistence in
STEM fields. This question is important to understand in order to ascertain whether the MESA
program is achieving their primary goal of supporting educationally disadvantaged students in
STEM.
The mean, standard deviation, and range for subscale four are provided in Table 18. The
table shows that the mean response for this subscale was 4.07 (SD = .63, N = 155). The range in
scores for the subscale are from a minimum of 2.00 to a maximum of 5.00. A mean above 4.00
implies that female participants of MESA agreed the program influenced their decision to pursue
STEM fields. Furthermore, the data showed that the MESA program does to some extent
support educationally disadvantaged populations persist in STEM.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 175

Table 18
Descriptive Statistics for Subscale Four
Research Question N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
4: How effective has
MESA been on the
persistence of females in
STEM?
155 2.00 5.00 4.07* .63*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

The Cronbach’s alpha for subscale four was calculated in SPSS to be .70. This is the
highest alpha value for any of the measured subscales within the survey instrument. An alpha
value that is .70 or above is generally considered a good indicator of interconnectedness and
internal reliability. From this data, it can be interpreted that the survey items in subscale four
have a good level of internal consistency and they are all addressing to measure the effectiveness
of the MESA program on the persistence of female students in STEM.
Descriptive statistics for each of the closed-ended survey items within subscale four are
provided in Table 19. The mean scores for this subscale range from 3.95 to 4.13, and the ranges
for all of the items, with the exception of item 12, range from 1.00 to 5.00. Compared to the
previous research questions, the mean scores for individual survey items in this scale are fairly
stable and hover around the 4.00 score that corresponds to “Agree.” In interpreting the data, it
appears that a significant portion of the participants of this study felt that the MESA program
was effective in supporting their persistence in STEM.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 176

Table 19
Descriptive Statistics Per Survey Question in Subscale Four
Survey Item N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
8 155 1 5 4.11 .95*
12 155 2 5 4.11 .87*
23 155 1 5 4.04 1.00*
25 155 1 5 3.95 1.03*
26 155 1 5 4.13 .85*
*Data were rounded to the nearest hundredths place for consistency and reporting of results.
NOTE: Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

Survey item eight and survey item 12 both were found to have the same mean score.
Item 8 specifically addressed whether females were motivated to persevere in STEM as a result
of participating in MESA. The data showed that, on average, a significant number of females
indicating agreement with this item, signifying they were more motivated to persist in STEM due
to MESA (M = 4.11, SD = .95, N = 155). For item 12, the goal was to determine whether female
students were earning high grades in their mathematics and science major courses. The results
found that females agreed that they are earning high grades in these STEM focused courses (M =
4.11, SD = .87, N = 155).
For survey item 23, the mean score was determined to be 4.04 (SD = 1.00, N = 155).
This item addressed whether females were motivated to graduate in STEM as a result of MESA
participation. On average, the data revealed that a significant portion of the study population
agreed that they were motivated to graduate from a STEM major due to their experiences in
MESA. Though the average indicates that participants agree with this survey item, it is equally
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 177

important that the range in scores demonstrates that there are at least some individuals who do
not share the same sentiment.
The lowest mean score of this subscale was reported for item 25. Item 25 assessed if
participants felt confident entering a STEM career as a result of MESA. The mean score for this
item was 3.95 (SD = 1.03, N = 155) which shows that a statistically significant portion of the
participants agree that they are confident they could enter a STEM field due to the skills they
acquired in MESA.
The final item in this subscale was item 26. It was focused on understanding if females
felt more knowledgeable about STEM due to MESA participation. The mean score was
determined to be 4.13 (SD = .85, N = 155), which is the highest mean score of all the survey
items. The data suggested that females did agree they were more knowledgeable about the
STEM fields due to MESA implying that the program is exposing educationally disadvantaged
female students with information about opportunities and careers in STEM.
Correlation analysis showed that program type and pre-college program enrollment were
statistically significant variables that were correlated with MESA effectiveness of females’
persistence in STEM in higher education. The correlation coefficients were found to be r = .40
(p < .01) and r = .34 (p < .01), respectively, suggesting that the type of MESA program (MSP,
MCCP, or MEP) and program site are significantly correlated with program effectiveness. There
is also a significant correlation between university, the number of resources offered at the
university, and persistence of females in STEM, r = .56, p < .01).
The quantitative closed-ended survey data indicated that overall there was a stable degree
of agreement that MESA has influenced female students’ persistence in STEM. The final
optional open-ended survey item (Survey Item 28) asked participants to elaborate on the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 178

influence of MESA on their persistence in STEM. A total of 75 participants attempted to answer
the optional survey item, but only 49 responses were complete and able to be analyzed. This
yielded a 65% response rate for the item. Results from the open-ended survey item uncovered
four findings related to MESA that influenced their persistence in STEM. Females reported
academic and leadership skill development, fostering interest through activities, social
networking, and building identity as key contributors to their persistence in STEM majors. An
additional finding, lack of college/university support, was found to be a key deterrent for females
pursuing STEM. A total of six participants alluded to a lack of institutional support that impeded
their persistence in STEM at the university level. A breakdown of the key findings, frequency of
response, and relevant examples from the open-ended survey items is included in Table 20.

Table 20
Open-Ended Example of Survey Participant Data for Subscale Four

Key Findings
Number of
Responses

Definition

Example(s) of Participant Response
Developing
Skills
7 Includes development and
learning of academics,
leadership, collaboration, and
self-regulation strategies
“Enhanced leadership skills, team
working skills, detail-orientation, focus,
and goal-setting.”

“MESA is a great program where
students can and will develop their math
and science skills and apply it in the
work force. In my career now, I apply
my skills that I gained in MESA.”

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 179

Table 20 (Cont’d.)

Key Findings
Number of
Responses

Definition

Example(s) of Participant Response
Fostering
Interest
9 Refers to sparking interest
through MESA activities such
as hands-on learning activities
and competitions.
“The brain I build out of macaroni and
rice, is a major reason why I am now
pursing my PhD/MD in the field of
Neuroscience.”

“It was due to the competitions and
activities MESA has provided that gave
me the final push to follow a career in
engineering.”
Networking 11 Involves the built-in social
network that comes with being
in MESA, chances to meet
professionals in the field, and
making connections in STEM.
“I feel more confident pursuing a career
in STEM thanks to the support from my
peers in MESA.”

“I have met professional engineers and
have attended events that have
stimulated my mind.”
Building
Identity
16 Refers to feeling motivated by
challenges, developing self-
confidence and self-identity,
and feeling empowered in
STEM..
“MESA was great for helping me gain
confidence in STEM. I actually
graduated from college with a physics
major last year and am looking to get a
Ph.D.”

“MESA always made me believe that I
could do anything that I wanted because
of the ways it challenged me and
empowered me.”

Survey data indicates females agree they were more likely to persist in STEM due to
MESA (M = 4.03). These data would suggest that overall MESA has been effective in retaining
females in STEM majors at the university level. One of the reasons that MESA positively
correlates to increased retention in STEM is through STEM skill development. As revealed
through the interviews, STEM courses can be difficult. Interview Respondent 2 stated, “Some of
the courses are just very hard. There is so much homework and just no time to have fun during
most semesters. It makes me think that a job in civil engineering will be really difficult.” Thus,
the development of academic skills, time management skills, and self-regulation skills through
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 180

MESA can help students learn to prioritize their activities. Furthermore, female participants
elaborated through the open-ended survey response that acquisition of academic, leadership, and
communication skills was essential for STEM success. A former female participant of MSP
wrote, “MESA helped me develop my academic skills, which led to a full scholarship to
university. I owe MESA a lot for that.” In addition to developing study skills, MESA programs
help students to specifically ascertain cognitive skills in mathematics and science. One
participant stated,
Although I decided not to pursue a career in STEM, I was able to pursue a college
education thanks to the program. The academic support they provided allowed me to do
well in math and science courses in order to be a competitive college applicant.
Thus, even though the female chose not to pursue a career in STEM, she attributed the grades
she earned in mathematics and science through MESA as a reason for being college and career
ready.
Similarly, interview participants during the qualitative phase of the study expressed that
skill acquisition was heavily emphasized in MESA. Interview Respondent 4 stated,
MESA forced me out of my comfort zone. I had to build with my hands, think outside
the box, collaborate, and come up with original ideas. Not only that, after we did the
‘traditional engineering activities,’ we would have to present our results. So that meant
we had to be able to communicate like scientists.
Interview Respondent 4 shared the importance of learning skills through MESA such as
engineering practices, working in teams, and sharing results. Another interview respondent
(Interview Respondent 1) further stressed the importance of the skills acquired through MESA.
Interview Respondent 1 explained,
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 181

MESA teaches you to become a self-regulated learner. Although I was passionate about
STEM, I was not academically prepared for a STEM major. MESA gave me the study
tools to prepare me to take the AP courses in high school and be ready for a science
major in college.
If not for the academic exposure and rigorous coursework in MESA, students like Interview
Respondent 1, would not have received the skills to prepare them to study for STEM careers.
Survey data indicated that MESA has also shown it is effective in creating learning
experiences and extracurricular opportunities in STEM, which sparked interest in females and
encouraged them to persist in STEM majors. One survey response recalled, “After MESA, I
began to like more complex scientific subjects and may have caused my spark of interest in
health science.” Creating interest in STEM helped to grab students attention and attract them to
into the field. However, it was the activities and additional opportunities that MESA provided
that held students’ interest in STEM. For some students, the hands-on learning activities were a
key component of the types of activities female students remembered the most. Interview
Respondent 3 recalled the following:
I originally pursued a more natural science background, but MESA had introduced
programming to me and I ended up pursuing civil engineering because it is the best of
both worlds. All the projects, especially the ones where we constructed things, that I did
as a high school student in MESA definitely helped me to decide to become a STEM
student.
The hands-on learning activities were important for students to experience what scientists do.
One of the open-ended survey responses stated, “The real-world experiences in MESA did
prepare me for more hands-on work in college and set me up with valuable experience that
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 182

eventually helped me land my first STEM internship.” Real-world experiences in STEM offer
students exposure to what STEM careers will be like – it gives them a chance to understand what
they will be able to do. This notion in encapsulated by the following excerpt from the interview
with Interview Respondent 6:
MESA showed me what STEM was like and how diverse it could be. I used to have a
very limited view of STEM fields but MESA broadened that view and showed me all the
different kinds of roots it can have.
The MESA competitions and fields trips that were offered to students also left lasting
impressions about the STEM field. One survey respondent explained how even though she
lacked the engineering skills, the extracurricular opportunities were beneficial. She wrote:
I spent four years in MESA at my high school, and one year as president of our club. I
participated in MESA activities such as the campus college visit and the JPL competition.
Engineering wasn't something I was very good at, but I was always motivated to work in
a team and be surrounded by bright people that MESA introduced me to.
Also, Interview Respondent 5 shared in her interview, “That sense of success you would get after
winning a competition was very empowering and a great motivating factor to want to study
STEM!” While the competitions offered students opportunities to construct objects like STEM
workers, the field trips exposed students to college campuses where they could study STEM.
Interview Respondent 3 shared in her interview,
I remember going to visit Cal [UC Berkeley] for the first time with MESA. We went to
the mathematics and science departments and toured the campus. It was the first time I
could see myself as a college student, and I decided then to push myself in high school so
I could get into college.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 183

The field trips in MESA not only afforded students the ability to visit campuses, but also inspired
students like Interview Respondent 3 to want to pursue a college education.
Another component that participants agreed upon, MESA has been effective in the
amount of networking opportunities that females received through the program. Survey data
indicated that females agreed they were more knowledgeable about STEM. Additional data
supported that females may be learning about STEM through opportunities to participate in
internships, networking, and peer support that were facilitated through MESA. One survey
response included the following, “I have met professional engineers and have attended events
that have stimulated my mind.” Another survey response suggested that MESA provided the
necessary social and emotional support to pursue STEM. She stated, “If not for MESA, I would
not have gone into computer science. The teachers I had really wanted me to succeed and
persevere when others, including my family, did not.” For some students, the network and
community environment offered by MESA was the reason they persisted in the STEM field.
Interview data also provided insight into the importance of networking and creating a
culture of success within MESA. Interview Respondent 3 shared the following information
during the interview, “Some of what MESA has done at the university level is provide a network
of students, staff, and alumni to connect with and who can help you with finding careers after
graduation.” Interview Respondent 6 added, “At the postsecondary level, it is important for
females to feel they are being adequately prepared to obtain a career in STEM. The networking
support afforded by MESA participation reinforced that students were well connected to be able
to successfully enter the STEM workforce.
Open-ended survey data suggested that MESA was effective in motivating students to
want to persist in STEM (M=4.11). Females reported wanting to continue studying STEM
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 184

because they were able to build self-confidence, self-identity, and self-efficacy through the
MESA program. For Interview Respondent 1, MESA helped to develop self-identity and prove
that females could be in the STEM field. She expressed the following sentiment:
STEM courses can be so intimidating because there are so many boys. It is competitive
and cutthroat. MESA plays a key role for women staying in STEM because it helps you
to realize that you can survive in a male-dominated field.
Interview Respondent 1 suggested the need for females to develop self-identity in STEM and to
be able to see themselves as successful in STEM. Similarly, Interview Respondent 2 shared in
her interview,
I think that females should pursue STEM, but I don’t feel they do because they are
intimidated. STEM seems scary if you do not see people like you doing it. But if more
females go into STEM, then it would be more normal. I think females are capable of
graduating with a STEM degree.
In the above two examples, both interviewees stressed the importance of females seeing
themselves as potential STEM workers. For them, MESA was a key factor in shaping that self-
identity.
For some students, MESA offered the added incentives, or extrinsic motivators that
allowed them to persist in STEM. For instance, a survey respondent shared how she already had
the self-confidence to enter STEM, but needed motivators to help her persist. She explained, “I
was confident about entering STEM without MESA. MESA just gave me extra incentives like
the tutoring, resources, friendships, and motivation to continue.” The idea that students were
self-motivated to pursue STEM, but needed MESA for accountability was a common theme that
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 185

emerged. Another student shared in her open-ended response, “I had the personal motivation to
go into engineering, but MESA had the fun science labs and guest speakers that kept me going.”
Interview data also reinforced that some students enter STEM ready to put in the hard work, but
MESA helps scaffold the assistance when needed in higher education. Interview Respondent 1
stated, “I already knew I wanted to be in STEM, but MESA was there when I needed that extra
boost to study because I knew I had friends to turn to.” In turn, MESA helped to combat issues
of motivation by supporting students to develop intrinsic motivation in STEM, and offering
students extrinsic motivators when needed.
Ancillary Findings
From the open-ended responses received during the quantitative phase and the interview
data ascertained during the qualitative phase, study participants provided additional insight into
how MESA has supported educationally disadvantaged females in STEM in higher education.
Though these findings were not directly addressed within the four guiding research questions, the
data was still significant to explore. Female participants shared their experiences with the
MESA program in higher education, the resources that university-sponsored MESA programs
offered, and their perceptions regarding the MESA program’s effectiveness in increasing the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged females in STEM majors. Through the findings, the
following themes emerged regarding which influenced female students’ experiences and
perceptions of MESA in higher education: a lack of MESA programs at the university level,
calibration of MESA programs within higher education, varying levels of institutional or
departmental support, and impacts of funding on program implementation and infrastructure.
Specifically, these broader findings elaborate on the perceived barriers that still plague
females in their persistence in STEM despite participation in MESA. A summary of the key
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 186

findings, broader contextual framework, frequency of occurrence, and definition are included in
Table 21. Following the summary table, each theme is elaborated upon using direct evidence
from the interview and observation data. While the ancillary are discussed independently for the
sake of this report, this should not imply that they are mutually exclusive; rather together the
findings begin to tell a complex story about the perceptions and experiences of MESA females in
STEM majors.

