University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: STEM UNDERGRADUATES
1

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG GENDER, RACE/ETHNICITY, SENSE OF VALIDATION,
SCIENCE IDENTITY, SCIENCE SELF-EFFICACY, PERSISTENCE, AND ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE OF BIOMEDICAL UNDERGRADUATES

By

Dylan James Worcester

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

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Dylan James Worcester
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
2
Acknowledgements
There are many folks who I would like to thank for supporting me throughout my
doctoral studies, and the dissertation process. Firstly, I would like to thank my family and friends
for their support, not only through my studies, but through my own process of becoming the
person I am today. I would especially like to thank my mother Elizabeth, my aunt Jo, Giovanni,
and Nicole. Thank you for loving me for who I am. Thanks to my cohort, especially: Cindy,
Karen, Peter, Steven, Stu, and Sue Jean. I couldn’t have done it without all of your support. I
would also like to thank my colleagues in the Department of Biological Sciences at USC,
Gorjana Bezmalinovic and Oliver Rizk, for their friendship and guidance. Thank you Gorjana for
helping me with my study, and thanks to Oliver for serving on my committee. Thanks to Briana
Hinga for her support as a member of my committee. And a special thanks to Ruth Chung, who
inspired me to love inquiry, and who has supported me along the way as my dissertation chair.
Finally, I dedicate this work to my aunt Sarah, who passed before she could finish her
dissertation. Sarah, this is for you.

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Figure and Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter I: Introduction 8
Statement of the Problem 8
Background of the Problem 11
Conceptual Framework 14
Importance and Purpose of the Study 17
Summary and Overview of the Study 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Chapter II: Review of the Literature 21
Sense of Validation 21
Academic Validation 23
Interpersonal Validation 23
Validation and Underrepresented Minorities 24
Summary of Research on Validation 26
Science Identity 27
Science Identity Among Underrepresented Minorities 28
Science Identity and Stereotype Threat 29
Science Identity, Persistence, and Academic Performance 29
Summary of Research on Science Identity 32
Science Self-Efficacy 33
Academic Self-Efficacy 34
Science Self-Efficacy 34
Summary of Research on Self-Efficacy 36
Summary of the Literature Review 37
Purpose of the Study 39
Research Question One 39
Research Question Two 39
Chapter III: Methodology 40
Background of the Study Population 40
Study Participants 40
Procedure 43
Instruments 44
Chapter IV: Results 46
Preliminary Analysis 46
Analysis of Research Questions 49
Research Question One 49
Research Question Two 50
Chapter V: Discussion 54
Discussion of Main Findings 54
Implications for Practice 57
Limitations of the Study 58
Recommendations for Future Study 60
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
4
Conclusion 61
References 62
Appendix A: Information Sheet and Survey Items 67

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
5
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Model of Key Constructs 16
Table 1: Participants by Gender 41
Table 2: Participants by Race / Ethnicity 42
Table 3: Participants by Class 42
Table 4: Participants by Major 43
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Pearson’s Correlations for Study Variables
(n = 131) 48
Table 6: Standardized Coefficients, Standard Error, and Significant Relationships
Among Study Variables (n = 131) 52
Figure 2: Structural Equation Model # 2 (n = 120) 53

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
6
Abstract
This study sought to examine the relationships of sense of validation, science identity,
and science self-efficacy to persistence and academic performance among biomedical
undergraduate students. Additionally, it sought to understand how sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy differ by gender, and race/ethnicity of biomedical
undergraduates. While underrepresented minority students express equal interest in STEM areas
of study, they are more likely to have lower GPAs (grade point averages), and are more likely to
drop out compared to their peers (National Academy of Sciences, 2016). In fact, while minorities
and women make up 70% of colleges students today, they receive only 45% of STEM degrees
(PCAST, 2012). This is especially problematic because recent projections of the state of the
biomedical workforce in the U.S. predict a shortage of nearly one million STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) professionals in the next decade, not including health
professionals and K-12 STEM teachers (PCAST, 2012). Therefore, colleges and universities
must find ways to help minorities and women succeed so they experience equitable outcomes
and matriculate into the STEM workforce. Guided by the work of Hurtado et al. (2015) on sense
of validation, and Estrada-Hollenbeck et al. (2011) on science identity and science self-efficacy,
this study attempted to understand the predictive value of sense of validation, science identity,
and science self-efficacy on STEM persistence and academic performance, and also sought to
examine how validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy are experienced differently
by gender and race/ethnicity of biomedical undergraduate students. Using 131 biomedical
undergraduates enrolled in a general biology course in the Spring of 2016 at a large, private
research university this study employed a quantitative research design to investigate these
relationships with the use of an online survey instrument that collected demographic information,
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
7
as well as information of students’ sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy,
intent to persist, and GPA. Using structural equation modeling, and two-way MANOVA, this
study had several significant findings. Firstly, that differences in sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy to exist between women and men. Primarily, that men often
experience higher levels of sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy
compared to women. Secondly, the major findings of the study revealed by the structural
equation model linked validation experiences to outcome measures including STEM persistence
and academic performance through science self-efficacy, and science identity. Specifically, this
model revealed that academic and interpersonal validation predict science self-efficacy, that
science self-efficacy predicts science identity, and that science identity predicts both STEM
persistence and academic performance. The findings of this study have implications for
practitioners who are interested in retaining women and minorities in STEM. It revealed some of
the underlying mechanisms that explain why interventions like structured research programs and
mentorship are successful, and offers evidence that using a model of validation in the classroom
and laboratory are one way to insure educational equity in STEM.