Table 21
Ancillary Findings Uncovered from the Data

Ancillary
Findings

Broader
Context
Number of
Participant
Responses

Definition
Lack of MESA
Programming in
Higher Education
Organizational

23 Refers to limited or no access to MCCP and
MEP on university/college campuses. Also,
refers to females’ disappointment that there
were no supports in place at the university
level.

Calibration of
MESA Programs
Organizational

15 Includes how the MESA program organization
is inconsistent among colleges and
universities. Also includes females’
perception the program is disorganized.

MESA Funding Organizational 21 Refers to the monetary resources that are
allocated to students within MESA at the
university level. Includes funds for grants,
scholarships, textbooks, facilities, tutors,
internships, and research opportunities.

Differences in
institutional and
departmental
support
Motivational/
Social
13 Refers to the lack of support females received
from the university they were enrolled in.
Includes the lack of support females received
from the advisors/faculty/staff within the
STEM department.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 187

MESA in Higher Education
To participate in this study, females were required to have been a former or current
member of a MESA program. At the postsecondary level, MESA is offered through the MESA
Community College Program (MCCP) and MESA Engineering Program (MEP). A significant
discovery that was uncovered through conducting this research study was the absence of MESA
programming in higher education – an organizational issue that represents a confounding
variable in this study. There were a total of 23 responses that indicated MESA was not offered at
multiple university sites that female STEM majors were enrolled in. Of the 23 responses, a total
of 20 responses correlated to females who indicated enrollment at a public or private four-year
university. Only three participants attended a two-year community college where MESA was
not offered.
MESA states the program is comprehensive from secondary through the postsecondary
level by way of MCCP and MEP, however these programs are limited to certain university sites.
For at least some of the study participants, MESA was not offered at their campuses, and as
Interview Respondent 3 pointed out, the absence of a MESA program was surprising for students
as well. In her interview, Interview Respondent 3 confirmed,
I think MESA was hugely important in high school. I really knew I wanted to go into
science, maybe nursing even. Then, I got into a CSU, and I feel MESA could not help
me persevere in STEM because there was no program offered. I thought MESA was
ongoing. If I had known [there would be no MESA], I would have gone to another
college.
In the case of this interview participant, the absence of MESA was a devastating realization after
a decision on where to attend college had already been made. However for some female study
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 188

participants, there was a more neutral of lackluster feeling about the lack of MESA support.
Interview Respondent 2 said the following:
I don't believe that MESA necessarily influenced my capabilities in math and science – it
happened the other way around. I was performing well in math and science and was
‘recruited’ for MESA. Even then, in team projects it was difficult to be chosen for the
‘real’ engineering. The experiences in MESA did prepare me for more hands-on work in
college and set me up with valuable experience, but I do not know if I would have been a
part of MESA in college even if I had the option.
Yet, for many educationally disadvantaged students, participation in MESA at the
secondary level was essential for building networks of social support, learning academic study
skills, and sparking interest in STEM. For these students, the lack of a MESA program in higher
education proved to be a confounding factor for leaving the STEM pipeline. In one survey
response, a participant reported the following:
MESA did not influence my persistence in engineering because I needed the support the
most in college when I was surrounded by only males. I had no friends in my courses
and there was so much competition for grades. I wish my college had the MESA
program because I may have become an engineer.
A similar sentiment was shared by another anonymous response that shared, “MESA was
great in high school, but there is no MESA Program at my college to support undergrads.”
While this survey response does not clarify whether the female is still in a STEM major, or
graduated from a STEM major, the lack of MESA in higher education presents a potential barrier
for keeping educationally disadvantaged students in the STEM pipeline.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 189

Calibration of MESA Programs
Another finding that was not the central focus of the research questions, but appeared
consistently within the analyzed data was the inconsistencies of MESA programming within
higher education. Quantitative data suggested that where you attend college and which college
you attend are important factors that will determine your MESA experience, and in turn, your
persistence in STEM. This organizational issue was confirmed through participant responses
that supported the influence of institution type on the MESA programming. For example,
females who attended two-year community colleges reported greater levels of support than their
peers at four-year universities. A survey participant shared the following experience:
Joining MESA in community college helped me form study groups for the first time ever
(22 years old). One semester I got poor grades so the MESA director gave me advice and
I went on to get the best grades in my engineering courses the following semester.
There are multiple indications from this participants’ response that suggest MCCP strives
to build healthy relationships among peer groups and with the program advisor. Furthermore,
MCCP offers tutoring support to help students improve grades. Another current member of
MCCP explained her experience with MESA at the community college. She stated,
The MESA director is welcoming and gives insightful information about STEM. I joined
MESA at my local junior college. I made a ton of new friends that I had a lot of classes
with. I was able to both help others and receive help on homework, test prep, and a
general understanding of STEM. (Interview Respondent 1)
Similarly, social and academic supports were mentioned as types of interventions that proved
beneficial through MCCP.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 190

Although MCCP appears to be offering female community college students with support
systems to help them persevere in STEM, students in MEP at four-year institutions report less
consistency in their programming. Interview Respondent 3 shared the following in her
interview,
I think the program at my school was small, but I think over time if more participants are
recruited then it may have a bigger impact especially among young women. Right now
the biggest focus is on getting good grades to stay in engineering. I’d like to see women
mentors, more connections with STEM related social clubs, peer mentoring
undergraduates with graduates, internships, and professional development opportunities.
Interview Respondent 3 explained how the MEP emphasizes more academic support than social,
networking, and motivational support. In addition, a female who is a current member of MEP
added how the central focus of MEP was engineering, and did not include relevant information
for students in other STEM related fields. She explained,
It helped reinforce that I liked science, but I ended up focusing on ecology and
environmental biology, something that was never a focal point in MEP. Everything I did
with MEP was engineering and math related, which I enjoyed, but it wasn't my strongest
quality.
MEP is traditionally offered through a partnership with MESA and the university’s engineering
department. However, if the university is smaller, the MEP program may partner with the math
and science departments. In the latter case, it would appear students from multiple STEM
disciplines would be likely to join MEP.
One final issue that was brought up regarding the calibration of MEP in higher education
was a lack of organization within the program. One student’s survey response suggested that
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 191

although she acquired basic skills in engineering, there were little opportunities for networking
or professional development. She expressed the following:
I learned the basics of engineering. Although the program is great it lacks of
organization. It was hard to know how to access tutors and where to sign up for
workshops. Lots of events were always canceled and there were never any guest
speakers.
Difficulties in obtaining information about STEM events, conferences, and workshops
were a common theme that emerged from the data.
MESA Funding
One of the main organizational concerns that became apparent through the research study
was the lack of funding that MESA receives for its pre-college and university level programs.
MESA reported that for the 2015-16 academic year, MESA received a total of $5.65M from the
state of California – $4.13M through UC and $1.52M through the California Community
Colleges (MESA, 2016). Additionally, MESA indicated that since 2002-03, MESA’s funds
through UC have been cut by over 55%, and its funds through the California Community
Colleges has been cut by 38% (MESA, 2016). As a result, both the pre-college MESA program
and university MESA programs have been negatively impacted, and loss of funding has forced
MESA to close many centers, reduce resources, and detrimentally decrease funding for
university level programs (MESA, 2016).
For former and current female students of MESA, the recent scarcity of resources has not
gone unnoticed. One survey response stated, “We need money and resources like providing
STEM tutors or teachers!” Another student wrote, “More funding would help the program at the
junior college.” In addition to requesting funding, MESA students alluded to how their MESA
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 192

center was small and inadequate for housing the program. One survey response included, “A
bigger MESA center would be great to host all the students. Networking with professionals
would be nice, or with companies.” The issue of reduced funding for MESA does not just
impact the quantity or type of resources, but it also prevents students from receiving scholarship
money for college. In her interview, Interview Respondent 1 explained that she had to work
during college to support her family. She shared, “I have to work to support my family and go to
school and that has been difficult. If MESA had financial aid that could have been helpful for
me to help my family.” For students like Interview Respondent 1, financial aid could offset
some of the costs associated with supporting her family, and could make the pursuit of a STEM
degree more feasible.
It does appear that for students who were former members of the MESA program in the
1980s and 1990s, there were more resources available to support them. Interview Respondent 5
was a MESA participant in the late 1980s. She explained that she had access to extended
weeklong field trips, numerous guest speakers, and participated in many hands-on activities and
competitions. However, over the years, the decrease in funding has shown the inconsistencies in
funding can affect the types of resources that current MESA students are receiving in higher
education. A current MCCP member stated, “We need more funding to pay more tutors, more
resources, more opportunities to attend conferences and allow more students to go on the trips.”
Institutional/Departmental Support
Through the research study findings it became apparent that there were social and
motivational contexts that were also at play for females in MESA who were pursuing STEM.
One finding that emerged was the lack of departmental support that students in STEM received.
A survey respondent revealed, “I was motivated to pursue a degree in mathematics, but did not
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 193

end up doing so due to the lack of support in the math department at my university.” For this
student, participation in MESA was insufficient to minimize the lack of departmental support
within the STEM major. Interview Respondent 2 shared that within her major, the academic
advisor has made persisting difficult. She stated the following in her interview,
In my personal experience, the assigned academic advisor has been very unsupportive of
my decision to choose this major. He stated to me that because I had a C in one of my
major classes, I was ‘too challenged’ in college and that I would not succeed in my
pursuit of a graduate degree in genetics.
While she is still involved in a STEM major, the pathways to graduation become more difficult
when there is a lack or perceived lack of support from the department. Interview Respondent 3
expressed that without departmental support, it could be difficult to prepare for graduate school.
She clarified, “Most graduate programs expect that you have done research in undergrad, but it’s
hard to contact faculty and get opportunities to work with them.”
Additional study participants suggested that STEM faculty at the university were more
focused on research than on teaching or connecting with students. Two student responses
indicated as a result of seemingly distant faculty, there was a sense of feeling unsupported by the
university. One survey response said, “The engineering faculty can seem so cold. I am pretty
much on my own, and I do not know where to access tutoring for my classes.” Another indicated
that faculty within the mathematics department suggested that she lacked sufficient skills to
pursue a STEM major. She reported, “I am not pursuing STEM. The professor made me realize
that the math skills I needed were beyond my preparation.” For both students, the institution and
the department where female students choose to pursue their undergraduate degrees and their
experiences at that institution impacts whether they will pursue STEM majors.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 194

Reflections on Findings
In response to the underrepresentation of females in STEM careers, many four-year
institutions have implemented STEM outreach programs that aim to increase the retention of
females in STEM majors. MESA is one such outreach program that represents one type of
support system or intervention that seeks to improve conditions for educationally disadvantaged
females through creating a more balanced STEM workforce, granting access to groups that have
been excluded from STEM, and preparing high quality students for STEM careers (Gilmer,
2007). It is imperative to understand the types of support services that are offered to female
students in higher education through the MESA Community College Program (MCCP) and
MESA Engineering Program (MEP). As such, the primary aim of this research study was to
evaluate whether the MESA program is effectively supporting educationally disadvantaged first
generation females to persist and graduate from STEM majors.
The body of literature reviewed revealed that STEM outreach programs such as MESA
compensate for the academic inadequacies that the education system has caused, and they strive
to create pathways to promote and maintain females’ interests and achievements in STEM.
Research indicated the following four research-based components of outreach programs
encourage females’ persistence in STEM and comprise the conceptual framework for the study:
academic support, motivational support, social support, and networking support. MESA aims to
provide comprehensive support for educationally disadvantaged students and promote students’
retention in STEM through addressing the above-mentioned four components. In order to
holistically evaluate the effectiveness of the MESA program for retaining females in STEM
majors, findings from this research study will be examined as they relate to each of the
components of the conceptual framework. Table 22 shows a comparison between the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 195

researcher’s conceptual framework, the suggested components of an effective STEM program,
and the key features of the MESA program.

Table 22
Comparison Chart of Conceptual Framework, Research-Based Strategies, and MESA
Conceptual
Framework
Research-Based Features of
Effective Programs
MESA Community College
Program/Engineering Program
Academic
Support
Prepare students academically.
Intervene early.
Help students navigate the college
admissions process.
Provide comprehensive, long-term
support.

Academic excellence workshops.
Orientation course.
Academic advising/counseling.
Assistance in the transfer process
*MCCP
Motivational
Support

Provide comprehensive, long-term
support.
N/A
Social
Support

Involve and encourage parents/family. Student study center.
Networking
Support
Balance academic support with social
support.
Provide financial assistance.
Career development.
Links with student and professional
organizations.
Professional development.
Industry Advisory partnerships.