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
8
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recently produced
a report for President Barack Obama on the state of college graduates with degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM. The key finding of this report (2012) is
that the United States (U.S.) will need one million additional STEM college graduates in the
workforce over the next decade. This figure does not include healthcare professionals and K-12
STEM teachers, who are also in great need (PCAST, 2012). For example, the Association of
American Medical Colleges (2016) projects a need for up to 94,600 additional physicians in the
U.S. by 2025. The President’s Council has called on U.S. colleges and universities to increase
the number of college students who graduate with STEM degrees by approximately one-third
over current rates. At present, the 6-year graduation rate for undergraduates in STEM is
approximately 40%, meaning the majority of students do not complete a STEM degree. The
President’s Council (2012) states that there are many reasons that college students do not
complete degrees in STEM including difficulty in introductory STEM college courses, and
exclusive climates within STEM courses where students feel that they do not belong. PCAST
(2012) also notes that women and minorities make up approximately 70% of college students
today, although they only receive approximately 45% of STEM degrees. Therefore, women and
minorities represent a large group of talented individuals who could enter the STEM workforce,
but are often lost early in their college careers.
Statement of the Problem
While underrepresented minority students and women express equal interest in obtaining a
degree in STEM compared to non-minority and male counterparts, they do not persist at equal
rates, which is a problematic loss for the STEM workforce in the United States. Only 22% of
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
9
STEM students complete their degrees in 4 years, while 40% complete their degrees within 6
years (National Academy of Sciences, 2016). A disaggregation of the data reveals a disparity in
degree attainment when race is considered: while 52% of Asian students, and 43% of white
students completed their STEM degree within 6 years, only 29% of Hispanic students, and 22%
of black students completed their degrees in the same period of time (National Academy of
Sciences, 2016). When degree attainment rates are disaggregated by gender, further disparity is
revealed: while 43% of men complete their STEM degrees within 6 years, only 38% of women
complete their degrees within a 6-year period. Within the biomedical sciences, however, women
and men are likely to complete at equal rates: 34% within 6 years (National Academy of
Sciences, 2016). While equity in completion rates exists between women and men in this case, it
is of note that the completion rate in the biomedical sciences is 6 percentage points lower than in
STEM degrees overall (34% versus 40%), meaning that only one-third of biomedical degree
students completes within 6 years (National Academy of Sciences, 2016). These data
disaggregate STEM degree completion rates by race/ethnicity and gender, warranting further
examination of the intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender may likely reveal even greater
disparity in STEM degree completions among college students.
Although degree attainment is problematic enough, academic achievement is also an
important outcome for students. One way to measure academic achievement is through GPA, or
grade point average. Academic achievement in STEM courses is important because it may be an
indicator of persistence in STEM, and competitive GPAs are important for STEM college
graduates to enter the STEM workforce, and graduate study in STEM fields. A recent study by
Alexander, Chen, and Grumbach (2009) sought to examine the GPAs of underrepresented
minority students in STEM, specifically those who were in pre-health college gateway courses
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
10
on 6 California college campuses. Gateway or gatekeeper courses are college courses that are
required for student to complete a STEM major and are courses that are required for a student
who wants to apply to medical school or other graduate or health professions programs
(Alexander et al., 2009). Academic performance and overall experience in gateway courses is an
indicator of persistence in STEM majors. In the case of this study, gateway courses such as
general biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, calculus, and physics were considered.
These courses represent the breadth of STEM gateway courses across disciplines. Just as reports
on persistence in STEM have documented disparity in degree completion rates, this study found
disparity in the GPA of STEM students across race/ethnicity. The examination of student
performance in these STEM gateway courses revealed that underrepresented minority received
25% to 30% fewer A’s and B’s in their coursework compared to their white and Asian peers. For
example, only 29% of black, and 36% of Latino students received an A or B in their general
biology coursework, while 65% of white students received A’s or B’s. Overall, black students
completed their STEM gateway courses with a GPA of 1.70 and Latino students completed with
a GPA of 1.94 while white students completed with a GPA of 2.57 (Alexander, et al., 2009).
These data illustrate that not only is persistence in STEM problematic for underrepresented
minority students, their performance in these areas is an equity issue as well. Alexander et al.
(2009) note that they controlled for prior academic preparation when examining student GPA,
and yet the achievement gap persisted. This points to the college environment as a contributing
factor when it comes to academic achievement. Therefore, more research is needed to examine
the causes of low academic achievement among underrepresented minorities in STEM within the
college campus.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
11
This study examined some of the factors that may contribute to persistence and academic
achievement in STEM. Guided by recent research by Hurtado et al. (2015) and Estrada-
Hollenbeck et al. (2011), this study examined the relationships among sense of validation,
science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance among biomedical
undergraduates at a major private research university on the West Coast. . Sense of validation,
science identity, and science self-efficacy may be important predictors of persistence and
academic performance among STEM undergraduates so this research is important because it may
fill a gap in the literature about how these variables contribute to STEM student success, both
uniquely, and in relation to each other. Given the shortage of STEM professionals in the US
understanding persistence and performance of STEM undergraduates is important because
successful undergraduate degree attainment feeds the STEM pipeline as graduates enter the
STEM workforce or graduate study in STEM.
Background of the Problem
Although women and minorities make up approximately 70% of college students today,
they obtain only 45% of STEM degrees (PCAST, 2012). Within the sciences, the term
underrepresented minority has certain meanings. These meanings are important to understand
who is being discussed in the literature, but it should be mentioned that underrepresented
minority may not always be an agreed upon term. In general, when discussing underrepresented
minorities in sciences, underrepresented means that a population is not equally represented in the
scientific community as it is in the population of the US overall. The National Science
Foundation (2016) includes Black/African Americans, Hispanic/Latino/as, American Indians and
Alaska Natives in its definition of underrepresented minorities. Notably absent from this group
are Asian Americans who are collectively equally represented in the STEM field, even though it
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
12
is known that the experiences of Asian Americans can be quite different, and the disaggregation
of data can reveal large disparities within this group. Also missing from this definition of
underrepresented minorities are Native Hawai’ians and other Pacific Islander groups. This is
likely because they are equally represented in the field given their small populations.
Nevertheless, these historically marginalized groups still deserve the attention of education
researchers concerned with equity issues. It is important to know that underrepresented
minorities express equal interest in obtaining a STEM degree as do non-minority students, they
are more likely to drop out, and they have lower grade point averages (National Academy of
Sciences, 2016). In fact, only one in four (24%) of underrepresented minority students receive a
STEM degree in four years (Chang, Eagan, Lin, & Hurtado, 2011).
There is a significant body of research surrounding underrepresented minority students in
STEM, especially when it comes to factors surrounding STEM persistence. Some of the most
important factors that have been studied surround the areas of science identity and science self-
efficacy, which are discussed at length in Chapter II of this dissertation. Science identity and
science self-efficacy are both implicated in persistence and performance of underrepresented
minorities in STEM fields (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chemers et al., 2011; Chang et. al, 2011;
Estrada-Hollenbeck, Woodcock, Hernandez, and Schultz, 2011 Hurtado et al., 2009; Woodcock
et al., 2012). Simply put, science identity is identification as belonging to a community of
scientists, while science self-efficacy is belief in the ability to “do science” ranging from
technical expertise to the ability to develop hypotheses and conduct scientific research (Estrada-
Hollenbeck et al., 2011). In a study of science identity, science self-efficacy, and value of
scientific objectives and their relationships to integration into the scientific community Estrada-
Hollenbeck and her collaborators (2011) determined that science identity and science self-
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
13
efficacy contributed to integration into the scientific community. This study was important
because it demonstrated that both individually and together, science identity and science self-
efficacy were predictors of persistence for individuals who decided to stay in science.
In 2015, Sylvia Hurtado and her collaborators at the Higher Education Research Institute
(HERI) at The University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) published the results of a study
on undergraduate students’ sense of validation. Based on the qualitative work of Laura Rendón
(1994), Hurtado et al. (2015) empirically validated a quantitative measure of sense of validation
on college campuses. This research revealed two types of validation: academic and interpersonal.
Academic validation is the affirmation of a student’s ability to succeed academically. And
interpersonal validation is the act of taking interest in the psychosocial development and well
being of students (Hurtado et al. 2015). This research provided evidence that while students of
color and white students experience validation differently (white students experienced higher
levels of validation), the study did not tie the validation constructs to outcome measures, such as
persistence in an area of study or academic performance like grade point average. Given that
sense of validation may have predictive value when it comes to STEM persistence and
performance for undergraduate students, it would be useful to investigate the relationships
between validation and academic outcomes. Additionally, when considered with the science
identity and science self-efficacy constructs, validation may have additional predictive value in a
model that integrates these concepts and illustrates their relationships to STEM persistence and
performance. This study investigated the connections between sense of validation, science
identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance among biomedical
undergraduates. This study was important because it fills a gap in the literature surrounding the
relationships among these unique predictors of STEM persistence and academic performance.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
14
Conceptual Framework
This study employed a conceptual framework as shown in Figure 1 to examine the
relationships between sense of validation (both academic and interpersonal), science identity,
and science self-efficacy, to STEM persistence, and STEM academic performance. The
conceptual framework for this study ties together work by Estrada Hollenbeck et al. (2011) in
their study of science identity, science self-efficacy and the work of Hurtado et al. (2015) on
sense of validation. In Hurtado et al.’s 2011 study on validation and college students, the key
finding was that compared to white students, students of color experience lower levels of
academic and interpersonal validation on college campuses. In their 2015 study on validation,
Hurtado et al. determined that academic and interpersonal validation was positively correlated
with students’ sense of belonging. Furthermore, Hurtado et al. (2015) found that validation
mitigated students’ experiences with discrimination and bias on college campuses. Estrada-
Hollenbeck et al. (2010) utilized the science identity scale and the scientific self-efficacy scale to
understand how underrepresented minority students integrate into the scientific community.
Primarily, the results of this study found that science identity, science self-efficacy, as well as the
value of scientific objectives were all positively correlated with integration into the scientific
community, which was operationally defined as intent to pursue a scientific career. Furthermore,
Estrada-Hollenbeck et al. (2010) found that science identity was an indicator of academic
persistence in STEM.
Therefore, the conceptual framework employed by this study was a lens to investigate the
relationships between sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, and STEM
persistence and academic performance. Based on this frame, it is hypothesized that validation,
science identity, and science self-efficacy are all unique predictors of persistence and academic
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
15
performance in STEM (paths 1,2,5, and 6). Furthermore, it is hypothesized that validation has
both direct and indirect effects on STEM performance and persistence. This means that it is
hypothesized that not only does validation uniquely and directly predict persistence and
performance (paths 1 and 2) but that it also has an effect on science identity and science self-
efficacy (paths 3 and 4), which in turn have direct effects on performance and persistence (paths
5 and 6). In other words, the effect of validation on persistence on STEM persistence and
performance is mediated by science identity and science self-efficacy. This relationship is
hypothesized to exist because academic and interpersonal validation, which are external factors,
may build or reinforce internal self-concepts. So, if a student receives academic validation in a
STEM course, their science self-efficacy or their belief that they can do science will also be
reinforced. Likewise, if a student receives interpersonal validation from a mentor, “you belong
here in our science classroom,” their identity as a member of the scientific community may also
be reinforced.

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
16
Figure 1. Theoretical model of key constructs: sense of validation, science identity, and science
self-efficacy in relation to STEM persistence and academic performance.