Evaluating Academic Support
The literature review revealed that targeted academic interventions, especially
interventions that focus on building mathematics and science skills, have proven effective for
encouraging female students to persist in STEM majors (Gilmer, 2007). Evidence based
academic strategies that effectively promote the retention of educationally disadvantaged
students in STEM include providing academic intervention prior to entering high school (Schultz
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 196

& Mueller, 2006), assistance with navigating the admissions and transfer process in higher
education (Horn & Chen, 1998), and ongoing academic support over the course of at least four
years (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Swail et al., 2012). Table 22 shows that MCCP and MEP
aspire to support students academically through implementation of excellence workshops where
students master technical ideas through a collaborative approach, enrollment in orientation
courses to acclimate students to study skills in mathematics, science, and engineering majors,
ongoing and individualized academic advising, and assistance in the transfer process to four-year
universities (MESA, 2016).
The results of the research study indicated that females who participated in MESA agree
that the program is beneficial for developing mathematics and science skills, deductive reasoning
skills, and self-regulation strategies. Females felt the hands-on activities and competitions that
MESA offered were essential in building academic skills that are utilized in STEM majors.
Females also reported that working in teams during the MESA labs and group competitions
fostered leadership and communication skills that students could master in a healthy competitive
environment. Current STEM majors reported that their courses are challenging and competitive,
but all indicated that MESA helped them adequately prepare to endure rigorous curriculums.
Students that did not feel MESA adequately supported them academically suggested that
additional resources needed to be devoted to increasing the number of STEM tutors assigned to
MCCP and MEP, a larger study center to accommodate more students, and after-hours tutoring
to support students who work.
The inadequacies of MESA resources and inconsistencies between MESA programs is
theorized to be directly linked to the funding cuts to the MESA program beginning in the early
2000s. Specifically, these funding cuts have targeted higher education and forced the closure of
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 197

several MCCP and MEP centers. The funding cuts have led to inadequate number of
scholarships, textbooks, facilities, and workshops, especially at larger four-year institutions.
Two-year community colleges have managed to still offer students in MESA some degree of
support. It is hypothesized that at larger universities there may be more bureaucratic barriers that
prevent MESA programs from thriving.
MESA students indicated that while they felt supported all through secondary education,
they were unprepared for the lack of MESA support in higher education. To this end, the
ongoing academic support is inconsistent for MESA students in higher education. While it
appears MESA can help students acquire the necessary academic skills to be competitive and get
into a college, these students are forced to survive on their own once there. For some of these
students, navigating the channels within higher education to receive academic or departmental
support have proven too obscure and many leave the STEM major without graduating.
Evaluating Motivational Support
In addition to including academic support, comprehensive STEM outreach programs
should address the motivational barriers that are inherent to females pursuing STEM. Female
students’ self-efficacy is directly related to persistence in STEM majors. While females have
outnumbered men in college enrollment, they are less likely to graduate and persist in a STEM
career (Cole & Espinoza, 2011). Females in STEM majors must contend with competitive
learning environments, insufficient same-gender role models, feelings of isolation, and achieving
a work-life balance (Thoman et al., 2014). STEM outreach programs that promote long-term
self-identity construction in STEM, peer mentoring, and encouraging relationships have been
instrumental for females to advocate for themselves, reshape their role in STEM, and increase
their self-efficacy (Xu & Martin, 2011). According to information garnered through the MESA
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 198

website, MCCP and MEP do not specifically target motivational deficiencies for females in
STEM. Rather, MESA creates a community of success through social support where females
can collaborate with like-minded peers.
Although MESA does not specifically state how they address motivational support, data
from the research study demonstrated that students felt empowered in STEM as a result of
MESA. Females reportedly agree that MESA was a factor in their motivation to persist in
STEM. It is hypothesized that the development and acquisition of academic skills helped
females gain academic self-efficacy. This in turn, allowed females to see themselves as being
successful in STEM courses, majors, and careers. Furthermore, female students in MESA felt
motivated to persevere in STEM due to the ability to connect with like-minded peers who shared
similar struggles.
However, females in MESA insisted that there are still challenges that pose threats to
persistence in STEM. Females reported that feelings of isolation and not belonging in a male-
dominated field are still issues that STEM majors face. In addition, these feelings may be
confounded by a lack of support from STEM departments at higher education institutions.
Furthermore, quantitative survey data suggested that females still believe that women are less
likely to become scientists and engineers than their male peers. Thus, there is reason to believe
that MESA could devote more resources to targeting motivational support for females. When
asked how to ameliorate barriers to persisting in STEM, females recommended that MESA
provide females with same-gender role models, peer tutoring, access to more female STEM
faculty, and more networking opportunities with female-only STEM organizations on university
campuses.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 199

Evaluating Social Support
Research showed that implementing programs that promote social and career-related
pursuits around issues in STEM is imperative to increasing female persistence in STEM
(Szelenyi et al., 2013). Moreover, when females are surrounded by families who are informed of
the benefits of a college education, and like-minded peers who share common educational goals,
they are more likely to persist in STEM fields (Corwin et al., 2005). STEM outreach programs
that provide strong social network support allow for educationally disadvantaged students to
influence each other to persist in STEM (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). To support students
socially, MESA provides a designated multipurpose study center on university and college
campuses where students can study, attend workshops, and attend special events (MESA, 2016).
MESA states the study center is a significant element in creating a successful STEM learning
community.
The findings from the study showed that MESA helps build a community environment
that promotes females’ persistence in STEM. Females reported forming life-long friendships
through MESA, creating study groups with other MESA students to stay motivated, and sharing
valuable experiences with peers through MESA activities. For some females, having social
support in MESA was instrumental in motivating them to persist in STEM when their families
were unsupportive. As 85% of the females in this study were from families without a college-
going tradition, the value of a STEM education was not always valued.
Also, female participants consistently felt MESA teachers and staff at the secondary level
cared about their academic endeavors. At the post-secondary level, two-year community college
students voiced maintaining close connections with MESA staff and faculty. However, females
at four-year universities reported feelings of being unsupported. For larger, public and private
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 200

institutions, programs like MESA can help motivate students to stay in STEM by creating a peer
network. Similarly, programs that offer students access to STEM faculty and mentors in the
field can help supplant students’ persistence in STEM majors.
Evaluating Networking Support
Females in STEM majors face the unique challenges of achieving a work and life
balance, beginning a family, and obtaining financial stability (Xu & Martin, 2011). By providing
relevant same-gender role models, and access to female STEM professionals, females can begin
to build a healthy foundation for a strong network within the STEM community (Xu & Martin,
2011). The literature review also suggested that a built-in support network allows educationally
disadvantaged female students in STEM to feel supported, encourages accountability, combats
isolation in the field, and exposes them to potential STEM careers. MESA helps to create a
support network for females in STEM majors through emphasizing career and professional
development through partnering with industry mentors, job shadowing opportunities, career
fairs, resume writing, and interviewing skills (MESA, 2016). Additionally, MESA links students
with professional organizations to provide students with relevant guest speakers and tours of
STEM corporations. MESA also facilitates connections with industry leaders, corporate
representatives, MESA alumni, and other valuable stakeholders through their industry advisory
partnership (MESA, 2016).
Though MESA states there is a plethora of networking opportunities for students in
higher education, females in this study felt more resources could be allocated to supporting
students’ transition from college to STEM careers. Females in STEM majors would like to see
MESA offer more STEM internships and professional development opportunities. Moreover,
study participants specified the need for more professional guest speakers and STEM industry
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 201

workers to begin networking for careers post graduation. While female MESA participants from
two-year colleges reported more networking support than their four-year peers, they still
requested additional opportunities to volunteer, tutor, and give back to the community through
MESA. Finally, females in STEM majors at four-year universities suggested MESA offer more
opportunities to network with STEM focused student organizations on campus.
It is thought that prior to funding cuts to the program, there may have been more monies
that could be allocated to support networking with STEM professionals in the industry.
However, many of the industry partnerships may have been severed when higher education
MESA programming was forced to close down sites. Alternatively, the available funding may
have been allocated elsewhere such as to preserving the pre-college MESA programs.
Recommended Components to Address
There are two evidence-based strategies that STEM outreach programs include which
MESA does not specifically incorporate into their model. First, is the focus on systematic
reform. Research shows that STEM outreach programs that show strong partnerships between
secondary schools and postsecondary institutions ensured students retention and graduation in
STEM. Currently, MESA has a strong pre-college program that helps students academically
meet the requirements to attend college and pursue a STEM degree. However, once students
matriculate to higher education, it appears a lack of communication within the MESA
programming, and insufficient resources, leaves former MESA students to navigate higher
education on their own. This is problematic because as the STEM pipeline model indicates,
students will exit the pipeline prior to graduating with a STEM major. If MESA programs are
maintained and expanded, many of these students may be able to receive the support they need to
continue in the pipeline.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 202

Second, STEM outreach programs that provide students with information on applying
and obtaining financial aid, or those that offer financial incentives are positively correlated with
STEM persistence. As revealed in the research findings, students are often financially
responsible for supporting themselves, and sometimes for their families. This forces students to
choose between allocating time to study in STEM or choosing a more manageable major to be
able to allocate time to work. Providing students with financial aid and scholarships would allow
MESA to help educationally disadvantaged students persist in STEM majors.
Summary
The primary goal of this research study was to evaluate the effectiveness of MESA
programs on the persistence of educationally disadvantaged females in STEM majors. To fully
understand whether MESA was effective at retaining females in STEM majors, it was important
to address three other secondary goals. These goals included examining how MESA was being
implemented at the postsecondary level, understanding how former and current MESA females
perceive the program, and exploring the resources that are needed for MESA to influence
females’ persistence in STEM.
Initial findings from the quantitative phase of the research study indicated that on
average, females who pursued STEM disciplines in college, attributed participation in MESA
programs as a reason for their motivation in STEM and persistence in STEM. Survey data
showed that females perceived MESA was important for learning study skills, developing
deductive reasoning skills, creating communities of success, building confidence, and making
connections. Results from the qualitative phase confirmed the findings from the survey data and
delved deeper in students’ perceptions and experiences within the MESA program. The
interview data showed that females utilized the resources that MESA provided at the secondary
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 203

and post-secondary level to build self-efficacy, combat isolation, and persist in STEM. Ongoing
and comprehensive academic, social, motivational, and networking supports were influential for
educationally disadvantaged females’ success in STEM.
Through the research study it was also determined that the MCCP and MEP in higher
education have had dramatic fiscal cuts. The lack of funding has led to the closure of university
MESA study centers, programs, loss of financial scholarships and aid, and limited
workshops/events. It is also theorized that the issues with funding have translated into a limited
number of MCCP and MEP at university sites, and inconsistencies in types of programming
within those sites. For MESA to be able to provide a comprehensive program that includes
academic, motivational, social, and networking supports for students from middle school through
postsecondary education, funding would need to be restored. MESA has shown to be an
effective outreach program for educationally disadvantaged females who are faced with
educational, institutional, and economic barriers. Females feel empowered to continue pursuing
STEM as a result of MESA, thus it is imperative to support such programs.
In the final chapter, an overview of the study and summary of the findings will be
provided which will connect back to the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. In addition,
implications for incorporating the findings into current and future educational settings will be
provided. This will be followed by a discussion of the limitation of the study, including
generalizability of the findings. From there, recommendations for future study will be described,
which will be followed up with any final concluding remarks.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 204

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND CONCLUSIONS
Background
As technology continues to advance and more jobs are outsourced overseas, there is
considerable concern there has been a renewed focus on bolstering the economic growth of the
nation through expansion of STEM industries. The US relies on STEM workers to maintain and
expand its position as a competitive and innovative nation through building industries, creating
new ideas, and growing new companies (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). Projections of
future economic job growth indicate that the US will need to produce at least one million more
STEM professionals to meet the current rate of STEM job growth if the nation is to preserve
remaining on the forefront of the science and technology industries (Olson & Riordan, 2012).
However, STEM corporations and companies are concerned if there were to be a shortage of
STEM workers to fill the projected needs of the labor market. In turn, if the US cannot meet the
needs of its STEM growth, it will likely become outperformed in the high-tech industries by
rising nations such as Finland, China, and India (Augustine, 2005). A proposed solution to the
problem has been to increase the number of educationally and economically disadvantaged
students that persist in the STEM pipeline through STEM focused outreach and education
programs.
First-generation females are one subsect of the larger population of educationally
disadvantaged students that are traditionally left out of the STEM workforce. This is
problematic because as STEM jobs continually increase, and STEM compensation outpaces non-
STEM industries, the underrepresentation of females in STEM leads to inequities in the labor
market and inequities in compensation (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). Females face a
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 205

multitude of barriers that ultimately prevent their persistence in STEM majors, and ultimately
their persistence in the STEM workforce. Existing literature indicated first-generation females
come from families without a history of attending college, thus there is a lack of knowledge of
the importance of higher education (College Board, 2016b). Moreover, first-generation females
in STEM majors report a lack of institutional support (Griffith, 2010), negative gender
stereotypes (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012), issues of self-efficacy (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013),
and limited access to math and science courses in high school (Adelman, 2006; Berryman,
1983).
The US has responded to the underrepresentation of educationally disadvantaged students
in STEM through the development of STEM focused outreach programs. Mathematics,
Engineering, Science, and Achievement (MESA) is one example of a STEM focused outreach
program that was established by the US in response to the growing need of creating a more
diversified and equitable STEM workforce. Since the organization was borne, MESA has
strived to incorporate evidenced-based, comprehensive, and long-term support systems to
compensate for the academic, social, motivational, and economic barriers that educationally
disadvantaged face in their pursuit of STEM disciplines.
MESA operates three individual programs that aim to holistically and comprehensively
support educationally disadvantaged students throughout their educational careers. Beginning in
secondary education, MESA offers pre-college support through the MESA Schools Program
(MSA). Then as students’ progress to the postsecondary level, students may participate in the
MESA Community College Program (MCCP), offered at two-year colleges, or the MESA
Engineering Program (MEP), offered at four-year universities. Both MCCP and MEP emphasize
the following approaches to supporting educationally disadvantaged students in STEM during
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 206

higher education: academic skills workshops, individualized college advising/counseling,
multipurpose study facilities, career and professional development, and connections with
industry professionals (MESA, 2016).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This research study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MCCP and MEP on the
retention and graduation of educationally disadvantaged, first-generation female students in
STEM majors. Additional goals of the study included exploring how first-generation females
viewed the influence of MESA on their persistence in STEM, and understanding the resources
that are needed to support their persistence in STEM. The following research questions served
as a framework that guided this study:
The following research questions guided the research study:
1. How is Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) being implemented by
university administrators and faculty at two- and four-year colleges to support the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged female students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines?
2. How do (did) educationally disadvantaged female students in higher education perceive
MESA has (had) influenced their graduation from STEM majors?
3. What resources from the MESA program are needed to influence the persistence and
retention of educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level?
4. How effective has the MESA program been for influencing the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM majors at the postsecondary level?

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 207

Review of Methodology
The study utilized an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design. The
quantitative data collection approach included the distribution of the survey instrument to
research participants from Sites A-E via SurveyMonkey™ and paper-and-pencil surveys.
Quantitative data was analyzed for descriptive statistics, correlations, and linear regressions
using SPSS Analytics. Once the quantitative data was processed, an interview protocol was
developed that focused on delving deeper into the emerging themes. Interview data from six
participants were coded using the Constant Comparative Method in Microsoft Excel. Qualitative
data were used to confirm and inform the data that was derived from the survey instrument. As
such, any overarching themes related to how former and current female MESA students
perceived the program’s effectiveness in preparing and supporting their retention and graduation
in STEM majors were documented. Through triangulation of the survey data, existing MESA
documents, and participants’ interviews, it was determined that the MESA program provides
appropriate supports that promote the persistence of students in STEM majors. Specifically, as
suggested by the existing body of literature, MESA approached student support in STEM
through the incorporation of evidence-based supports that are outlined by the conceptual
framework – academic support, social support, motivational support, and networking support.
This research study investigated the impact of MESA programs on the retention and
graduation of educationally disadvantaged, first generation females in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level. Study findings suggested that educationally disadvantaged females agree
that MESA played a pivotal role in their acquisition of skills, motivation, self-confidence, and
social networking. Female participants also agreed that the MESA program implemented
resources that contributed to the overall effectiveness of the program. However, based on the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 208

study findings, there are aspects of the MESA program that could be reimagined and restructured
to strengthen the effectiveness of the programming in higher education. In the following section,
key elements that were uncovered in the study will be elaborated upon in the discussion of
findings and results. Additionally, strengths and weaknesses of the research study will be
addressed.
Discussion of Findings and Results
Thus far, in this research study, the process of exploring the research questions began in
Chapter One with a context of the problem, purpose of the study, and significance of the study.
Specifically, Chapter One included an outline of the need for an adequate workforce in STEM,
described the underrepresentation of educationally disadvantaged students in STEM, and
proposed the potential of MESA for addressing the problem of practice. From there, an
exhaustive review of literature as it pertains to the research study was presented in Chapter Two.
Themes that were included in the literature review were: an introduction to historical policies
related to STEM education, a discussion of the students traditionally left out of STEM careers, a
summary of the pipeline model of STEM persistence, and an examination of key features of
effective STEM outreach programs. Then, Chapter Three included the research design and
methodology, an explanation of the appropriateness of the mixed-method approach, and the
identification of the instruments and tools used to collect and analyze the data. Chapter Four was
a presentation of the results of the data analysis which were used to identify relevant patterns and
emergent themes from the surveys and interviews. This chapter will begin with a restatement of
the purpose of the study, which will be followed by a discussion of the findings that will be used
to draw conclusions, outline future directions of study, and provide implications for practice.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 209

Connection to Previous Studies
The body of literature pertaining to the persistence of educationally disadvantaged
females in STEM suggest that females face internal and external barriers that cause them to leave
the STEM pipeline prior to college graduation. Specifically, previous literature has identified the
following elements that affect women’s decisions to persist in or pursue STEM careers:
academic support, educational and occupational gender disparities, professional networking
support, occupational awareness and interests, psychological elements, and personal provisions.
The individual aforementioned factors can be consolidated into the following four overarching
categories: academic remediation and intervention, social support and community building,
professional and career networking, and motivational encouragement. These overarching
categories are not mutually exclusive – rather females may experience a multitude of any one of
these factors which may impede her ability to persist in STEM. Furthermore, these elements of
influence may occur simultaneously or at different stages across the lifespan and career
development process, and not all females will be affected by the same factors. Previous
literature hypothesized that the number of factors females face coupled with their cumulative
experiences with STEM are correlated to their decision to persist or pursue in STEM careers.
Using the body of literature as a foundation, these four overarching themes emerged as
pivotal forms of support that can affect educationally disadvantaged females’ persistence in
STEM. As such, academic support, social support, networking support, and motivational
support comprised the conceptual framework utilized in the research study. Thus, the guiding
research questions that framed the study, aimed to uncover how MESA effectively addressed
each of the four areas of support needed to holistically support females in their STEM endeavors.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 210

In the subsequent section, the conceptual framework, as guided by the literature, is used to
discuss the effectiveness of MESA on females’ persistence and retention in STEM.
Discussion of Findings
University implementation. The first research question of the research study
investigated the implementation of MESA in two- and four-year higher education institutions. It
was determined through the data collection and analysis process that females showed some level
of agreement that MESA programming, when present in higher education settings, proved
beneficial to their overall university experience in STEM. Quantitative survey data suggested
that when MESA at the secondary and postsecondary levels incorporated the following elements
into their MCCP and MESP, females indicated positive experiences in STEM: close connections
with instructors, staff, and program directors who cared about students’ success, long-term
academic and social support, opportunities to continue to be active in the MESA community, and
introduction to relevant role models and mentors in STEM. Qualitative data elucidated that
females’ experiences with MESA at the postsecondary level was highly variable and dependent
on the type of institution attended, type of MESA program offered, and level of institutional and
departmental support.
Research indicated that it is beneficial and encouraging for females to experience STEM
focused outreach programs that build a sense of social community as they engage in academic
and career-related pursuits (Szelényi et al., 2013). Lack of tutoring or academic support services
and community education programs are also an important factor on female’s persistence in
pursuing a STEM career. Consistent with the body of literature, when MESA programs
incorporated academic and social support through such elements as peer tutoring and mentoring
programs, females reported a stronger sense of university support.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 211

Moreover, when university implementation of MESA included networking opportunities
and exposure to career paths in STEM, females’ indicated higher levels of satisfaction with the
MESA program. Research showed that occupational awareness and interests related to STEM
are majorly influenced during elementary education and reinforced both negatively and
positively throughout experiences in secondary and postsecondary education (Riegle-Crumb et
al., 2012). University MESA programs that were found to be most beneficial explicitly
described the various paths within STEM, explained the requisite preparation needed to attain
such a career, and provided continued exposure to job tasks as well as opportunities to strengthen
related skills and knowledge.
Possibly the most surprising findings pertaining to Research Question 1 was the large
variability in MESA program implementation among higher education institutions. Findings
suggested that for educationally disadvantaged female students, the MCCP at two-year colleges
is a better option for students pursuing STEM. This is because two-year colleges 1) have MESA
at the postsecondary level, and 2) are more likely to provide resources that lead to students’
overall persistence and graduation in STEM. Participant surveys revealed that responses
indicated variability from “Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” for survey questions measuring
Research Question 1. However, it was the open-ended responses and participant interviews that
provided insight into why there was such variability in response.
Female participants of the MESA program in a community college reported more
positive experiences with STEM at the higher education level. Participants in MCCP indicated
they had access to academic tutoring to develop and enhance mathematics and science skills,
close connections to faculty, and opportunities to become a MESA tutor. In contrast, females
enrolled at four-year universities indicated a negative experience in STEM due to an insufficient
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 212

or nonexistent MESA program and lack of departmental support. Four-year universities were
less likely to have MEP available as a resource for educationally disadvantaged females. This
contributed to students’ lack of self-concept and self-efficacy. For those students who belonged
to MSP in secondary education, the lack of such a program in higher education was a significant
loss. As previous research indicated psychological elements that heavily influence persistence
and choices for females in STEM include a female’s self-efficacy and self-concept (Xu &
Martin, 2011). When these motivational elements are not thoroughly addressed, females are
susceptible to leaving the STEM field.
Female students also indicated higher levels of departmental and institutional support at
four-year universities. Research from the body of literature pertaining to STEM persistence
indicated that where females choose to enroll in undergraduate studies impacts their decision to
stay in STEM (Griffith, 2010). Female STEM students who experienced higher achievement in
STEM departments than in their other courses were more likely to persist as STEM majors
(Griffith, 2010). Conversely, females who received negative to impersonal feedback from their
STEM department were less likely to persist in STEM. This study confirmed that females at
four-year universities reported sentiments of discouragement from STEM advisors within the
department and lack of support at a higher rate than females who attended two-year colleges.
Female perceptions of MESA. The second research question explored how first
generation university females perceived MESA impacted their graduation from STEM majors.
Previous studies have found that STEM outreach programs are successful for retaining
educationally disadvantaged females in the STEM pipeline because they provided ongoing
academic support throughout students’ educational careers, a network of like-minded peers,
opportunities for professional and career development, and emotional encouragement (Schultz &
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 213

Mueller, 2006; Gándara & Bial, 2001; Gilmer, 2007; Strayhorn, 2011; Swail et al., 2012). The
MESA program incorporated elements of these support systems in their comprehensive
secondary and postsecondary programs. Generally, results from the quantitative results indicated
that females reported neutral to somewhat agreement that MESA positively influenced their
graduation with a STEM major.
Specifically, survey data showed that female participants indicated the highest degrees of
agreement with increased attitudes in mathematics and science that could be attributed with
MESA participation. This is consistent with previous findings iterated in the literature which
suggested that targeted academic support programs implemented higher education institutions
prove effective for encouraging females and educationally disadvantaged students to persist in
STEM majors (Gilmer, 2007). Female study participants credit the MESA program with
fostering positive learning experiences in STEM through hands-on learning activities,
development of deductive and reasoning skills, and social networking. Furthermore, study
participants were also likely to encourage other females to participate in MESA suggesting that
females view the program as beneficial for persistence in STEM. At least some females
suggested that MESA increased their motivation to persevere in STEM by creating an
environment of success, opportunities to engage with like-minded peers, and building of
community.
Findings from the study were less conclusive regarding how females perceived the
typical STEM worker. Data from the research study confirmed that female participants still
perceive the STEM field as a male-dominated field that is impermeable to females. As previous
research indicated, this study corroborated the perception that the physical sciences,
mathematics, and engineering still remain largely male-dominated professions (Riegle-Crumb et
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 214

al., 2012). Interview data confirmed that some female participants relied on MESA to feel
empowered as a female in STEM and utilized MESA as a way to form social connections to
combat isolation. This study seems to reiterate there is sufficient need to continue to breakdown
gender stereotypes in STEM to increase female persistence in STEM. Consistent with previous
students, female students who were able to overcome their self-efficacy were then faced with
societal norms that portray females as the caretaker in the household. Ultimately, personal utility
value for raising a family conflicted with students’ desire to achieve success in STEM (Xu &
Martin, 2011).
Data from this study suggested that female study participants indicated neutral to low
levels of agreement that they have increased self-efficacy to pursue a STEM career upon
graduation. According to the broader frameworks of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977),
students form their self-efficacy from previous lived experiences and demonstrating competence.
Moreover, vicarious experiences and social persuasions have been found to be extremely critical
sources for developing and maintaining females’ self-efficacy beliefs, and females reported these
incidents were more influential than previous performance accomplishments (Zeldin et al.,
2008). For some female study participants, negative gender stereotypes in STEM, inequities in
education, and lack of relevant role models has negatively influenced their decision to enter
STEM. Interestingly, females in the study believed that additional opportunities for professional
development and career networking were needed to help overcome inequities in the STEM
workforce and disparities in the wage gap.
MESA resources. The third research question aimed to uncover the physical, emotional,
and financial resources that are needed within the MESA program to increase female persistence
in STEM majors at the postsecondary level. Female study participants tended to agree that
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 215

academic, social, and emotional support implemented by MESA are critical components for
increasing female persistence in STEM. Additionally, females in this study suggested there is a
need for increased networking support and financial support to supplant the current resources
utilized by MESA.
Within the academic realm, females somewhat attributed the grades they earned in higher
education to the MESA program. The literature review revealed that gender related educational
disparities impact females’ persistence in STEM (Tindall & Hamil, 2004; Tyson et al., 2007).
Females are traditionally left out of the more rigorous courses in secondary education that
prepare students for STEM education (Burkam & Lee, 2003; Tyson et al., 2007). As such, it is
important that females in STEM are provided opportunities to acquire mathematics and science
skills that are needed for STEM education through the MESA program. Female study
participants indicated that both MCCP and MEP included opportunities to access academic
support in the form of tutoring.
Female study participants indicated agreement that MESA provided opportunities to
engage socially with like-minded peers. However, females reported a need for additional
opportunities to engage with faculty on university campuses. Previous literature showed that
role models, specifically faculty role models, may influence female students’ persistence in
STEM (Griffith, 2010). While data from previous studies are inconclusive regarding same
gender mentors, females in this research study voiced a need for more female faculty in STEM to
develop positive self-identity in STEM. Similarly, female participants desired more
opportunities to connect to STEM focused organizations on campus. There were sentiments of
feeling isolated in STEM that was confounded by being a female in STEM that could be
addressed through collaboration across various university organizations.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 216

Females agreed that their interest in STEM was increased due to the resources provided
by STEM. Interest, along with addition psychological factors such as self-efficacy and
motivation, have been found to influence the persistence of females in STEM (Wang, M. T., &
Degol, 2013). In this study, it was revealed that MESA incorporated supplemental activities
such as science competitions and MESA events that sparked interest within the STEM field.
These experiences were important to shaping and molding females’ roles in the STEM
disciplines.
There were two areas for which females recommended additional resources be devoted.
First, females suggested the need for more opportunities for networking and professional growth.
The literature revealed that professional networking support is important for female success in
STEM because it helps students navigate the STEM workforce and gain exposure to relevant
STEM careers (Xu & Martin, 2011). However, females in both MCCP and MEP indicated there
were less than adequate opportunities to engage with career professionals in STEM. Second,
females vocalized a need for financial assistance while pursuing STEM education. At present,
MESA does not offer financial assistance to students due to severe program budget cuts.
However, financial incentives offered by MESA in higher education would help economically
disadvantaged students further their STEM education, and could alleviate the need to attain
additional forms of employment. Female study participants reported feeling financially
responsible for their families, causing them to abandon their STEM studies in favor of less
rigorous coursework. Stipends, and opportunities for internships could ameliorate this need for
students and allow them to continue their STEM education.
Effectiveness of MESA. STEM focused outreach programs have proven effective for
retaining educationally disadvantaged students in STEM majors in higher education. Among the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 217

reasons these programs are successful include their targeted approaches for compensating for
educational and academic inequities faced by educationally disadvantaged populations. STEM
focused outreach programs provide a holistic and comprehensive long-term support model that
counter deficiencies in public education (Strayhorn, 2011; Swail et al., 2012). Program
components that have been shown effective in retaining females in STEM careers include early
academic interventions, fostering positive relationships, exposure to STEM career paths, and
college and career counseling. This study determined that female study participants felt that
MESA was an effective program for increasing students’ motivation to persist in STEM majors
in higher education.
Females agreed that they were more motivated to preserve in STEM-related courses as a
direct result of MESA participation. Females attributed MESA to sparking interest and building
self-identity in STEM. As previous research showed, females’ interest in STEM is heavily
influenced during elementary and early secondary education, and is reinforced negatively and
positively through their educational careers (Oakes, 1990; Trusty, 2002; Tyson et al., 2007).
Participants indicated that the early field trips to university campuses during secondary education
and the science competitions held in MESA were key motivators in gaining experience. Yet,
female participants credited the program’s ability to create social networks and increase self-
identity as additional factors that help hold students’ interests in STEM. It is theorized that
females in MESA experience activities that not only capture interest, but create lifelong
memories that motivate students to persist in STEM.
Study participants also revealed that they felt more confident in their mathematics and
science skills due to the emphasis MESA places on skill development and acquisition. Students
felt MSP reinforced taking higher level, rigorous curriculum in secondary school in order to gain
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 218

entry into competitive universities. Females who then continued their education at MCCP
reported access to a study center at the university level where academic peer tutoring was
common. Students in MEP were less likely to indicate that they had consistent access to a tutor,
especially after hours tutoring; however, MEP students felt they had developed sufficient
knowledge of self-regulation skills through their early MESA experiences.
Female study participants also reported that MESA helped them develop their own self-
identity in STEM. Research suggested that identity development is directly related to influences
on motivational beliefs and students’ intentions to persist in or leave STEM majors (Perez,
Cromley, & Kaplan, 2014). Furthermore, students’ achievement in science and specific
intentions to leave the STEM majors were dynamically correlated with competence beliefs,
values, and perceptions of cost for the major such as lost opportunities as well as stress and
anxiety (Perez et al., 2014). Study participants indicated MCCP helped students develop identity
through increasing students’ self-efficacy and value for the STEM field. This was achieved
through introducing peer and mentor support. It should be noted, however, that students in MEP
were less likely to report high levels of identity development, possibly due to the infrequency of
the program and inconsistencies in program calibration.
Finally, females reported that networking, specifically being able to meet professionals in
the field and make career connections post-graduation from STEM, was a key component of
MESA. Students in MCCP reported gaining access to female faculty and having close ties with
STEM faculty at higher rates than students in MEP. But, both MESA programs advertise they
incorporate networking into their models to give students real-life experiences and exposure to
STEM. The body of literature discusses the various factors that may bring about social-identity
threat, in particular how a female majoring in STEM may be discouraged by the lack of visible
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 219