While science self-efficacy and science identity have been correlated to academic performance
and persistence, this conceptual framework is unique because it considers sense of validation as a
possible predictor of STEM persistence and academic performance. This effect has not been
examined in the literature. Furthermore, this framework is unique because it examines the effects
of science identity and self-efficacy in relationship to the validation construct. The relationship
between sense of validation and science identity, and sense of validation and science self-
efficacy is also absent in the literature. Therefore, this frame has value as it examines new
relationships, between validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy and is especially
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
17
valuable as it ties these constructs to outcomes like academic performance and persistence which
has yet to be examined in the literature.
Importance and Purpose of the Study
Although underrepresented minority students express equal interest in STEM, they are
more likely to drop out and receive lower grades compared to their non-minority peers (National
Academies of Sciences, 2016). Low levels of persistence and low GPAs of underrepresented
minority students are problematic because these students represent an underutilized resource to
the scientific community where one million additional STEM professionals will be needed in the
next decade. Underrepresented minorities are also lost to the medical community where
approximately 95,000 physicians are needed by the year 2025. Colleges and universities must
find ways to increase the persistence and academic performance of underrepresented minorities
in STEM to meet the needs of the diverse population of the United States. Therefore, this study
is important because it may contribute to knowledge surrounding predictive variables of STEM
persistence and academic performance which could provide the basis for interventions to address
the equity issues at hand.
This study had two overall purposes. The first purpose of this study was to understand
how sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy differed by gender, and
race/ethnicity of biomedical undergraduate students at a large, private research university.
Secondly, this study sought to examine the interplay between sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy on persistence and academic performance of biomedical
undergraduates at a large, private research university. This study examined these relationships by
administering a survey instrument to biomedical undergraduates that assessed their sense of
validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy with the use of validated measures from
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
18
Hurtado et al.’s (2015) research on validation, and Estrada-Hollenbeck’s (2011) research on
science identity and science self-efficacy. Additionally, the survey instrument collected data on
biomedical undergraduates’ intent to persist in STEM as well as their academic performance in
an attempt to assess the predictive value of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy
constructs to these outcomes.
Summary and Overview of the Study
Given the state of the STEM workforce, which will be short one million professionals in
the next decade, not to mention the healthcare workforce in need of practitioners, especially in
the area of primary care (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016), as well as the K-12
education system that is in need of science and math teachers (PCAST, 2012), colleges and
universities must address low levels of persistence of college students in STEM. It is clear that
while white and Asian students fare quite well in STEM, underrepresented minorities including
blacks and Latinos do not. These individuals represent a large group of talent lost to the
workforce, and it is on colleges and universities to find ways to help these students succeed
academically by graduating on time with a competitive GPA so they can matriculate into the
STEM workforce or into graduate study in STEM. Aside from lost talent and a diverse
workforce, there are additional reasons why underrepresented minorities are especially needed in
STEM fields. For example, within the healthcare community, underrepresented minorities are
more likely to practice primary care, practice in medically underserved communities
(Association of American Medical Colleges, 2012), and are also more likely to provide culturally
competent healthcare (Whitla, 2003; Guiton, Chang & Wilkerson, 2007). Estimates project a
shortage of up to 94,700 physicians in the next decade, 35,600 of which are in the area of
primary care (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016). Given the shortage of primary
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
19
care providers and increased access to healthcare because of the Affordable Care Act
(Obamacare), healthcare providers who are willing to practice primary care and who are willing
to work in urban and rural communities are in great need. Since underrepresented minorities are
more likely to practice in these areas, it should be a priority of colleges and universities to help
them enter the healthcare workforce either directly from college or from graduate school.
Diverse STEM professionals like research scientists, engineers, and mathematicians help drive
creativity and innovation, and contribute to the research productivity of the U.S. excluding
underrepresented minorities from these groups is to ignore their vast intellectual and cultural
capital that offers unique perspectives and ideas that are otherwise lost to the STEM community
when these individuals do not matriculate into the workforce from college or graduate school.
Similarly, in K-12 and higher education settings diverse STEM faculty are needed to provide
their unique knowledge and social and cultural capital especially for underrepresented minority
students who greatly benefit from the mentorship of minority faculty (PCAST, 2012).
Purpose of the Study
Because sense of validation has not been examined among STEM students exclusively,
and because it has not yet been tied to outcome measures in the literature, this study sought to
provide an examination of validation among STEM students, and evaluated the predictive value
of validation on STEM persistence and performance. Using the work of Estrada-Hollenbeck et
al. (2011) on science identity and science-self efficacy and the work of Hurtado et al. (2015) as a
guide, this study examined the relationships between science identity, science self-efficacy, and
sense of validation on STEM persistence and performance among biomedical undergraduate
students at a large, private, research university on the West Coast of the US, and examined
differences in sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy by gender and
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
20
race/ethnicity of these biomedical undergraduates. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study
was to examine the relationship of sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy
to persistence and academic performance among biomedical undergraduates at a large, private
research university. Additionally, the secondary purpose of this study was to understand how
sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy differ between gender and
race/ethnicity of biomedical undergraduates at a large, private research university. This study
contributed to a theoretical model relating sense of validation, science identity, and science self-
efficacy to outcome measures like persistence and academic performance. Furthermore, this
study may be of practical application to those working with the STEM undergraduate student
population in the US overall, but may be especially relevant for biomedical students at large
research institutions across the country.