female role models in the field and within the classroom (Ahlqvist, London, & Rosenthal, 2013).
Introducing a career network can help female students envision themselves as future STEM
professionals.
Limitations of Study Findings
Although the literature suggests that successful STEM outreach programs include a
component that addresses motivational support, according to the information provided by MESA
administrators and documentation, there are no specific evidence-based strategies aimed directly
at targeting students’ motivation in STEM. Rather, it appears that through providing students
with academic, social, and career networking support, students’ motivation was indirectly
addressed. Surprisingly, female students in this study indicated through survey data and
interview data that they agree that the program influences students’ motivation to continue
participating and pursuing STEM majors. However, limitations to the research did not directly
measure students’ self-efficacy prior to enrollment in MESA and thus, it is impossible to show
that individual’s self-efficacy increased as a result of the program.
Conclusion of Findings
The primary goal of this study was to understand and evaluate the effectiveness of MESA
for increasing the persistence of first generation females in STEM majors. The three MESA
programs, MSP, MCCP, and MEP provide students with comprehensive, long-term support to
increase educationally disadvantaged students’ persistence in STEM majors, disciplines, and
careers. The body of literature encompassing students’ persistence in STEM suggested that
outreach programs such as MESA work to remedy academic barriers that have traditionally left
educationally disadvantaged students out of the STEM pipeline. The MESA program has strived
to ameliorate the leaky pipeline in STEM by removing impediments to students and increasing
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 220

the number of trajectories to attain STEM success beginning in secondary education and
continuing on to postsecondary education. As previously indicated, the evidence-based
strategies that MESA encompasses includes the key elements rooted in research which address
the following: academic support, motivational support, social support, and networking support.
Academic Support
Study participants largely agreed that MESA programs provided sufficient academic
support. Most specifically, females reported that early academic intervention beginning in the
MSP helped students develop mathematics and science skills, deductive and logic skills, and
self-regulation techniques. Through MSP, students practiced honing these skills early on
through hands-on activities, science-based competitions, and supplemental activities. These
academic components of MESA were credited with preparing students for more rigorous
coursework, increased communication skills, and leadership development. It was evident from
this research study that as female participants progressed to higher education, there was more
variability in the types of academic support received.
Both higher education MESA programs, MCCP and MEP, intend to support
educationally disadvantaged students academically through skills workshops, orientation
courses, individualized learning plans, and guidance in the transfer process (MESA). However,
results of this study showed that academic support in MCCP and MEP were inconsistent, and
females largely attributed their success in STEM coursework to a combination of skill acquired
through MESA and personal motivation or drive.
While results of this research study showed that female participants reported earning high
grades in mathematics and science courses in higher education, females were less in agreement
about the rationale for their grades. Some females suggested that skill acquisition in MSP helped
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 221

them adequately prepare to persist in competitive, male-dominated courses. However, others,
largely those who attended four-year universities, felt that MEP in higher education was not a
key factor in their academic success. Instead, these students relied on their own personal
motivation to succeed. Students reported that they surrounded themselves with like-minded
peers, formed study groups, and sought out professor help during office hours. Though these
students had the ability to navigate the often difficult channels of the university system, it is
understandable that not all students would fare the same.
Student responses indicated the need for additional funding to increase the number and
types of tutoring resources available, and for the construction of larger study facilities to support
peer tutoring. Generally speaking, study participants enrolled in MCCP reported more
opportunities for academic support than those in MEP. This further suggests that there are
inconsistencies with regard to the long-term academic support that is provided through MESA.
These discrepancies and inadequacies of MESA resources and inconsistencies between MESA
programs is hypothesized to be linked to the massive budget cuts to the MESA program endured
beginning in the early 2000’s, which dramatically reduced monies allocated to higher education
programming.
Motivational Support
Female study participants reported increased self-efficacy and motivation to persist in
STEM as a result of the MESA program. Interesting, information provided through the MESA
website indicated that MCCP and MEP do not directly include a component of motivational
support. Yet, female study participants consistently reported the following: feeling empowered
through the MESA program, achieving a sense of belonging in a male-dominated field, and
developing a self-identity in STEM. Thus, it is theorized from the research findings that MESA
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 222

focuses its effort on increasing the other forms of support available – academic, networking, and
social – which in turn, impact students’ self-efficacy. As Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
(1986b) demonstrated, students’ self-efficacy beliefs (personal factors) are directly related to
behavior and the environment. Thus, when students begin to experience academic successes as a
result of self-regulation and academic interventions, coupled with an environment that fosters
community, their self-efficacy increases.
Moreover, a majority of the female participants generally agreed that MESA influenced
their motivation to persist and graduate in STEM. Thus, to an extent, MESA helps females
overcome challenges such as feelings of isolation, lack of belonging, and negative gender
stereotypes. These potential barriers are addressed through MCCP and MEP through the
incorporation of academic skill development, construction of social networks, fostering of peer
support, and opportunities for professional development. But, for at least some females in the
study, feelings of isolation were exacerbated by lack of institutional and departmental support.
Participants at four-year universities reported lower incidents of positive feedback from STEM
department advisors within the program. Additionally, females at four-year universities reported
less frequent communication with faculty and staff within the department. Moreover, these
students were less likely to have MEP on their university campuses to provide the needed
support to combat their negative experiences. Ultimately, for some females, the lack of positive
feedback and support from within the STEM department forced females to leave the major prior
to graduation.
Social Support
Findings from the research study indicated that educationally disadvantaged females
agree that MESA provides adequate social support that encourages females to stay in STEM
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 223

majors. Beginning in the MSP, students are exposed to STEM in a group atmosphere where they
engage in healthy competitions, field trips, and team building activities. Then, as students move
to higher education, students of MCCP and MEP are encouraged to network with like-minded
peers, engage in peer tutoring, and connect with other social organizations on campus. MESA’s
built-in social support was found to be a key element that encourages females’ persistence in
STEM through collaborative learning, community building, and career networking.
Female participants reported that MESA helps build a community that promotes students’
success. At two-year colleges, females indicated that there was a dedicated facility, a MESA
study center, which fostered collaboration, peer academic tutoring, and comradery. Social
support proved to be essential for females’ persistence in STEM as it gave students opportunities
to share valuable experiences, engage with like-minded individuals, and build a network of
support. Students of MEP did not have access to a specific MESA designated study area, and
thus indicated a stronger desire for additional opportunities for social support. Also, at two-year
community college, female students had more access to STEM faculty and staff, but at larger,
public and private institutions, females indicated the need to closer ties to STEM departments.
Programs like MESA are particularly important for educationally disadvantaged students
because they can provide students with a family-like culture on campus. Study participants who
were first-generation, were less likely to have a college-going tradition in their families as their
peers. Moreover, first generation students may have families who do not realize the benefits of a
college education, and more importantly, a STEM education. For these students, MESA offers a
plethora of knowledge that increases the utility of STEM education for students and their
families. Interesting to note, for several female study participants that indicated a need to obtain
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 224

employment concurrently while attending college, STEM persistence was sacrificed in favor of
familial and financial responsibilities.
Networking Support
This study found that MESA does allocate some resources to networking support;
however, female participants reported the need for additional opportunities to engage with
STEM professionals and STEM focused organizations on campus. Females enrolled in MCCP
were in agreement that MESA attempted to provide networking support through guest speakers,
faculty mentors, and industry partnerships. Yet, females indicated there was a lack of same-
gender role models, which confounds perceptions of STEM being a male-dominated endeavor.
At the community college level, females enrolled in MCCP reported through survey and
interview data that navigating the transfer process to four-year institutions was made sufficiently
more feasible through the MESA program. Females in MCCP were also given opportunities to
give back to the MESA community through academic tutoring on campus.
However, at four-year universities, there was less consistent agreement about the nature
and scope of networking support received by students. Study participants noted there were less
opportunities allocated to career transitioning. Females reported a strong need for allocated
funding job-shadowing of career professionals, internships, and volunteering. Moreover,
females requested stronger ties to the STEM community on campus. Specially, females desire to
make connections with other STEM organizations within the university environment. Funding
cuts to the MESA program in higher education may be a contributing factor for the lack of
networking support in higher education institutions. In the past, there may have been more
funding allocated to developing and maintaining ties with the STEM profession within the
community.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 225

Program Recommendations
Through the comprehensive programming centered around academic, motivational,
social, and networking supports, the MESA program has been able to help thousands of
educationally disadvantaged students attain jobs in STEM (MESA, 2016). At the postsecondary
level, strengths of the MESA program lie in form of academic interventions, developing of a
STEM community, and increasing students’ motivation to persist in STEM. Despite these
individual strengths of the MESA program, female participants of this study elucidated elements
of the program that require restructuring and strengthening. Such elements include reallocating
and increasing program funding, streamlining the secondary to postsecondary transition,
calibrating programs among higher education institutions, bolstering university departmental
support, and providing more opportunities for networking and professional growth.
Program Funding
The MESA program experienced severe budget cuts beginning in 2002-2003. It is
estimated that nearly 55% of the funding from the UC was eliminated negatively impacting the
MESA pre-college and university programs (MESA, 2016). Then, in 2009-2010, another 38%
of the funding to the community colleges was cut (MESA, 2016). These budget cuts translated
to fewer resources for educationally disadvantaged students in higher education. In turn, the
extensive cuts have negatively affected all of the essential support components of the higher
education programming in MCCP and MEP.
Within the arena of academic support, the MESA program is providing foundational
early academic interventions in mathematics and science skill development at the secondary
level through the MSP. However, at the postsecondary level, budget cuts have drastically
reduced the resources available to support students at two-and four-year colleges and
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 226

universities. Students reported less access to academic tutoring, fewer textbooks, rundown study
facilities, and fewer academic scholarships. In the worst case scenarios, complete abandonment
of the MESA program has been necessitated. This appears to be the case for MEP, the MESA
program situated at four-year universities. MEP has sustained long-term hits which has relegated
the program to very few university campuses.
It is hypothesized that if the MESA program received more funding to increase its span
and scope, there would be additional opportunities to support educationally disadvantaged
students in STEM majors through the incorporation of afterhours tutoring, enhanced technology-
focused resources, and state of the art facilities. Due to the cuts in grant money, higher education
institutions are hesitant to allocate the monies to restructuring and redeveloping the MESA
program. Moreover, funding cuts have nearly obliterated the number of financial awards and
incentives that students rely on for financing higher education.
In addition, MESA funding cuts have limited the types of social and networking supports
available to students in higher education. As previously mentioned, students of MCCP reported
having a dilapidated and insufficiently sized study center, while students of MEP indicated no
such center existed. The lack of a designated MESA study center negatively impacts students’
ability to build social networks with peers, seek out tutorial help, and navigate the challenges of
higher education. Furthermore, potential industry partnerships are impeded as organizations
become increasingly hesitant to devote financial resources to programs that are susceptible to
elimination in the near future.
Secondary to Postsecondary Transition
A key finding from the research study showed there was a need to strengthen and
streamline communication between the MSP at the secondary level and MCCP and MEP at the
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 227

postsecondary level. Currently, MSP operates the pre-college program through university
sponsored partnerships, and is often housed on university campuses throughout the state of
California. For the 2015-2016 academic year, MSP supported nearly 20,000 students through
476 pre-college programs (MESA, 2016). In contrast, MESA supported approximately 4,200
students in community colleges and 3,000 students at four-year institutions (MESA, 2016). The
data obtained from the MESA website indicates the number of students supported decreases
dramatically between the secondary to postsecondary transition. Interestingly the rationale for
the drop in the number of educationally disadvantaged students supported by MESA remains
unclear. It is speculated that the drop in MESA participants can be accounted for by the
following explanations: fewer MCCP and MEP sites to support students, students leaving the
STEM pipeline prior to matriculating to higher education, and lack of knowledge of MESA at
the postsecondary level.
What is known about the transition from secondary to postsecondary education is that it
is a pivotal time for students’ persistence in STEM. At present, there appears to be a disconnect
between resources and support for educationally disadvantaged students as they progress from
secondary to postsecondary education. Moreover, for students who participate in MSP in
secondary school, but are unable to continue to participate in MCCP or MEP, the effects are
immense. Female study participants reported frustration from the lack of knowledge about the
discontinuation of MESA in higher education, which confounded feelings of isolation and poor
sense of belonging. In order to provide a comprehensive program with long-term support,
MESA should streamline the transition from secondary to postsecondary education by aligning
program goals at each level to build incrementally. Additionally, funding to the MESA program
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 228

in higher education should be bolstered and/or restored to increase the span and scope of the
program across California institutions.
Calibrating MESA Programming
The MESA program has overarching goals and objectives at the postsecondary level that
provide the foundation for program implementation. However, this study brought to the
forefront the noteworthy program inconsistencies and discrepancies in higher education. Most
significantly, program implementation was highly variable between MCCP at two-year colleges
and MEP at four-year universities. According to MESA (2016) both MCCP and MEP are
supposed to include the following components: academic excellence workshops, orientation
workshops, academic advising, career development, links to professional organizations, and
industry partnerships. The only program component that is unique to MCCP is the additional
guidance and insight into the transfer process (MESA, 2016).
Despite the overlapping components of the program, the experiences of female study
participants indicated that there were substantial differences in the nature of support that was
received. Two important findings emerged as a result of participants’ experiences. First,
students at MCCP were exposed to more extensive forms of academic, social, and networking
support than students in MEP. This suggested educationally disadvantaged students at two-year
colleges are receiving more types of support than students at four-year universities, and this
could be due in part to the assumption that students at four-year universities require less
assistance. Or, it is possible that MESA programs at four-year universities were harder hit by the
budget cuts to the program.
Second, where students attend college plays a significant role in the type of experience
students report in MESA and their overall persistence in STEM. Research findings suggested
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 229

that university site is a statistically significant predictor of how students evaluate the
effectiveness of the MESA program. Participants who attended two-year colleges were more
likely to report the MESA program was effective in influencing their persistence in STEM. In
contrast, females who attended four-year universities were more likely to report a combination of
factors, including personal motivation and like-minded peers, as the reason for their persistence
in STEM. To better support educationally disadvantaged students in STEM, MESA could
consider implementing university accountability measures that aim to evaluate how each site is
achieving program goals. Increased accountability would also align programming across
university sites and ensure all students are receiving equitable resources from the MESA
program.
Institutional Support
One of the confounding factors that emerged from the study is the issue of institutional,
and more importantly, departmental support at higher education institutions. Previous research
has indicated that institutional characteristics play a significant role in female persistence in
STEM majors at the postsecondary level (Griffith, 2010). The data suggested that female
students who attended universities where undergraduate education was emphasized over
graduate work were more likely to persist in STEM majors (Griffith, 2010). Furthermore,
female students who attended large, selective universities where research expenditures were
disproportionately higher than educational expenditures, had lower rates of persistence – this was
especially true for educationally disadvantaged students and minority females (Griffith, 2010).
Consistent with previous findings, the results of this study showed that female study
participants who attend large research universities indicated through survey and interview data
that they did not persist in the STEM major. Data findings revealed that participants reported
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 230

receiving little to no support from the institution regarding course selection and navigation of
institutional channels. Moreover, female study participants also indicated the lack of
departmental support from STEM advisors played a key role in their decision to leave the major.
Females reported that advisors within the mathematics and science departments were unwilling
to assist students in securing laboratory or research opportunities, an essential component of the
major. Additionally, at least one female interviewee reported that the department advisor
discouraged her from pursuing STEM. Thus, it appears that even if educationally disadvantaged
females participate in MESA, confounding issues that may prevent them from staying in STEM
majors are their negative experiences within the institution and the major department. Further
research is needed to explore whether persistence rates differed between females who
participated in MESA during secondary education and females currently enrolled in MESA at
the postsecondary level.
Career Transition
A component of the MESA Program that female participants perceive to be
underdeveloped is the career networking and transition. MESA strives to prepare STEM
students for entering the workforce through internships, industry partnerships, guest speakers,
and mentoring. Yet, participants of this study reported a lack of opportunities to collaborate with
STEM industry professionals. Griffith (2010) noted that same gender faculty and professional
role models may contribute to the persistence of female STEM students in higher education.
Moreover, Marra et al. (2009) reported that females’ self-efficacy beliefs were primarily
influenced through their own personal experiences. Therefore, in theory, providing female
students exposure to STEM internships, professional growth, and opportunities would help
motivate students to persist through building up their self-efficacy. Data collected from survey
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 231

and interviews corroborated the body of literature and suggests that additional resources devoted
to career preparation and transition would increase female STEM persistence in STEM through
increasing motivation. Females reported that they would like to engage with female faculty and
role models to better understand how STEM professionals maintain a balance between their
careers and personal lives.
Study participants also recommended that MESA increase the number of internship
opportunities available to students in higher education. Participants suggested that internships
would serve as a way to incentivize studying STEM by offering financial aid to students to
whom may otherwise need to work while trying to complete school. In addition, internships
would provide students exposure to potential careers in STEM and give students real world
experiences that would assist in job placement.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations to the research methodology should be considered when interpreting the
results and findings from this research study. Preliminarily limitations were outlined in Chapter
One prior to conducting the research study. These limitations revolved around issues related to
time, accessibility to sampling sites, and participant selection and are reiterated here. First, the
research study was constrained by time and proximity to the researcher. It was necessary to
narrow the scope of the research study to ensure that data collection, analysis, and reporting of
findings could be completed during the duration of the doctoral program. Second, sampling sites
within the greater Los Angeles region were selected due to proximity to the researcher and
accessibility to the research site. Third, the USC-MESA program was selected as a model for a
successful STEM outreach program because its access was facilitated by the program directors,
and MESA has a long-standing history of supporting educationally disadvantaged students in
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 232

STEM. Fourth, in selecting research participants, it is important to consider that the sample size
of first-generation females was small, and this could reduce the generalizability of the findings
for this study. Fifth, the self-report responses elicited by the survey instrument may not be
indicative of the true sentiments of the study participants. Similarly, interview responses may be
skewed to present answers to appear more favorable to the researcher.
After conducting this research study, additional limitations of the study became apparent.
The survey instrument utilized in this research study was generated by the researcher for this
particular study and the specified research participants. Though internal reliability was
established through pilot testing and confirmatory analysis, the survey instrument was not as
refined as an established instrument might be. Additional tests of calibration, reliability, and
validity would need to be conducted if this instrument were to be utilized in successive studies.
Research participants selected from this study included former and current members of
the MESA program. However, because this study was not a longitudinal study of a single
cohort, students’ experiences with the MESA program spanned several years. This suggests that
some participants may have been members of the MESA program prior to budget cuts, and thus,
may have significantly different accounts of the program. As such, there was no way to control
for the time when students participated in MESA, and this needs to be considered when
interpreting the results of the study.
Another limitation of the study centers around the study participants themselves.
Although, MESA program directors at university sites were present for the completion of the
survey instrument on at least two occasion, the presence of perceived authority figures could
skew the data as participants felt obligated to present the MESA program director in a favorable
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 233

light. Though participants were informed results would be kept confidential, an added layer of
bias could have been introduced through the director’s presence.
Finally, as this research study focused on the unique experiences of first-generation
females in MESA and their persistence in STEM, it is important that results not be extrapolated
to other populations. The findings should not be removed from the study context to explain the
experiences of other educationally disadvantaged students in STEM.
Implications for Practice
Many of the greatest advancements in our nation’s innovativeness and ingenuity can be
attributed to the remarkable achievements attained in STEM. Although the STEM workforce
comprises a small percentage of the overall labor workforce in the US, the economic growth
within STEM outpaces the growth in non-STEM fields. If the goal of the US is to remain a
competitive nation in the science and technological fields, it is important that there are enough
highly qualified individuals to fulfill the projected labor needs. Females have traditionally been
left out of the STEM workforce as a result of a well-documented gender gap. The gender gap in
STEM is evidenced by the dramatically lower numbers of high school females that enter college
as STEM majors, persist and graduate with a STEM degree, and enter a STEM career (Clark
Blickenstaff, 2005). Further confounding the issue, many undergraduate students who enrolled
in colleges with an intended major in STEM changed their course of study partway through their
college career, and this pattern was especially true for females and minorities (Griffith, 2010). If
female students do not persist in STEM majors, then the likelihood they will select STEM
careers decreases. It is important to understand why females do not persist in STEM because
their absence from STEM majors leads to gender inequity, differences in compensation, and a
lack of diversity in the work force (Milgram, 2011).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 234

The findings in this research study could provide significant implications for educational
policies and practices in the future. The existing body of literature surrounding the barriers to
STEM persistence suggested that females exit the STEM pipeline at pivotal junctions throughout
their educational careers. A number of STEM outreach programs were implemented by
universities in an attempt to patch the leaky pipeline and retain more females in STEM.
However, data were inconclusive with regard to the effectiveness of these STEM outreach
programs. More important still, there was little empirical evidence to suggest that STEM
outreach programs actually were successful in retaining females in the STEM pipeline
(Berryman, 1983; Strayhorn, 2011).
This research study investigated the effectiveness of MESA, one particular
comprehensive STEM outreach program, to ascertain whether the program components were
beneficial in retaining educationally disadvantaged females in STEM majors at the
postsecondary level. The findings of this research study aim to fill a gap in the body of literature
related to how the STEM outreach program works, and which elements of the program are
potentially beneficial for supporting educationally disadvantaged students in the STEM pipeline.
The empirical data garnered from this study indicated program components of MESA which
targeted academic, motivational, networking, and social supports positively correlated to
increased female retention in STEM. These results can prove beneficial to future educational
policies and legislations that will be implemented as educational leaders and decision makers
face the ongoing issue of how to retain females in STEM and ensure the US STEM workforce
remains robust.
It is imperative that STEM outreach programs such as MESA are held accountable to
their vision and mission of supporting educationally disadvantaged female students in STEM.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 235

As the number of females who enroll in higher education continues to rise and outnumber their
male counterparts, it is important that their presence in STEM is equally representative. If
MESA, and similar STEM outreach programs are a possible solution, it is important that
adequate funding and resources are aimed at keeping these programs alive.
Recommendations for Future Study
While the findings from this research study have significant implications for closing the
gender gap in STEM, narrowing the wage gap, and eliminating inequities in education, further
studies of the effectiveness of MESA could provide additional insight into the program. This
study examined the effectiveness of MESA through the unique perceptions of former and current
first generation females. Understanding how female MESA students perceived the program was
essential for exploring the meaning of their experiences in STEM majors and determining how
MESA supports students in STEM. Future studies should include a component aimed at
replicating the findings from this study, but should also be expanded to include a longitudinal
study of a cohort of MESA participants. Outlined below are recommendations for future
directions of research related to the MESA program.
Since MESA’s inception in 1970, the program has been susceptible to reduced funding
and significant budget cuts beginning in the early 2000s. These budget cuts have drastically
reduced the type and number of resources that have been allocated for supporting females and
educationally disadvantaged students in higher education MESA programs. Specifically, both
MCCP and MEP have been financially strapped resulting in less opportunities for academic,
social, and networking support. Future studies should aim to explore the effects of the budget
cuts on the effectiveness of the MESA program in higher education. By conducting a
comparative analysis of the MESA program pre- and post-budget cuts, findings may elucidate
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 236

which components are essential to student success and which could be eliminated without severe
ramifications. Such a study would shed light on how program resources should be allocated to
maximize program effectiveness.
Although this research study began to explore and investigate the three individual MESA
programs, future studies could investigate the effectiveness of each program individually to see
which program is correlated with the greatest rates of retention of female undergraduates in
STEM majors. This study specifically focused on the MESA Community College Program
(MCCP) and MESA Engineering Program (MEP) to determine how universities implement these
programs, resources offered, and the overall effectiveness. Follow-up studies should explore
which of the higher education MESA programs are more effective in retaining females in STEM
and graduating students from majors.
A long-term study is needed to understand why first generation females leave STEM
majors prior to graduation. A follow-up study should include a six-year longitudinal study
consisting of a cohort model. The study should identify and follow the educational careers of
high school first generation females enrolled in MSP. The longitudinal study should track their
enrollment in MESA in higher education and their enrollment in college or university. Each
year, the cohort could be given a survey instrument to document current major, coursework, and
MESA enrollment. The longitudinal study would help shed light on which students are retained
in STEM and what program components are effective. The study would also provide insight into
which higher education transitional times are most critical for focusing efforts on retention.
Additional future directions for study should also try to elicit empirical evidence about
the effectiveness of STEM outreach programs. Currently, several such outreach programs exist,
however there is a gap in the literature concerning their effectiveness for retaining students in
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 237

STEM majors and disciplines. A future study might opt to compare the program components
and results of MESA against a similar established outreach program. Insight from this type of
analysis would yield valuable data regarding the effectiveness of evidence-based strategies on
persistence in STEM.
Conclusion
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the MCCP and the MEP for promoting
the persistence and graduation of educationally disadvantaged females in STEM. The
perceptions of first generation females who participated in MESA were analyzed to determine
the components of MESA which directly support students in STEM majors. Moreover, this
research study aimed to fill a void in the literature by exploring the participants’ perspectives of
the STEM outreach program. It was determined through the research findings, that
comprehensive programs such as MESA’s MCCP and MEP programs are important for
recruiting and retaining a robust STEM workforce. Without the support of such programs, the
US would be susceptible to a loss in diversity, innovation, and competitiveness. It is
increasingly important that females and educationally disadvantaged students are provided with
opportunities to become part of the STEM workforce in order to address inequities in the labor
force, close wage gaps, and combat negative stereotypes. The exclusion of certain subgroups
from the STEM field is a missed opportunity for all.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 238

References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and
bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office
of Research and Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/Title.html
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Ahlqvist, S., London, B., & Rosenthal, L. (2013). Unstable identity compatibility: How gender
rejection sensitivity undermines the success of women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1644-1652.
doi:10.1177/0956797613476048
Allen-Ramdial, S. A. A., & Campbell, A. G. (2014). Reimagining the pipeline: Advancing
STEM diversity, persistence, and success. BioScience, 64(7), 612-618.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. (2011). An act to invest in innovation
through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States,
and for other purposes. Public Law 111-358, 124 Stat. 3982. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf
Anderson, E., & Kim, D. (2006). Increasing the success of minority students in science and
technology. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Armstrong, J. M. (1980). Achievement and participation in mathematics: An overview.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 239

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1992). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different
college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Final Report. Los
Angles, CA: High Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial
and ethnic groups. NCES 2010-015. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America
for a brighter economic future. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the
21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/gathering_storm_energizing_and_em
ploying_america2.asp
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986a). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1986b). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2011). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 523-550.
Bare, S. R. (2008). America COMPETES Act. Chemical & Engineering News, 86(9), 3.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 240

Bayer Corporation. (2006). Bridging the diversity gap in science and engineering: Introducing
STEM industries to K-12 best practice programs. Paper presented at the STEM
Education Diversity Forum, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from
http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/14447
Bayer Corporation. (2012). Bayer facts of science education XV: A view from the gatekeepers–
STEM department chairs at America’s top 200 research universities on female and
underrepresented minority undergraduate STEM students. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 21(3), 317-324. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1023527659? doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9364-1
Bayer Corporation. (2014). The Bayer facts of science education XVI: US STEM workforce
shortage-myth or reality? Fortune 1000 talent recruiters on the debate. Journal of Science
Education Technology, 23, 617-623. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9501-0
Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011).
Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration
Issue Brief #04-11.
Bergeron, L., & Gordon, M. (2015). Establishing a STEM pipeline: Trends in male and female
enrollment and performance in higher level secondary STEM courses. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9693-7
Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who will do science? Trends, and their causes in minority and female
representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics. A
Special Report. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245052
Best, L. R. (2011). Algebra for every eighth grade student: One size fits all? (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 241

Blum, L. (2006). Expanding the pipeline: Transforming the culture of computing at Carnegie
Mellon. Computing Research News, 11(2), 6.
Bodilly, S., & Beckett, M. (2005). Making out-of-school time matter: Evidence for an action
agenda. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Bonous-Harnmarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science,
mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 92–111.
Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7.
Burkam, D. T., & Lee, V. E. (2003). Mathematics, foreign language, and science coursetaking
and the NELS:88 transcript data (NCES 2003–01). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Burtner, J. (2005). The use of discriminant analysis to investigate the influence of non-cognitive
factors on engineering school persistence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 335.
Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing
America’s disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42, 2, 199-249.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015). California assessment of student
performance and progress (CAASPP): Test results for English language arts/literacy and
mathematics. Retrieved from http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/SB2015/Search
California State University (CSU) Long Beach (2016). Engineering student success center:
MESA schools program. Retrieved from
http://web.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/views/essc/k_12_outreach_recruitment/mesa.shtml
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 242

California State University (CSU) Los Angeles (2016). Engineering, computer science, and
technology (ECST): MESA engineering program. Retrieved from
http://www.calstatela.edu/ecst/success/mesa-engineering-program-mep
California State University (CSU) System. (2015). Total enrollment by sex and student level, fall
2015. Retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2015-2016/f15_01.htm
Campbell, G., Jr., Denes R., Jr., & Morrison, C., Jr. (Eds.). (2000). Access denied: Race,
ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline
metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM
workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443-460.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). STEM project-based learning:
An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd
ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from
https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1522-stem-project-based-learning.pdf
Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-
efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71.
Carnes, M., Schuler, L., Sarto, G. E., Lent, S. J., & Bakken, L. (2006). Increasing sex and
ethnic/racial diversity of researchers in aging: Some promising strategies at the
postdoctoral level. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54(6): 980–985.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00739.x.
Carpenter, T. P., Hiebert, J., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The effect of instruction on children's
solutions of addition and subtraction word problems. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 14(1), 55-72.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 243

Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for
retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresent racial groups. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555-580. Retrieved from
https://odi.osu.edu/uploads/Chang_Mitchell_J.pdf
Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
in postsecondary education. Stats in brief. NCES 2009-161. Jessup, MD: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Clark Blickenstaff, J. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386.
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2011, winter). The postbaccalaureate goals of college women in
STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, (152), 51-58. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/968114255?
College Board. (2016a). The AP experience Get the most out of your classes. Retrieved from
https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/exploreap/the-ap-experience
College Board. (2016b). College guidance: First-generation students. Retrieved from
https://professionals.collegeboard.org/guidance/prepare/first-generation
Contreras, F. (2011). Strengthening the bridge to higher education for academically promising
underrepresented students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 500-526.
Corwin, Z., Colyar, J. E., & Tierney, W. G. (2005). Introduction: Engaging research and practice
– Extracurricular and curricular influences on college access. In W. G. Tierney,
Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective
outreach (pp. 1-9). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 244