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
21
CHAPTER II: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the literature on sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy; examines sense of validation, science identity, and science
self-efficacy among underrepresented minority students in STEM. Additionally, it will examine
the relationships between sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy as they
relate to STEM persistence and academic achievement. Finally, this chapter will propose
research questions and corresponding hypotheses.
Sense of Validation
The first key construct that is important to this study is sense of validation. Sense of
validation is one construct that may have predictive power when it comes to the persistence and
performance of undergraduate students on college campuses. Laura Rendón first introduced her
model of validation in 1994 based on her research among low income, first-generation college
students. Since the initial publication, Rendón’s (1994) validation model has been accepted in
the higher education research community as a theory of validation (Rendón & Munoz, 2011).
Rendón’s theory (1994, 2011) is an important model of student development, especially when
working with low income, first generation, and underrepresented minority college students. Of
note, Hurtado, Cuellar, and Guillermo-Wann (2011) have recently empirically validated
measures of validation in a quantitative study assessing validation among college students
attending diverse campuses. In addition to being theoretically grounded, Hurtado et al.’s (2011)
recent research points to the validity of the theory and its importance in highlighting disparate
validation experiences among student groups, which speaks to its potential value to assess equity
in higher education. Hurtado et al. (2015) have called for research that examines the relationship
between sense of validation and educational outcomes like persistence and academic
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
22
achievement.
Rendón’s (1994) model of validation was based on a qualitative transition to college
study consisting of focus group interviews of 132 freshman students at four diverse institutions
of higher education. Drawing on theoretical perspectives from Astin’s student involvement
theory (1985) and the work of Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), the study revealed that the
experiences of low-income college students were significantly different than their higher income
“traditional” college student peers. Rendón (1994) noted that these experiences differed in what
she described as students’ sense of validation both in and out of the classroom. The findings
from this study provided the basis for her (1994) model, which consists of academic and
interpersonal validation constructs.
Rendón (2011) was also influenced by Belenky et al.’s (1986) Women’s Ways of
Knowing which drew upon the work of researchers who sought to understand the learning
experiences of women in reaction to literature at the time that consisted primarily of studies
surrounding the learning experiences of white men. Belenky et al. (1986) found that many
women felt as if they couldn’t think or learn like their male counterparts, that they lacked a
voice, or an opinion that mattered. But for women who were affirmed by authorities who
validated their experiences as women, they were transformed into producers and keepers of
knowledge. Based on this idea, Rendón (1994, 2011) extended the concept of validation as a key
to academic and interpersonal success for students on college campuses.
Rendón (1994, 2011) describes validation as the affirmation of students inside and
outside of the classroom by institutional agents including college faculty and staff. Rendón
(1994, 2011) says that validation is intentional, and places value on the student as a creator of
knowledge in the campus environment. Furthermore, validation leads to both academic and
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
23
interpersonal development for the student; this is because validation helps students feel that they
are both capable and valued. Rendón (1994, 2011) also notes that validation early on in college is
most effective because it fosters a richer academic and interpersonal experience.
Academic validation.
One of the key validation constructs is academic validation. Academic validation is based
on the idea that institutional agents, such as faculty and staff, affirm students’ ability to learn and
to succeed academically in college. This type of validation often occurs in the classroom setting,
but it is not limited to that space (Rendón, 1994, 2011). Academic validation may also take place
in a discussion section or laboratory setting and during office hours with a faculty member.
Faculty can provide academic validation to their students by valuing their students’ contributions
to classroom discussions and encouraging them to participate in classroom discussions. Faculty
can also show concern for their students’ academic performance and progress, provide them with
feedback regarding their work, and can encourage students to meet with them outside of the
classroom.
Interpersonal validation.
In addition to academic validation, the second validation construct is interpersonal
validation. Interpersonal validation differs from academic validation in that it is more concerned
with fostering students’ psychosocial development — namely personal development and social
adjustment — in college. This type of validation also takes place both in and out of the
classroom setting by institutional agents (Rendón, 1994, 2011). In regard to ways college faculty
and staff can interpersonally validate their students, there are many. For example, faculty may
take interest in a students’ development, empower their students to learn, encourage students to
get involved on campus, and recognize the achievements of their students.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
24
While the foundational research on validation theory was qualitative in nature, recent
quantitative research on validation has provided additional insights into validation experiences
that affirm Rendón’s previous findings. For example, in 2011, Hurtado, Cuellar, and Guillermo-
Wann empirically validated Rendón’s academic and interpersonal validation constructs as
measures included in the Diverse Learning Environments Survey that is administered to students
nationwide. Not only did Hurtado et al. (2011) validate the academic and interpersonal validation
constructs, they made several key findings about validation among college students. Most
importantly, that among those students surveyed, students of color experience lower levels of
academic and interpersonal validation in college environments when compared to their white
peers. Then, in 2015 Hurtado, Alvarado, & Guillermo-Wann published an expanded model of
their quantitative research on validation. This model describes the relationship between bias and
discrimination, academic and interpersonal validation, and sense of belonging among college
students. Hurtado et al. (2015) found that discrimination and bias are negatively correlated with
academic validation, interpersonal validation, and sense of belonging. Furthermore, they found
that academic and interpersonal validation were positively correlated with sense of belonging,
supporting Rendón’s (1994, 2011) claims surrounding these constructs.
Validation and underrepresented minorities.
One key study conducted by Rendón (2002) evaluated the practical application of the
validation model in a community college setting in which the model was utilized in an
intervention for underrepresented Latino students called Puente. In this intervention, Rendón
(2002) noted that students benefitted from the academic and interpersonal validation they
received. For instance, faculty and staff would reach out to students who needed help, instead of
waiting for those students to come to them. Furthermore, these students were empowered to learn
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
25
as they were validated as capable students who had capital to draw upon. A study of validation
by Barnett (2011) among community college students examined how validation by faculty
members contributed to students' academic integration (as proposed by Tinto, 1993) and their
intent to persist. Barnett found that the practical use of validation among non-traditional college
students improved student success. Faculty’s use of validation predicted increased rates of
integration among many students. Moreover, Barnett (2011) found that the use of faculty
validation was a predictor of intent to persist among students, especially among female and
Hispanic students. Ultimately, Barnett concluded that validation by faculty members leads to
greater sense of integration, which positively influences intent to persist. Barnett notes that,
while Rendón (1994) proposed validation as an alternative to Tinto's (1993) integration model, it
is actually an important condition of integration.
In their study of Latino students in STEM, Cole & Espinosa (2008) found that faculty
interaction had a positive effect on Latino students’ GPA. Cole & Espinosa argued that positive
faculty interaction influenced positive perceptions of campus climate and, in turn, cultural
congruency, which they maintain is an indicator of positive academic performance. Though this
study did not examine faculty interaction in terms of validation, it supports the arguments made
by Rendón (1994, 2011), Barnett (2011), and Hurtado (2011, 2015) that positive faculty
interaction, or validation, predicts academic performance. And in this case, the argument can be
extended to minority students in STEM. Hurtado et al. (2011) studied student faculty interaction
across diverse colleges and universities and found that, for underrepresented first-year students,
their identities as scientists were at least in part formed by recognition and support by faculty.
Hurtado argues that this is important for minority students who are often isolated, marginalized,
and faced with stereotype threat on college campuses. Among their key findings Hurtado et al.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
26
(2011) found that higher frequency of interaction was negatively correlated with larger, more
selective colleges and universities, and that lower levels of interaction were also associated with
faculty who were impersonal in their interaction with their students.
With the exception of the recent work by Hurtado et al. (2011, 2015) on validation, the
majority of validation studies have been qualitative in nature (Rendón & Munoz, 2011; Hurtado
et al, 2011, 2015). This calls for more quantitative research on the nature of validation. In
addition, these researchers have called on more research to link sense of validation among
students to academic persistence and performance. Narrowing the research, there is a lack of
quantitative research on validation and its relationship to student persistence and performance in
STEM fields. Hurtado et al. (2011, 2015) discovered that white students and students of color
experience validation differently, this data was taken from a broad range in institutions and
disciplines. It is unknown if the validation constructs hold up for students in STEM, and it is
unknown how these constructs play out in STEM performance and persistence, especially for
underrepresented minorities and women in STEM fields.
Summary of research on validation.
Validation theory (Rendón, 1994; Rendón & Munoz, 2011) has emerged as an important
theory to be utilized when working with low-income, first generation, and underrepresented
students. Drawing on earlier research of student integration (Tinto, 1985; Pascarella &Terenzini,
1991), and Belenkey et al.’s Women’s Ways of Knowing, the validation model was developed
from a series of qualitative research studies. Recent quantitative work on validation by Hurtado
et al. (2011, 2015) has empirically validated the validation constructs of academic and
interpersonal validation and has revealed disparity in sense of validation among white and non-
white students on college campuses. While some research exists linking validation to persistence,
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
27
there is a need for a greater body of quantitative research to examine the relationship between
validation, persistence and performance. When considering STEM college students, research on
the relationship between validation and self-efficacy, specifically science self-efficacy, is
warranted. Furthermore, the impacts of these variables on the development of science identity
may be of use as they are likely related, and science identity may be an indicator of STEM
persistence and performance.
Science Identity
Science identity is the second key construct that is important to this study. Although the
research on sense of validation and academic performance and persistence of college students is
in the early stages of development, research on science identity is more developed. Jones and
McEwen (2000) argue that identities intersect to make individuals who they are. Such identities
include race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender and sexual orientation, level of ability, and
religious identity. Identity theorists (Burke and Stets, 2009; Merolla and Serp, 2013) also argue
that individuals have many roles to play in society, and they possess many identities to fulfill
those roles. These identities may or may not be enacted. Identities are also organized in a
hierarchical structure where some identities are enacted more often than others; this is known as
identity salience (Merolla & Serpe, 2013). Identity salience is an indicator of a commitment to a
particular identity, like identifying as a scientist or as a science student. Identity theory says that
individuals maintain identities and the behaviors tied to those identities when their social ties to
that identity are strong (Merolla & Serpe, 2013). When it comes to the development of science
identity, Carlone & Johnson (2007) argue that an individual’s multiple identities — like their
gender, race/ethnicity — directly influence the development identity as a scientist. Also of
importance is the research of Reynolds & Pope (1991) on the intersection of identities and
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
28
multiple oppressions. Reynolds and Pope argued that many individuals are faced with multiple
oppressions based on their identity. For example, an aspiring scientist who is Latino, who also
happens to be gay, is faced not only with a diminished science identity because of his racial and
ethnic background, but may also be oppressed because of his sexual orientation since he does not
fit the dominant straight white male archetype. The consideration of multiple identities and
multiple oppressions is important when discussing the development of science identity,
particularly when working with marginalized groups like underrepresented minority students in
STEM.
Science identity among underrepresented minorities.
Science identity, or the degree to which an individual feels they belong to the scientific
community, is thought to be a predictor of success among underrepresented minority students in
STEM fields (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chang et. al, 2011; Hurtado et al., 2009; Woodcock et
al., 2012). For example, in their research on the science experiences of women of color, Carlone
and Johnson (2007) proposed a science identity model suggesting that competence, performance,
and recognition are key factors in which an individual acculturates to the scientific community
and develops a science identity. In the analysis of their ethnographic data of their study sample,
Carlone and Johnson (2007) found limited evidence to ground the competence and performance
constructs of their model, but did find that their recognition construct did explain the different
science identities of women. The recognition construct means that being affirmed by oneself and
validated by other individuals in the scientific community is key to the development of science
identity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This is in line with Rendón’s (1994, 2011) validation theory.
In their study, Carlone and Johnson (2007) found that women in the sciences developed
three patterns of identities: (1) research science identity (2) altruistic science identity, and (3)
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
29
disrupted science identity. Women who exhibited research scientist identities experienced high
levels of recognition in the field as scientists, and took traditional routes to integration into the
scientific community. Those who had altruistic identities took more innovative approaches to
science as a means to help society and the environment. Finally, women with disrupted identities
received little recognition, yet persisted in science despite barriers presented by the white, male
meritocracy that so often characterizes the scientific community and stigmatizes women and
minorities in the field (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).
Science identity and stereotype threat.
These findings are in agreement with literature that says that negative experiences with
racial/ethnic stigma and stereotype threat among underrepresented minority students is
negatively correlated with their completion of degrees and intent to pursue careers in science
(Chang et. al, 2011; Woodcock et al., 2012). In fact, in their study of science identity, racial/ethic
stigma, and intent to persist in biomedical fields, Chang et al. (2011) found that, among
undergraduates, a strong correlation existed between high levels of negative racial experiences
and low levels of persistence in biomedical areas of study. Conversely, those students who
experienced lower level of discrimination seemed to benefit from higher levels of scientific
identity, and increased levels of persistence in the field. In research on stereotype threat and
domain disidentification in STEM, Woodcock, Hernandez, Estrada, and Schultz (2012) also
found that among underrepresented minority students, experience with stereotype threat was
associated with a loss of science identity and intent to pursue careers in STEM.
Science identity, persistence and academic performance.
Also of importance concerning the development of science identity and underrepresented
minority students, literature exists that examines the positive correlation between participation in
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
30
structured research programs in STEM and persistence in the field. For example, Hurtado,
Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, and Espinosa (2009) found that underrepresented minority students who
participated in such programs developed strong science identities and high levels of science self-
efficacy in the practice of scientific research. Hurtado et al. (2009) found that the mentoring,
support, and recognition of doing science in these programs mitigated levels of racial/ethnic
stigma and helped students acculturate into the scientific community. The authors note that
structured research programs help minority students in STEM because they offer academic,
financial and social support, mentoring, and professional opportunity.
In their research on science identity salience and STEM persistence, Merolla & Serpe
(2013) determined several key findings. First, strong science identity was linked to intent to
persist in STEM fields. Second, their study showed that science identity, paired with strong
GPA, and participation in structured research programs mediated STEM persistence, specifically
in matriculation to graduate school. Third, they discuss that strong science identity and strong
GPAs are stronger indicators of graduate school matriculation, compared to low levels of
science identity paired with strong GPAs. Hernandez et al. (2013) found in a longitudinal
analysis of underrepresented students in STEM that for many students science identity salience
grew over time, and was positively correlated with higher GPA through what they call mastery
orientation. Other studies have also shown that strong science identity salience is an indicator of
intent to persist in STEM, including the work of Chemers et al. (2011), which discusses science
identity and STEM career commitment among underrepresented minority undergraduates, and
the work of Merolla et al. (2012). Merolla et al. discuss the role of proximate social structures
like STEM enrichment programs for underrepresented minorities and the personal relationships
associated with them that foster science identity and ultimately persistence in the field. Similarly,
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
31
Hazari, Sadler, & Sonnert (2013) found in their quantitative study of persistence of college
students in STEM that low science identity correlated to low levels of persistence in STEM
majors and ultimately in the field. In this case. low levels of science identity and persistence
were demonstrated across racial and ethnic groups. Likewise, in their study of chemistry
students, Perez, Cromly, and Kaplan (2013) also found that strong science identity was positively
correlated to academic achievement, and was negatively correlated with intent to leave STEM
majors.
Merolla & Serpe (2013) found that science identity and GPA worked together to mediate
graduate school matriculation. They also note that students may develop strong science identity
without strong GPAs. This relationship furthers more investigation given that self-efficacy may
be a mediator of identity, and that self-efficacy is an indicator of performance. Therefore, it can
be argued that a theoretical relationship between identity and performance exists. Estrada-
Hollenbeck et al. (2010) began to explore the relationships between science identity and science
self-efficacy along with the value of scientific objectives and their relationship to persistence in
STEM, namely what they call scientific integration. Similar to the findings of Merolla & Serpe
(2013) they found that science identity was a predictor of persistence, as was science self-
efficacy, and the value of scientific objectives. They also found that these variables were related
to each other, meriting more research into these relationships, especially when it comes to the
relationship between science identity, science self-efficacy and performance which has not been
popularly examined in the literature. These relationships should be examined along with sense
of validation, which may mediate science identity and science self-efficacy. The conceptual
framework presented in Chapter I (see Figure 1) illustrates possible relationships between these
variables. The conceptual framework hypothesizes that sense of validation, science identity, and
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
32
science self-efficacy are predictors of both STEM persistence and STEM academic performance.
In other words, students who experience higher levels of validation, who have strong science
identities, and who possess higher levels of science self-efficacy will be more likely to persist in
STEM and will be more likely to receive better grades in their STEM coursework. Furthermore,
this conceptual model hypothesizes that while sense of validation has direct effects on
persistence and academic performance, its effects are also mediated by science identity and
science self-efficacy. That is, validation experiences may be one of the ways a STEM student
develops science identity and science self-efficacy, which in turn predict STEM persistence and
performance. These relationships have not been examined in the literature and understanding
them fills a gap in knowledge concerning the ways in which validation experiences may
influence STEM persistence and academic performance directly, or indirectly through other
variables. Furthermore, examining the relationship between validation and science identity and
science self-efficacy may help describe the processes by which a student acquires science
identity and science self-efficacy. This would also be useful as it would contribute to both
theoretical knowledge, but may also offer practical means by which interventions can be
designed around increasing students science identities and science self-efficacy.
Summary of research on science identity.
Identity theory suggests that individuals possess multiple identities, and these identities
are organized in a hierarchy in which some identities are more salient than others. Identity
salience, such as identification as a scientist, is dependent on an individual’s other identities,
such as gender and race/ethnicity as well as the social relationships surrounding that identity.
Science identity, or identification as a “scientist”, or belonging to a community of scientists is
one of the key variables in this study, due to its linkages to STEM persistence and academic
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
33
performance. For underrepresented minorities, stereotype threat often leads to diminished
science identity. Similarly, women often experience diminished science identities attributed to
the dominant narratives surrounding women in STEM. But for those students who participate in
interventions like structured research programs, and mentorship programs strong science identity
salience may be developed. These interventions may be ways in which validation experiences
come into play, strengthening the science identities of those who participate in them. Next, this
chapter will discuss science self-efficacy, or an individuals’ belief in their ability to “do science”.
Science self-efficacy and science identity are thought to be closely linked, both having
implications for STEM persistence and academic performance. While science identity is about
identification as a scientist, science self-efficacy is about belief ability to practice science, and is
implicated in positive academic outcomes for STEM students.
Science Self-Efficacy
Related to science identity, science self-efficacy is another key variable in this study,
because of its a role in the academic persistence and performance of college students. Bandura
(1977) argues that self-efficacy is an individual’s belief that she or he can do something well and
that this belief is an important indicator of behavior. Therefore, an individual who exhibits high
self-efficacy in relation to a task is more likely to complete that task. Extended to the college
environment, self-efficacy could include a student’s belief in their ability to succeed
academically, to perform well on an exam, or to conduct scientific research in a laboratory.
Bandura (1997) also maintains that when marginalized people (such as underrepresented
minorities) are the targets of negative stereotypes about themselves, they may begin to believe
those qualities, this is key to understanding why some minorities in STEM may not perform
well.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
34
Academic self-efficacy.
Adapting self-efficacy to a field, academic self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief that
they can succeed academically, has been a predictor of students’ persistence in STEM fields
(Estrada-Hollenbeck, Woodcock, Hernandez, and Schultz, 2011). Estrada-Hollenbeck et. al
(2011) note that the development of self-efficacy is contingent on high levels of social support
and low levels of environmental and social barriers. They explain that a feedback cycle of self-
efficacy exists in academia and the scientific community where by performing as expected,
students get positive feedback and, in turn, acquire higher levels of self-efficacy and perform
even better while continuing to receive positive reinforcement. However, for those students who
do not do as expected, negative feedback further lowers their levels of performance and self-
efficacy.
Science self-efficacy.
Science self-efficacy, which has been introduced earlier, is belief in the ability to do
science (Estrada-Hollenbeck et al. (2011). In their research on scientific self-efficacy and science
identity, Estrada-Hollenbeck et. al (2011) sought to explain the predictive power of self-efficacy
and science identity on acculturation into the scientific community among underrepresented
minority students. Developing several scales, they assessed for scientific self-efficacy and
science identity with items that asked participants to assess their ability to collect data, generate
and answer research questions, and use scientific tools and literature among other things.
Participants were also assessed for their sense of belonging in the scientific community. The
findings of the study supported the hypothesis that both scientific self-efficacy and science
identity are positively correlated with acculturation and persistence in the scientific community.
Similarly, Hurtado et al. (2009) in their previously mentioned research on structured research
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
35
programs in STEM found that underrepresented minority students who participated in these
programs developed strong science self-efficacy along with science identity. Increased self-
efficacy from these programs may be explained from the skill sets that are fostered in such
experiences like an increase in knowledge about science as well as the development of key
science skills, including technical skills in the laboratory, the development of research and
problem solving skills, and presentation skills (Hurtado et al., 2009). Another study by Chemers
et al. (2011) examined the relationship between science self-efficacy and science identity among
undergraduate underrepresented minorities in STEM. This study also found that science self-
efficacy and science identity were mediator variables on the effect of science support programs
and intention to persist in scientific careers.
Using Lent's (1994) social cognitive career theory which posits that self-efficacy and
outcome expectations influence intent to persist in academic and career endeavors Winston,
Estrada, Davis, and Zalapa (2010) studied underrepresented minority students in biological
sciences and engineering majors and their intent to persist in these areas. Winston et al. (2010)
found that academic self-efficacy and outcome expectations (i.e. the belief that doing something
is worth-while because it will pay off) were indicators of persistence for these students, although
the self-efficacy and persistence relationship was strongest for biological science students. They
suggested that bolstering both self-efficacy and outcome expectations is a practical means to
increase levels of persistence among underrepresented minorities in STEM. This research is in
agreement with Lent's (2005) findings on the predictive value social cognitive career theory for
minority students in STEM. Lent studied the self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations of a
predominately African American sample of students pursing degrees and careers in engineering
at both predominately white and historically black colleges and universities. Lent found that
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
36
students at the historically black colleges and universities had greater levels of self-efficacy and
outcome expectations compared to those at predominately white institutions, and that women
and men experienced similar levels of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations.
It is also important to note that some studies do suggest women may experience science
self-efficacy differently than men, when the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender are
considered. In a recent study of science self-efficacy and science identity Williams & George-
Jackson (2014) found that compared to women, men hold stronger science identities and
experience higher levels of science self-efficacy. In agreement with the literature that has been
discussed, the authors emphasize the importance of support programs to foster students’ science
self-efficacy and science identity as they are indicators of persistence and performance in STEM.
Further validating the argument that STEM support programs are important for science identity,
in 2015 Robnett, Chemers, and Zurbriggen found that the relationship between research
programs and science identity is actually mediated by science self-efficacy providing the basis
for a new theoretical model that helps to explain STEM persistence and performance.
Summary of research on self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to do something well. Extended to a
discipline specific domain, science self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to “do
science.” Some research has linked science self-efficacy to persistence in STEM among
underrepresented minorities. More research in the area of science self-efficacy is needed. In
particular, more studies that examine the development of science self-efficacy in relation to
academic performance is merited. This is because building students’ science self efficacy may be
one way to help underrepresented minority students persist in the STEM studies, and may be a
way for them to graduate with more competitive GPAs. Rendón and Munoz (2011) acknowledge
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
37
that both self-efficacy (internal) and validation (external) are likely important for student
success, but more research needs to be done to examine these relationships, especially when it
comes to self-efficacy in environments in which many students like underrepresented minorities
and women and often invalidated and their science identities are jeopardized.
Summary of Literature Review
This literature review discussed three key variables and their relationship to academic
persistence and performance among underrepresented minorities in STEM: sense of validation,
science identity, and science self-efficacy. As the primary variable of investigation, sense of
validation (Rendón, 1994; Rendón & Munoz, 2011) is comprised of two key constructs:
academic and interpersonal validation. Academic validation is the affirmation of students’
abilities to learn, while interpersonal validation occurs when an interest is taken in students’
personal development and social adjustment. Recent studies (Hurtado et al. 2011; Hurtado et al.,
2015) have empirically validated Rendón’s validation constructs on a quantitative scale and have
determined that students of color experience lower levels of validation on college campuses
compared to white students. Little research has examined sense of validation on academic
persistence and performance, and researchers like Hurtado have called for studies that examine
the links between validation and these outcomes, especially among underrepresented minorities
in STEM fields. As secondary variables, the closely related constructs of science identity and
science self -efficacy were discussed. Science identity is an individuals’ identification as a
scientist and as a member of the scientific community, while science self-efficacy is an
individual’s belief in their ability to do science well, to engage in scientific research, and to make
contributions to the community (Estrada-Hollenbeck et al, 2010). While there has been
examination of the link between science self-efficacy and science identity on persistence among
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
38
underrepresented minorities, more research is merited in this area, especially when it comes to
academic performance. Furthermore, these variables should be examined in relation to sense of
validation, as validation from the scientific community may influence science self-efficacy and
science identity, and ultimately improved performance and persistence among underrepresented
minorities in STEM.
This literature review provides the basis of knowledge that guided this study. While some
things are known about the validation experiences of minorities inside and outside of the
classroom, and absence of quantitative research on these experiences, especially among STEM
students merited more investigation. Furthermore, an absence of research examining the linkages
between validation experiences and persistence and academic performance in STEM guided the
development of research questions in the study to elucidate these paths. Additionally, while
research surrounding science identity and underrepresented minorities has illustrated a link
between strong science identity and persistence, this literature revealed that more research should
examine the link between science identity and performance, especially in consideration of other
closely related variables like science self-efficacy and sense of validation, which may be
mediators of identity. Research on science identity along with science self-efficacy and
validation was also merited because they may be closely linked, and have predictive value when
it comes to STEM persistence and academic achievement. From a theoretical perspective, it
makes sense that the external effects of validation may lead to an internalized belief in ability
(self-efficacy) and internalized identification as a scientist. In turn, sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy may predict STEM persistence and academic achievement.
Considered alone, these constructs may have predictive power, but considered together a more
powerful predictive model may be validated.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
39
Purpose of the Study
Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to examine the relationship among gender,
race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, STEM persistence and
academic achievement among biomedical undergraduates. The secondary goal of this study was
to examine gender and racial/ethnic group differences in sense of validation, science identity,
and science-self efficacy in biomedical undergraduates.
The following specific questions and hypotheses were addressed in this study:
Research Question 1:
Do sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy differ by race/ethnicity
and gender in biomedical undergraduates at a large private research university?
Hypothesis 1a: Underrepresented minority students will experience lower levels of sense
of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy compared to non-
underrepresented minorities.
Hypothesis 1b: Women and men will experience sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy differently, and these differences will vary between
racial and ethic groups.
Research Question 2:
What is the relationship of sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy,
persistence to GPA among biomedical undergraduates at a large private research university?
Hypothesis 2a: Sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy will directly
and uniquely predict persistence and GPA
Hypothesis 2b: The effect of sense of validation on persistence and performance will be
mediated by science identity and science self-efficacy (indirect effect)
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
40
CHAPTER III: Methodology
This chapter will discuss the methods that were used on this study on gender,
race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and
academic performance among biomedical undergraduate students. Relevant characteristics of the
study population and study participants will be discussed. Data collection procedures will be
reported. Then, the instruments used to assess sense of validation science identity, and science
self-efficacy will be described.
Background of the Study Population
The study population consisted of biomedical undergraduate students at a large, private
research university on the West Coast of the United States, which enrolled 18,739
undergraduates in the 2013/2014 academic year. 0.1% of students were American Indian /
Alaska Native, 22.1% were Asian, 4.3% were Black or African American, 13.4 % were Hispanic
or Latino, 0.2%% were Native Hawai’ian or Other Pacific Islander, 35.8% were White, 5.0%
were two more more races, and 13.6% were nonresident aliens. In total, 18% of 2013/2014
undergraduates were underrepresented minorities. Also of note, 53% of undergraduates were
women, 14% were first-generation college goers, 15% of students were pre-medicine, and an
additional 3% were pre-health.
Study Participants
For the purposes of this study undergraduate students enrolled in general biology courses
in the spring of 2016 at a major, private, research university on the West Coast of the US were
identified as participants. Participants were representative of the STEM/pre-health student
population as they represented a strata of class levels and majors in the biological and biomedical
sciences across the university. 818 prospective participants were sent a survey invitation. 168
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
41
participants responded, a 20.53 % response rate. Among respondent surveys, 131 were
considered “complete” for inclusion in the study sample, a 77.98% completion rate. 71.8 % (94)
of participants were female, and 24.4% (32) were male (Table 1). An examination of
participants’ race/ethnicity revealed that (Table 2) 3.8% (5) of participants were black or African
American, 0.8% (1) was American Indian / Alaskan Native, 33.6% (44) were Asian, 9.9% (13)
were Hispanic/Latino, 41.2% (54) were white, and 7.6% (10) were more than one race. In total,
approximately 55.7% (73) of study participants were students of color, while 41.2% (54) of
participants were white. Compared to the study population, it is of note that Asian and white
students were overrepresented in the study sample, while black / African American, and
Hispanic/Latino students were underrepresented. This is not a surprising finding, given that black
/ African American students, and Hispanic / Latino students are underrepresented in STEM
majors overall. At the time of survey administration 3.8%% (8) of respondents were freshman,
60.3% (79) were sophomores, 22.9% (30) were juniors, 0.7% (14) were seniors, and 2.3% (3)
were post-baccalaureate students. The six most common majors by enrollment among
respondents (Table 2) were human biology, “other”, biomedical engineering, biological
sciences, neuroscience, and health promotion and disease prevention studies. _
Table 1. Participants by Gender
Gender Frequency Percent
Female 94 71.8
Male 32 24.4
Missing 5 3.8
Total 131 100

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
42

Table 2. Participants by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Frequency Percent
Black or African American 5 3.8
American Indian / Alaskan
Native
1 0.8
Asian 44 33.6
Hispanic or Latino 13 9.9
White 54 41.2
More than one race 10 7.6
Decline to state 3 2.3
Missing 1 0.8
Total 131 100

Table 3. Participants by Class
Class Frequency Percent
Freshman 5 3.8
Sophomore 79 60.3
Junior 30 22.9
Senior 14 10.7
Post-baccalaureate 3 2.3
Total 131 100

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
43
Table 4. Participants by Major
Major Frequency Percent
Human Biology 19 14.5
Other 18 13.7
Biomedical Engineering 17 13
Biological Sciences 15 11.5
Health Promotion 13 9.9
Neuroscience 13 9.9
Biochemistry 8 6.1
Global Health 5 3.8
Psychology 4 3.1
Chemical Engineering 3 2.3
Chemistry 3 2.3
Computational Neuroscience 3 2.3
Health and Humanity 3 2.3
Postbaccalaureate Program 3 2.3
Environmental Science and Health 2 1.5
Human Development and Aging 1 0.8
Lifespan Health 1 0.8
Total 131 100

Procedure
For the purposes of this study, undergraduate students enrolled in general biology courses
in the spring of 2016 were recruited as participants. These participants were identified with the
use of course rosters. Registration for these courses was limited to students in STEM majors and
pre-health students (pre-medical school, pre-dental school, pre-pharmacy school, pre-physician
assistant, etc.). Due to the nature of how participants were enrolled in the course, very few
participants were expected to be pursing non-biomedical related areas of study.
In the first week of December 2016, participants were invited to complete the study
survey via an invitation link sent through the course management platform. The survey was
administered through the Qualtrics survey platform. The survey window remained open through
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
44
January 2017. Participants were sent follow-up reminder invitations to complete the survey on a
weekly basis throughout the survey window. Participants were incentivized to complete the
survey with the opportunity to win 1 of 4 $25 gift cards which were randomly awarded to
participants who completed the survey once the survey window was closed. Once the survey was
closed, response rates were recorded, and data was downloaded and cleaned for analysis as
follows.
Instruments
The Academic Validation in the classroom construct ( =0.87) and the General
Interpersonal Validation construct ( =0.87) that were used in the study are both six item scales
that were empirically validated by Hurtado et al. (2011) and based in Rendón’s (1994)
qualitative research among low-income, first-generation college students. Each item on the
academic validation construct is measured with on five-point Likert scale (5 = very often, 1 =
never), while the items of the general interpersonal validation construct are measured on a four-
point Likert scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). Example items on the academic
validation scale include “I feel like my contributions were valued in class” and “instructors
showed concern about my progress.” Example items on the interpersonal validation scale include
“faculty believe in my potential to succeed academically” and “faculty empower me to learn
here.” These scales were chosen because they are the only empirically validated scales on sense
of validation, are highly reliable, and they have been widely used in the Diverse Learning
Environments Survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In this study, the reliability ( ) for the academic
validation scale was .88, and the reliability ( ) for the interpersonal validation scale was .90.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
45
The Science Identity scale used in this study (Estrada-Hollenbeck et al., 2010) is a five-
item modification of the Science Identity Scale (Chemers et al., 2010). This scale was validated
by Estrada-Hollenbeck et al. (2010) and has a high level of reliability ( =.86). Measures are on a
five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree). Example science identity items
include “I have a strong sense of belonging to a community of scientists” and “I feel like I
belong in the field of science.” In this study, the reliability ( ) for the Science Identity scale was
.88 The Scientific Self-Efficacy scale (Estrada-Hollenbeck et al., 2010) used in this study is a
six-item modified scale based on the 14-item Scientific Self-Efficacy Scale (Chemers et al.,
2010). The self-efficacy construct is measured on a five-point Likert scale (5 = absolutely
confident (in ability to), 1 = not at all confident (in ability to)) and has a high level of reliability
( =.91). Sample science self-efficacy items include “use technical science skills” and “generate
a research question to answer.” In this study, the reliability ( ) for the Scientific Self-Efficacy
Scale was .90. Finally, in order to measure intent to persist one modified item from Cabrera,
Castañeda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992) was used: “This fall, I am continuing as a science related
major”. This item was measured on a five point likert scale (5 = strongly agree, to 1= strongly
disagree). This item was chosen because intent to persist is a strong predictor of actual
persistence (Cabrera et al., 1992).

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
46
Chapter IV: Results
This chapter presents the results of analysis of research questions in the study. Prior to
data analysis, data were carefully examined for missing values, and was cleaned and coded.
Cases that were missing variables including more than one predictor variable, and/or more than
one outcome variable were removed from the study sample, as were duplicate cases where a
participant took the study survey more than once. GPA data were verified, and were corrected
when necessary. Data were also examined for assumptions of MANOVA and structural equation
modeling (SEM). These assumptions included testing for independence of observations,
linearity, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, outliers, and normality of data. These assumptions
were generally met. Several outlier data points were identified among cases in both predictor and
outcome variables but the researcher chose to leave those cases in the data set because an
examination of these cases did not reveal any other reasons for exclusion from the data. It is also
worth noting that an examination of normality of the dependent variable of intent to persist
variable revealed a negative skew in the data, however, this was generally expected.
Preliminary Analysis
Preliminary analysis of the data include running frequencies of categorical data including
race/ethnicity and gender, as well as means and standard deviations of continuous variables
(academic validation, interpersonal validation, science self-efficacy, science identity, intent to
persist, and GPA.) Finally, correlations were run between continuous study variables.
The correlation matrix revealed statistically significant relationships among many study
variables (Table 5). Firstly, academic and interpersonal validation are highly correlated ( r =
.603, p < .01). This high level of correlation makes sense as academic and interpersonal
validation are thought to be closely related, yet unique constructs. Academic validation is also
correlated with science identity ( r = .362, p < .01), science self-efficacy ( r = .387, p < .01), GPA
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
47
( r = .215, p < .01), and intent to persist ( r = .211, p < .05). Interpersonal validation is also
correlated with science identity ( r = .359, p < .01), science self efficacy ( r = .372, p < .01), GPA
( r = .251, p < .01), and intent ( r = .322, p < .01). Science identity and science self-efficacy are
also correlated ( r = .434, p < .01), as are the relationships between identity and GPA ( r = .293, p
< .01), and intent to persist ( r = .538, p < .01). It is also of note that science self-efficacy is
correlated with GPA ( r = .188, p < .05), and intent ( r = .304, p < .01). Finally, GPA is also
correlated with intent to persist ( r = .269, p < .01).

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
48
Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s Correlations (r) for Academic and Interpersonal Validation, Science Identity, Science Self-
Efficacy, Grade Point Average, and Intent to Persist, n =131
Variable Mean
Standard
Deviation
Academic
Validation
Interpersonal
Validation
Science
Identity
Science Self-
Efficacy GPA Intent
Academic Validation
3.2410 .87753 1 .603
**
.362
**
.387
**
.215
**
.211
*

Interpersonal
Validation
2.8949 .75487 1 .359
**
.372
**
.251
**
.322
**

Science Identity 3.5298 .92817 1 .434
**
.293
**
.538
**

Science Self-Efficacy 3.9720 .67341 1 .188
*
.305
**

GPA 3.3266 .74136 1 .269
**

Intent to Persist
4.44 1.231 1
*= significant at the .05 level, ** = significant at the .01 level

.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
49
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question 1:
Does sense of validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy differ by
race/ethnicity and gender of biomedical undergraduates at a large private research university?
A two-way Manova (n =131) was performed to assess for main and interaction effects
between gender and race/ethnicity on academic and interpersonal validation, science identity and
science self-efficacy. This statistic was appropriate because it allows for the examination of
interaction effects of differences between multiple independent variables on multiple dependent
variables. Due to the small sample size across racial/ethnic groups, data were aggregated into
white and non-white groups.
Among simple main effects of race/ethnicity and gender on the dependent variables there
were several findings. Science self-efficacy scores for white males were .510 (95% CI, .112 to
.907) points higher compared to white females, this difference was statistically significant, p =
.012. The average self-efficacy score for white males was 4.42 ± .44, and the average science
self-efficacy score for white females was 3.92 ± 70. Science identity scores approached near
significant differences (p = .053) for non-white females and males, where the average science
identity score for males was .479 (95% CI, -.007 to .965) points higher than for non-white
females. The average science identity score for non-white females was 3.50 ± .87, while the
average science identity score for non-white males was 3.98 ± .97. Academic validation scores
were significantly higher (p = .016) for non-white men, compared to non-white women, with
men’s scores being .567 (95% CI, .019 to 1.026) points higher when compared to women. The
average academic validation score for non-white women was 3.22 ± .87, while the average
academic validation score for non-white men was 3.79 ± .76. Similarly, the difference between
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
50
academic validation scores among white women and men approached near significance (p =
.068), where the white men’s scores were .494 (95% CI, -.037 to 1.024) points higher compared
to white women. Academic validation scores among white men were 3.55 ± 80, and scores for
white women were 3.05 ± .97. Finally, the difference in interpersonal validation scores among
white women and men also approached near significance (p = .051), where white men scored
.455 (95% CI -.003 to .912) points higher when compared to women. The average interpersonal
validation score for white women was 2.75 ± .83, while the average score for white men was
3.20 ± .63. Considering interaction effects, there was a statistically significant interaction
effect between gender and race/ethnicity on the combined dependent variables, F(4, 111) =
3.129, p = .018, Wilks' Λ = .899, partial η2 = .101. Upon examination of the effects of gender
and race/ethnicity on each dependent variable individually, only a near significant effect was
found for the interpersonal validation score, F(1,114) = 2.902, p = .091, partial η2 = .025.
Significant interaction effects were not found for academic validation, science self-efficacy, or
science identity.
Research Question 2:
What is the relationship of sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy to
persistence, and GPA of biomedical undergraduates at a large private research university?
A structural equation model was identified, and its parameters estimated in order to
answer research question 2. Structural equation modeling was an appropriate test statistic
because it allows for the examination of relationships between multiple independent or predictor
variables, on multiple dependent or outcome variables. It also allows for the examination of
mediation and moderation effects, which was of interest to the researcher. In this case of SEM,
path analysis was utilized. This was appropriate because all variables in the model were
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
51
observed (measured). In the case of this model, the exogenous, observed variables were
academic and interpersonal validation, while the endogenous, observed variables were science
identity, science self-efficacy, intent to persist, and grade point average. After initial model
identification, the model was built in the STATA SEM builder, and its parameters were
estimated. This model included 120 observations of complete data. The chi square for this model
was significant at a level of p = .007. In the case of SEM the chi square is a statistic for model
misfit. In this case the first model passed the chi square, which indicated that the model did not
fit the data. Therefore, two modifications were made to the model. The first modification the
addition of covariance arrows between academic and interpersonal validation as these are
thought to be closely related, yet distinct constructs. The second modification was the addition of
a regression path from science self-efficacy onto science identity. After model re-specification,
parameters were again estimated. Model 2 (Figure 2) failed the chi square test for model misfit
(p = .194) which indicated the model fit the data well. Further measures of fit were conducted
including RMSEA (.076), CFI (.993), and SRMR (.018). These measures were all indicators of
good model fit. The coefficient of determination for the model overall was .299. This indicates
that 29.9% of the total variance among variables was explained by this model.
This model sought to examine the direct effects of academic and interpersonal validation
on outcome variables including intent to persist and GPA in the sciences. Furthermore, it sought
to determine if science identity and science self-efficacy mediated the effects of validation on
intent to persist and GPA. This model did not reveal direct statistically significant direct effects
of validation on intent to persist and GPA, however, several significant indirect paths through
science identity and science self-efficacy were revealed that link validation to intent and GPA.
To begin (Table 6), academic validation (  = .28, p = .003) and interpersonal validation (  = .20,
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
52
p = .053) predicted science self-efficacy. In turn, science self-efficacy was a predictor of science
identity (  = .26, p = .003). Science identity was a predictor of both intent to persist (  = .50, p =
.00), and GPA (  = .20, p = .041).
Table 6. Standardized Coefficients, Standard Error, and Significant Relationships Among Study
Variables (n = 131)

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
53
Figure 2. SEM Model # 2 (Final Model)

AcademicValidation2
1
3.7
InterpersonalValidation
1
4.1
ScienceID
1.1
1
.76
SelfEfficacy
4.2
2
.81
Intent
1.6
3
.7
GPA
2.6
4
.89
.6
.17
.19
.26
.28
.2
-.12
.17
.5
.035
.015
.15
.2
.038
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
54
Chapter V: Discussion
This chapter provides a discussion of the main findings of this research study. In addition
to a discussion of main findings, this chapter will discuss implications for practice based on these
findings. This chapter will also discuss limitations of the study, and will conclude with
recommendations for future studies.
Discussion of Main Findings
This study posed two main research questions. The primary research question of this
study sought to understand the relationships among academic and interpersonal validation,
science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance (GPA) among
biomedical undergraduate students at a large, private research university. The researcher
hypothesized that validation, science identity, and science self-efficacy would uniquely and
directly predict persistence and academic performance. Furthermore, the researcher hypothesized
that the effect of validation on persistence and academic performance would also be mediated by
science identity and science self-efficacy. The results of the structural equation model revealed
several significant relationships among the study variables that link validation to persistence and
academic performance in indirect paths. Firstly, this model revealed that academic and
interpersonal validation are both predictors of science self-efficacy. Secondly, this model
revealed that science self-efficacy was a predictor of science identity. Thirdly, this model
revealed that science identity, in turn, was a predictor of both persistence, and academic
performance.
While this model did not reveal direct paths between validation and academic
performance, it did reveal some of the mechanisms at work that explain how validation
contributes to science self-efficacy, and how self efficacy contributes to identity, which predicts
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
55
both persistence and academic performance. From a theoretical point of view, it makes sense that
academic and interpersonal validation which are external forces, could be internalized, thereby
building self-efficacy. In the case of the study sample, science students who were validated both
academically and interpersonally had stronger self-efficacy. Furthermore, these results revealed
that science self-efficacy contributed to science identity. This also makes sense because an
internalization of a belief in ability to do something well, could contribute to identification as an
individual who carries out such tasks successfully. In this case, belief in the ability to “do
science”, contributes to identification as a scientist. Finally, this model revealed that science
identity predicted both intent to persist, and academic performance of biomedical
undergraduates. In other words, identification as a scientist predicted intent to stay in the
sciences, and also predicted academic performance in the field.
These findings support the work of Estrada-Hollenbeck et al (2011) on science self-
efficacy and science identity, and the work of Hurtado et al. (2015) on validation. Estrada-
Hollenbeck et al. (2011) found that science identity and science self-efficacy contributed to what
they called integration into the scientific community. In the case of this study, intent to persist in
the science field can be seen as a step towards integration into the scientific community.
Furthermore, the findings of this study are in line with the research of Estrada-Hollenbeck et al.
(2011) who found that science identity along with science self-efficacy was a predictor of
academic performance. Indeed, the results of this study revealed that identity was a predictor of
academic performance measured by GPA. While science self-efficacy was not a direct predictor
of academic performance in this case, the predictive power of science self-efficacy on science
identity in this study reinforces Estrada-Hollenbeck’s (2011) assertions that these constructs
work together when it comes to STEM persistence and academic performance.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
56
This study also supported some of the previous findings of Hurtado et al. (2015) when it
comes to academic and interpersonal validation. Primarily, the results of the study model
revealed that academic and interpersonal validation are both unique, yet closely related
constructs. Hurtado et al. (2015) called for more research on the effects of validation on outcome
measures, wondering if these constructs could be directly tied to things like academic
performance and persistence. While this study did not reveal direct paths between validation and
performance and persistence, it did demonstrate that among science students indirect paths exist
between validation, intention to persist, and academic performance.
The secondary research question of this study asked if sense of validation, science
identity, and science self-efficacy differed by gender, and race/ethnicity of biomedical
undergraduates at a large research university. Primarily, the focus of this question lied in the
differences between validation experiences among women and men, and white and non-white
students in the sciences, and how the interaction between gender and race/ethnicity may come
into play in these differences. Beginning with validation, Hurtado et al. (2015) found that white
and non-white students experience validation on college campuses differently, specifically that
non-white students experience lower levels of academic and interpersonal validation compared
to white students. Based on this finding, the researcher hypothesized that in a STEM specific
setting, non-white students would experience lower levels of validation compared to white
students, and women would experience lower levels of validation compared to men. This study
revealed that non-white men experienced higher levels of academic validation compared to non-
white women, and white men experienced higher levels of academic validation at a near
significant level compared to white women. Also, when it came to interpersonal validation
among white women and men, white men experienced higher levels of this type of validation at a
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
57
near significant level. Therefore, when it comes to academic validation the hypothesis that
women (both white and non-white) experience lower levels was confirmed. However, this
difference in levels of validation was only partially confirmed at a near significant level for
interpersonal validation among white women and men, and not for non-white students.
When it came to science identity and science self-efficacy, previous research by
Hollenbeck-Estrada et al. (2015) and others found that women and minorities experience lower
levels of science identity and science self-efficacy compared to men, and non-minority students.
The researcher hypothesized that these differences would also be present in the study sample,
and this hypothesis was partially confirmed. When it came to differences in science self-efficacy,
white men experienced higher levels of self-efficacy when compare to white women. And, when
it came to differences in science identity, non-white men experienced higher levels of science
identity when compared to non-white women. Finally, it is of note that when interaction effects
between gender and race/ethnicity were examined, a near significant difference in interpersonal
validation scores was observed, although the researcher expected to find significant interaction
effects among other study variables as well.
Implications for Practice
The primary finding of this study was a model for understanding the connections between
validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance among
STEM undergraduates. As academic and interpersonal validation build science self-efficacy,
science self-efficacy builds science identity, and science identity predicts both intent to persist
and academic performance in STEM. These findings have