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the
world of work. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Department of Education Organization Act. (1979). An act to establish a department of
education, and for other purposes. Public Law No. 96-88, § 402, 93 Stat. 688 (1979).
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
Dickert-Conlin, S., & Rubenstein, R. (Eds.). (2007). Economic inequality and higher education:
access, persistence, and success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics
report card: Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Education for Economic Security Act of 1984. (1984). An act to provide assistance to improve
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education in mathematics and science; to
provide a national policy for engineering, technical, and scientific personnel; to provide
cost sharing by the private sector in training such personnel; to encourage creation of
new engineering, technical, and scientific jobs; and for other purposes. Public Law 98-
377, § 801, 98 Stat. 2342. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-
98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg1267.pdf
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2016). K-12 Education assessment programs: Achievement
gap. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/k12/research/achievement_gap/
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 245

Espinosa, 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), 209-241.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015a). An act to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves. Public Law 114-95, Part A,
§ 1005, 4. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-
bill/1177/text
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015b). An act to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves. Public Law 114-95, Part B,
§ 1201, 4. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-
bill/1177/text
Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year
Strategic Plan. (2013). A report from the committee on STEM education, National
Science and Technology Council. Washington, DC: U. S. Government, 17 U.S.C. 105.
Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2
013.pdf
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Foltz, L. G., Gannon, S., & Kirschmann, S. L. (2014). Factors that contribute to the persistence
of minority students in STEM fields. Planning for Higher Education, 42(4), 46.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gándara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K-12 interventions
for underrepresented youth. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 246

George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students' attitudes toward science and
attitudes about the utility of science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6),
571-589.
Gilmer, T. C. (2007). An understanding of the improved grades, retention and graduation rates of
STEM majors at the academic investment in math and science (AIMS) program of
Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 11-21.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A.L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) education; A primer. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R42642.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2014). Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics trends and the role of federal programs (GAO-06-702T). Washington, DC:
Author.
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.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A.
(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1-51.
Hammonds, E., & Subramaniam, B. (2003). A conversation on feminist science studies. Signs,
28(3), 923-944.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 247

Haramis, R. D. (2017). The effectiveness of the mathematics, engineering, science, and
achievement (MESA) outreach program for increasing the on the persistence of
educationally disadvantage populations in middle school(Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2008). How undergraduate engineering students perceive
women’s (and men’s) problems in science, math and engineering. Sex roles, 58(3-4),
251-265.
Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., & Servon, L. J. (2008). Stopping the exodus of women in science.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 22-4, 139.
Hewlett-Packard. (2005). HP philanthropy & education annual report. Palo Alto, CA: Hewlett-
Packard Company.
Hidi & Renninger. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2):111–127.
Higher Education Act of 1965. (1965). An act to strengthen the educational resources of our
colleges and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher
education. Public Law 89-329, title 1 § 101, 112 Stat. 1585 (1965). Retrieved from
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg1219.pdf
Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005. (2006). Higher education reconciliation act of
2005 (HERA) to student and institutional eligibility, and student assistance general
provisions, under the federal student aid programs. Public Law 109-171, § 1305, 120
Stat. 4 (2006). Retrieved from https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0605.pdf

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 248

Hill, C., Corbett, C., St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, Washington, DC: American Association of University
Women Educational Foundation Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-
Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf
Hilton, T. L., & Lee, V. E. (1988). Student interest and persistence in science: Changes in the
educational pipeline in the last decade. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(5), 510-526.
Hira, R. (2010). US Policy and the STEM workforce system. American Behavioral Scientist,
53(7), 949-961.
Hong, R. C. S. (2009). Women’s self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science:
Investigating USC-MESA students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (304997060).
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304997060?accoun
tid=14749
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12
education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Horn, L., & Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence path
through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of undergraduates 3 years after
entering 4-year institutions. (NCES 2001–163). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 456694).
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 249

Horn, L. J., & Chen, X. (1998). Toward resiliency: At-risk students who make it to college.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/resiliency.pdf
Hu, S., & St. John, E. P. (2001). Student persistence in a public higher education system:
Understanding racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 265-
286.
Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in
college science and engineering education. (NCES 2000-601). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Jung, J. (2017). The effectiveness of the mathematics, engineering, science, and achievement
(MESA) outreach program for increasing the persistence of educationally disadvantaged
populations from high school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., . . . & Velez, E. D.
V. (2015). The condition of education 2015. NCES 2015-144. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Kerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Toward a culturally based model for technology
and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005‒1016.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00570.x
Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity?.
Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115-131.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 250

Krause, S., Culbertson, R., Oehrtman, M., & Carlson, M. (2008, October). High school teacher
change, strategies, and actions in a professional development project connecting
mathematics, science, and engineering. Paper presented at the 38th American Society for
Engineering. doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720427
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service
Reports. Paper 35. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35
Kuenzi, J. J., Matthews, C. M., & Mangan, B. F. (2006). Science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options. Congressional Research
Service, 1-32. Retrieved from
http://gse.buffalo.edu/gsefiles/documents/alumni/Sp08_CRS_Report_for_Congress.pdf
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now
and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief# 03-11. US Department of Commerce.
Lantz, H. B., Jr. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
What form? What function? Retrieved from
http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf
Lauff, E., & Ingels, S. J. (2013). Education longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS:2002): A first look
at 2002 high school sophomores 10 years later. (NCES 2014-363). U. S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014363.pdf
Lee, V. E., & Frank, K. A. (1990). Students’ characteristics that facilitate the transfer from two-
year to four-year colleges. Sociology of Education, 63(2), 178–193.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 251

Leslie, L., McClure, G., & Oaxaca, R. (1998). Women and minorities in science and
engineering: A life sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 239-276.
Liang, J. H., Heckman, P. E., & Abedi, J. (2012). What do the California standards test results
reveal about the movement toward eighth-grade algebra for all? Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 328-343.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lucena, J. C. (2000). Making women and minorities in science and engineering for national
purposes in the United States. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 6(1), 1-31.
Macy, B. (2000). From rusty wire fences to wrought-iron gates: How the poor succeed in getting
to–and through–college. Policy Perspectives. Washington, DC: The College Board.
Madigan, T. (1997). Science proficiency and course-taking in high school: The relationship of
science course-taking patterns to increases in science proficiency between 8th and 12th
grades. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of
educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science
Education, 95(5), 877-907.
Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and
self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-
efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 27.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 252

Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access and
success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy
Forum and Pathways to College Network. Retrieved from
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/webarticles/pdf/hsreform_summary.pdf
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA). (n.d.). Our programs. Retrieved from
http://mesa.ucop.edu/about-us/
Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA). (2016). Brochure. Retrieved from
http://mesa.ucop.edu/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, A. P., & Tucker, S. K. (2010). Cultivating students of color: Strategies for ensuring high
academic achievement in middle and secondary schools. Journal of School Leadership,
20(4), 470-490.
McComas, W. F., & McComas, K. K. (2009). The contributions of science and mathematics to
STEM education: A view from beyond the disciplines of technology and engineering. In
K. N. Starkweather (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and
engineering (pp. 26‒34). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
McDonough, P. M., & Fann, A. J. (2007). The study of inequality. In P. Gumport, (Ed.),
Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts, 53-93. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 253

McInnes, C., James, R., & McNaught, C. (1995). Diversity in the initial experiences of
Australian undergraduates: Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching On-
line. University of Melbourne, Center for the Study of Higher Education.
McKnight, C. C. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing US school mathematics
from an international perspective. A National Report on the Second International
Mathematics Study. Champaign, IL. Stipes Publishing Co.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Metcalf, H. (2007). Recruitment, retention, and diversity discourse: Problematizing the
“problem” of women and minorities in science and engineering (Master’s thesis).
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce literature. Inter
Actions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(2).
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Milgram, D. (2011). How to recruit women and girls to the science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(3), 4-11. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/964179602?

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 254

Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom.
TIES STEM Education Monograph Series. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for
Excellence in STEM. Retrieved from
https://www.partnersforpubliced.org/uploadedFiles/TeachingandLearning/Career_and_Te
chnical_Education/Attributes%20of%20STEM%20Education%20with%20Cover%202%
20.pdf
Mullis, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery:
Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment. National Assessment of
Educational Progress, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). Special Issue: Racial and
Ethnic Minority Students' Success in STEM Education. ASHE Higher Education Report,
36(6), 1-140.
Myers, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom
environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
29(9), 929-937.
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and
employing America for a brighter economic future. Author. doi:10.17226/11463
National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education. (2006). Education
longitudinal study of 2002. (ELS: 2002). Base-year to second follow-up data file
documentation. NCES 2008-347. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008347.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2009.
(NCES 2010-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Statistics.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 255

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A Report to the
Nation and the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CUPM/first_40years/1983-Risk.pdf
National Defense Education Act of 1958. (1958). An act to strengthen the national defense and
to encourage and assist in the expansion and improvement of educational programs to
meet critical national needs; and for other purposes. Public Law 85-864; 72 Stat. 1580
(1958). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-
72-Pg1580.pdf
National Science Board (US). (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of
the U. S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. NSB-07-
114. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering. (NSF 04-317). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation. (2007). Rising above the storm: Report from the committee on
prospering in the global economy of the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Integrated postsecondary education data system
completions survey. Retrieved from https://caspar.nsf.gov/

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 256

National Science Foundation Act of 1950. (2013). An act to promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and
for other purposes.. Public Law 81-507, 42 U.S.C. §1861, et seq. Retrieved from
https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/legislation.pdf
Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Shuman, L. J. (2010). Predicting STEM
degree outcomes based on eighth grade data and standard test scores. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99(3), 209-223.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in
science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-222.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
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’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Washington, DC:
Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fact_sheet_final.
pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 257

Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and
costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 315.
Perna, L.W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: Characteristics of programs serving
historically underrepresented groups of students. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(1), 64-83.
Piburn, M. D., & Baker, D. R. (1993). If I were the teacher . . . qualitative study of attitude
toward science. Science Education, 77(4), 393-406.
Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamant, A., Kemp, J. . . . Dinkes, R.
(2009). The condition of education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of
Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009081.pdf
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and
inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for
America’s future. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf
Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Developing collective classroom efficacy: The
teacher’s role as community organizer. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 93-105.
Rev.com. (2016). Rev is reinventing work. Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/about
Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the
more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry
into stem college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6),
1048-1073. doi:10.3102/0002831211435229
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 258

Rinn, A. N., McQueen, K. S., Clark, G. L., & Rumsey, J. L. (2008). Gender differences in gifted
adolescents’ math/verbal self-concepts and math/verbal achievement: Implications for the
STEM fields. Journal for the Education of the Gifted Prufrock Press, 32(1), 34-53.
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York,
NY: Touchstone.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career
interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427. doi:
10.1002/sce.21007
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Thi, R. (2014). The role of advanced high school
coursework in increasing STEM career interest. Science Educator, 23(1), 1.
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Tests & measurement for people who (think they) hate tests &
measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National Clearinghouse
for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf
Schneider, M., Marschall, M., Teske, P., & Roch, C. (1998). School choice and culture wars in
the classroom: What different parents seek from education. Social Science Quarterly, 42,
489-501.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 259

Schultz, J. L., & Mueller, D. (2006). Effectiveness of programs to improve postsecondary
education enrollment and success of underrepresented youth: A literature review.
St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Education.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and
development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and
technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21(3), 303-339.
Slovacek, S., Whittinghill, J., Flenoury, L., & Wiseman, D. (2012). Promoting minority success
in the sciences: The minority opportunities in research programs at CSULA. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 199-217.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011, April). Digest of education statistics: 2010. (NCES 2011-
015). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2009). Digest of education statistics 2008
(NCES 2009-020). Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Soe, L., & Yakura, E. K. (2008). What's wrong with the pipeline? Assumptions about gender and
culture in IT work. Women's Studies, 37(3), 176-201.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 260

Soldner, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Inkelas, K. K., Garvey, J., & Robbins, C. (2012). Supporting
students' intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: The role of living-learning programs
among other social-cognitive factors. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 311-336.
Sonnert, G., Fox, M. F., & Adkins, K. (2007). Undergraduate women in science and engineering:
Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5),
1333-1356.
St. John, E. P., Chung, C. G., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, A. D., Wooden, O. S., & Mendez, J.
(2004). Expanding college access: The impact of state finance strategies. Indianapolis,
IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2b/f5/c
e.pdf
STEM Education Coalition. (2015). STEM education coalition annual report. Retrieved from
http://www.stemedcoalition.org/2016/02/05/coalition-releases-2015-annual-report/
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation
for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 142-
159.
Swail, W., Quinn, K., Landis, K., & Fung, M. (2012). 2012 Handbook of pre-college outreach
programs. Retrieved from
http://www.educationalpolicy.org/publications/pubpdf/TG_DIRECTORY.pdf

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 261

Swail, W. S., & Perna, L. W. (2001). A view of the landscape: Results of the national survey of
outreach programs. College board outreach program handbook. Washington, D.C.:
Educational Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/OutreachHandbookEssays.pdf
Szelényi, K., Denson, N., & Inkelas, K. K. (2013). Women in STEM majors and professional
outcome expectations: The role of living-learning programs and other college
environments. Research in Higher Education, 54(8), 851-873. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-
9299-2
Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Maltese, A. V. (2007). A study of the association of autonomy and
achievement on performance. Science Educator, 16(1), 22.
Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Mintzes, J. J. (2006). Factors influencing college science success.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(1), 52.
Thoman, D. B., Arizaga, J. A., Smith, J. L., Story, T. S., & Soncuya, G. (2014). The grass is
greener in non-science, technology, engineering, and math classes: Examining the role of
competing belonging to undergraduate women’s vulnerability to being pulled away from
science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(2), 246-258.
doi:10.1177/0361684313499899
Tienda, M., & Haskins, R. (2011). Immigrant children: Introducing the issue. The Future of
Children, 21(1), 3-3-18.
Tindall, T., & Hamil, B. (2004). Gender disparity in science education: The causes,
consequences, and solutions. Education, 125(2), 282.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 262

Toldson, I. A. (2008). Breaking barriers: Plotting the path to academic success for school-age
African-American males. Washington, DC: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.
Trusty, J. (2002, fall). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of
science and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(4),
464-474.
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
12(3), 243-270.
UMass Donahue Institute (UMDI). (2011). Increasing student interest in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.mass.edu/stem/documents/Student Interest Summary Report.pdf
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Academic Planning and Budget. (2015).
Enrollment demographics, fall 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aim.ucla.edu/tables/enrollment_demographics_fall.aspx
University of Southern California (USC) Web services/USC communications. (2016). About
USC. Retrieved from http://about.usc.edu/
USC Viterbi School of Engineering. (n.d.). Mathematics engineering science achievement
(MESA). Retrieved from
http://viterbi.usc.edu/students/undergrad/ced/stemprograms/mesa/

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 263

U. S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2012). STEM education: Preparing for the jobs of
the future. Washington DC: Joint Economic Committee Chairman’s Staff. Retrieved from
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6aaa7e1f-9586-47be-82e7-
326f47658320/stem-education---preparing-for-the-jobs-of-the-future-.pdf
U. S. Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration. (2011). Good jobs now
and for the future: 2011. Retrieved from U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
Vargas, J. H. (2004). College knowledge: Addressing information barriers to college. Boston,
MA: College Access Services: The Education Resources Institute (TERI). Retrieved from
http://docplayer.net/2502569-College-knowledge-addressing-information-barriers-to-
college-joel-h-vargas-ed-d-published-by-the-education-resources-institute-teri.html
Ventura College. (2016a). Access. Retrieved from
http://www.venturacollege.edu/departments/administrative/institutional-equity-and-
effectiveness/equity-dashboard/access
Ventura College. (2016b). Mathematics engineering science achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.venturacollege.edu/departments/student-services/mesa/services
Villalpando, O., & Solorzano, D. G. (2005). The role of culture in college preparation programs:
A review of the research literature. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.),
Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 13-28). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using
expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM
fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304-340.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 264

Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and
postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-
1121.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students’ success in STEM
education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 1-140.
Ware, N. C., & Lee, V. E. (1988). Sex differences in choice of college science majors. American
Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 593-614.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis
of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–
398.
Werkema, R. D., & Case, R. (2005). Calculus as a catalyst: The transformation of an Inner-city
high school in Boston. Urban Education, 40(5), 497-520.
Wikipedia. (2017). Mathematics, engineering, science achievement. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics,_Engineering,_Science_Achievement
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Xu, Y. J., & Martin, C. L. (2011). Gender differences in STEM disciplines: From the aspects of
informal professional networking and faculty career development. Gender Issues, 28(3),
134-154.
Yun, J. T., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). College access, K-12 concentrated disadvantage, and the next
25 years of education research. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 12-19.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 265

Zarate, M. E., & Pachon, H. P. (2006). Gaining or losing ground? Equity in offering advanced
placement courses in California high Schools 1997-2003. Los Angeles, CA: Tomas
Rivera Policy Institute.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in
mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(1), 215-246.
Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy
beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036-1058.

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 266

Appendix A: Participant Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS ENGINEERING SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (MESA) FOR
INCREASING THE PERSISTENCE OF FEMALE IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND
MATHEMATICS (STEM) MAJORS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to
take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study will examine how effective the MESA program is in keeping students in STEM.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Survey Participation: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which is
anticipated to take about 15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. Click “next” or
“N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.

Interview Participation: If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 30 minute audio-
taped interview. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you do not want to be taped,
handwritten notes will be taken.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your affiliation with MESA will not be affected whether you participate or not
in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your responses will be
coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have
been transcribed. In addition, the data will also be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office
for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator:
Dr. Pedro Garcia via email at pegarcia@usc.edu or phone at (805) 469-3377
Co-Investigators:
Rhonda Haramis via email at haramis@usc.edu
Jacob Jung via email at jacobjun@usc.edu
Nisha Parmar via email at npparmar@usc.edu
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 267

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 268

Appendix B: Recruitment Letter
Dear Participant,

My name is Nisha Parmar, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at University of
Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, which examines how the
Mathematics, Engineering, Science, and Achievement (MESA) Program has influenced former and current female,
higher-education students to persist in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. You are
cordially invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you are invited to complete an online survey that contains
multiple choice questions.
The online survey is anticipated to take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Depending on your responses to the
survey and your availability, you may be asked to be interviewed via Skype or in-person. The interview is voluntary,
and anticipated to last approximately half an hour and may be audio-taped if you provide consent.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times
during and after the study.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at npparmar@usc.edu.

Thank you for your participation,

Nisha Parmar
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
IRB Study #APP-16-01860

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 269

Appendix C: Participant Consent Form
Consent to Participate in a Research Study

Subject’s Name: _________________________________ IRB Study #APP-16-01860

You are being asked to participate in a research study. A research study is how scientists (doctors, nurses
and other professionals) try to understand how things work and gain new knowledge. A research study
can be about how the body works, what causes disease, how to treat diseases, or what people think and
feel about certain things. Before you decide whether you will participate in this research study, the
investigator must tell you about:

i. the purposes of the research study, the activities that will take place – these are called procedures,
and how long the research will last;
ii. any procedures that are experimental (being tested);
iii. any likely risks, discomforts, and benefits of the research;
iv. any other potentially helpful procedures or treatment; and
v. how your privacy will be maintained.

Where applicable, the investigator must also tell you about:

i. any available payment or medical treatment if injury or harm occurs;
ii. the possibility of unknown risks;
iii. situations when the investigator may stop your participation;
iv. any added costs to you;
v. what happens if you decide to stop participating;
vi. when you will be told about new findings that may affect your willingness to participate; and
vii. how many people will be in the study.

If you agree to participate, you must be given a signed copy of this document and a copy of the approved
consent form for this study written in English.

You may contact Nisha Parmar at npparmar@usc.edu any time you have questions about the research or
about what to do if you are injured. You may contact the Institutional Review Board, at 323-223-2340 if
you have any questions about your rights as a research subject.

Your participation in this research is voluntary (your own choice), and you will not be penalized or lose
benefits if you refuse to participate or decide to stop.

Signing this document means that the research study, including the above information, has been described
to you orally, and that you voluntarily agree to participate.

______________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Participant Date

_____________________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Legally Authorized Representative Date

_________________________/____________________ ______________________
Printed Name/Signature of the Witness Date
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 270

Appendix D: MESA Survey Questionnaire
We are doctoral students from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California (USC) conducting a research study on the effectiveness of Mathematics,
Engineering, Science, and Achievement (MESA) Program on the persistence of students in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

To help us understand your opinions about MESA and STEM, you are invited to
complete the following survey which consists of multiple choice responses and open-ended
responses. Participation in the online survey is completely voluntary and you may opt out of the
survey by exiting at any time. If you decide to participate, this survey is anticipated to take no
more than 15 minutes to complete. Responses will only be used for the purpose of gathering data
for this research study. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times during
and after the study. Upon completion of the survey, you may willingly provide your contact
information if you would like to be contacted about being interviewed via Skype or in-person.
We would like to thank you in advance for your time and willingness to participate in this study.

By checking this box, you are agreeing to voluntarily participate in this research study..

Invitation to Complete Survey about Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement
(MESA) Program
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 271

1. Which MESA Programs have you participated in? Select all that apply.
MESA Schools Program (middle/high school)
MESA Community College Program
MESA Engineering Program

2. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Other

3. Where do you (did you) attend college?
College: __________________________________________

4. What is (was) your intended college major?
Major: __________________________________________

5. If you are currently enrolled in college, what year of school are you in?
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate- Master’s Program
Graduate- Doctoral Program
I am not currently enrolled as a student

6. Are you the first person in your family to attend college?
Yes
No

7. If you are currently employed, what is your current profession?
STEM field
Non-STEM field
Please specify: ___________________________________

NEXT PAGE à

MESA SURVEY: Demographic Data
Directions: Please complete the following demographic questions.
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 272

Directions: For the following statements, please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement by placing a
single check mark in ONE box that most accurately reflects your feelings.
8 MESA has motivated me to persevere in STEM-related courses.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
9 The MESA teachers I had in middle school, high school, and college cared about my educational experiences.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
10 The MESA program provided me with opportunities to network with like-minded people.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
11 I have increased self-efficacy (self-confidence) because of the emotional support I received in the MESA program.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
12 I earn (earned) high grades in my mathematics and science major-related courses.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
13 I attribute the grades I earn (earned) in college to the academic support and skills I was taught in the MESA
program.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
14 I am interested in the STEM field because of my academic, social, and networking experiences in the MESA
program.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

NEXT PAGE à

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 273

15 I have a positive attitude toward math and science courses because of my experiences in the MESA program.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
16 The MESA program continued to support me (academically, socially, emotionally) while I pursued my college
degree.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
17 The supplemental opportunities (competitions, events, campus visits, etc.) offered by MESA influenced my
decision to pursue a STEM major.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
18 Females are less likely to graduate and be scientists or engineers than males.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
19 I’m confident in my ability to network and form connections because of the preparation I received in MESA.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
20 I am confident that I could pursue a career in STEM as a result of being in MESA.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
21 MESA recruits former MESA students to volunteer in university events such as campus visits, tutoring, mentoring,
etc.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

NEXT PAGE à

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 274

22 The MESA program introduced me to role models and mentors in the STEM field.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
23 I am (was) motivated to graduate from a STEM discipline as a result of my time and experiences in STEM.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
24 I would encourage other students to participate in MESA while in college.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
25 I feel confident that I will enter into a STEM career as a result of my participation in MESA
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
26 I am more knowledgeable about the STEM field because I participated in MESA.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree

Directions: For the following open-ended questions, please describe your personal experiences with MESA in 1-2
sentences. If you have no information to share, please respond with “N/A” in the provided space.

27. Please describe your personal and educational experiences with the MESA Program.

28. Is there any additional information you would like to share about how MESA has influenced your decision to
pursue STEM?

29. If you could improve the MESA program, how would you make it more effective?

30. Would you be willing to be contacted in the near future for an informal interview?
Yes*
No
*If yes, please provide your name and email address in the space below:

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 275

Appendix E: Data Collection: Interview Protocol for
Female Undergraduates in STEM
Introduction
Thank you for indicating a willingness to participate in this study. I greatly appreciate
you taking the time to answer some of my questions. I anticipate this interview will take about an
hour. Will this time frame work with your schedule today? Before we get started, I would like to
give you a general overview of my study and give you the chance to ask any questions you might
have about participating in this study.
I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California (USC). As part of the dissertation process, I will be conducting surveys and interviews
related to my line of inquiry. The topic of my study will focus on understanding the experiences
unique to female students in STEM majors at USC. Specifically, I am interested in investigating
how participation in MESA has contributed to students’ persistence in STEM majors at the
university level. In order for me to conduct a thorough research study, I will be talking to female
undergraduate (or graduate) students with STEM majors to learn more about their perspectives.
During the interview process, my role is strictly limited to being the researcher. This
means that I will not be evaluating or judging the answers you provide today. For the purposes of
this study, you are the expert in the field, and I will be learning from you. Also, I would like to
reassure you that none of the data I collect will be shared with other students on campus or with
faculty/staff in STEM disciplines. Your answers will be kept confidential for the sake of this
study. At the end of the study, I would be happy to provide you with a copy of an executive
summary of the project if you are interested.
Finally, in order to ensure I accurately capture what you share with me, I have brought a
digital recorder for this interview. May I have your permission to record our conversation? Do
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 276

you have any questions about the interview process before we get started? If you don’t have any
(more) questions, may I have your permission to begin the interview?
Setting the Stage
To start off with, I was hoping to learn a little more about you.
How did you learn about MESA?
When did you first enroll in MESA?
What year in school are you?
What is your major?
Can you tell me about the courses you are currently taking?
What were some of the courses you particularly enjoyed?
Interview Questions (Follow up questions are listed in italics)
1. Could you please describe your personal experience of being a student in MESA?
a. What were the pros and cons of being in MESA?
b. Did you get to experience any unique opportunities related to STEM that particularly
motivated you?
2. Could you please explain why you chose to pursue a STEM major at USC?
3. Could you please describe your personal experiences of being a female (minority) in a
STEM major?
4. Based on your personal knowledge, could you please describe the types of support
services that are available to students through the MESA Outreach Program?
a. In your opinion, how does MESA work?
b. Can you discuss any supplemental programs or opportunities that are uniquely
available for females through MESA?
EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 277

5. Have you faced (or are you currently facing) any challenges in your STEM major? (If
yes, probe about the types of challenges and possibly ask follow up questions below)
a. How do you feel participating in MESA equipped you to deal with such
challenges (or allowed you to persevere in your major)?
b. As a female in a STEM discipline, which challenges might require you to seek
university support?
6. Could you please tell me about a time that you have felt successful in your program?
7. Did you feel MESA contributed to your success in your STEM major?
a. If interviewee responds “yes,” ask: Can you discuss the nature of your MESA
experiences with the support programs/workshops?
b. If interviewee responds “no,” ask: Can you elaborate on how/why you feel
MESA didn’t adequately prepare you for success?
8. What do you feel are the reasons that you have persisted in your STEM major?
a. How do you feel MESA (academic, social, emotional) has supported your
persistence in STEM?
b. In what ways could MESA have supported you more?
9. In your ideal world, what types of academic/social/emotional supports would be included
in a successful STEM outreach program geared toward supporting females?
10. Some people would argue that females are less likely to graduate from STEM majors.
What are your thoughts on the issue? Do you think MESA can help keep females in
STEM?

EFFECTIVENESS OF STEM OUTREACH PROGRAM 278

Closing and Gratitude
Do you feel there is any additional information that you would like to add to our
conversation today that I may not have covered?
The information you shared with me today will be very helpful for my research study. I
would like to thank you for participating in this interview process. I appreciate your time and
willingness to share your experiences with me. If I have a follow-up question, would I be able to
contact you by email? Thank you again for participating in my study.
Special Considerations and Probing
Transitions. I would like to transition from ______ and ask about…. (Is there anything
else you would like to add before we transition?)
We have spent some time talking about ______, now I would like to shift to talk about _____
We are going to shift gears a bit…
Probing Statements/Questions. You mentioned ______ , can you tell me more about
that…
Then what happened…
Can you give me an example…
How did that make you feel…
Can you elaborate on that…
Do you have anything else to add?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mathematics, Engineering, Science, Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher a...

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) and student persistence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) activities and courses: the perceptions of MESA teacher advis...

PDF

Obstacles to and motivations for women pursuing and serving in academic leadership positions in STEM fields at California universities

PDF

Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...

PDF

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

SciFest and the development of 21st-century skills, interest in coursework in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and preparation of Irish students for a globalized Ireland

PDF

Globalization and the need for 21st-century skills: implications for policy education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and project-based learning in schools in Ireland

PDF

Globalization, student participation in SciFest, 21st-century skill development, and female student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses in secondary schools in I...

PDF

Examination of the influence of globalization, leadership, and science fairs on the female acquisition of 21st-century skills and their college-career pursuit of science, technology, engineering,...

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

Influence of SciFest on Irish students in developing interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and 21st-century skills in preparation for competing in a global economy

PDF

Role and influence of globalization, multinational corporations, and foreign direct investment on educational policy and science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and inquiry-based instructi...

PDF

Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees

PDF

Unprepared for college mathematics: an investigation into the attainment of best practices to increase preparation and persistence for first-time California community college freshmen in remedial...

PDF

The role of educational leadership on participation in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs at Highland Primary School in the Valley Region of Costa Rica

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

An examination of teachers’ perceived value and knowledge of mathematical development in early childhood settings

PDF

A case study on readmitted students: the impact of social and academic involvement on degree completion

Asset Metadata

Creator Parmar, Nisha (author)

Core Title Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/27/2017

Defense Date 02/21/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag educationally disadvantaged,Engineering,first generation females,mathematics,Mesa,OAI-PMH Harvest,outreach programs,Science,STEM,Technology

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy M. (committee member), Escalante, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email nishapparmar01@gmail.com,npparmar@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-370082

Unique identifier UC11258166

Identifier etd-ParmarNish-5241.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-370082 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ParmarNish-5241.pdf

Dmrecord 370082

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Parmar, Nisha

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA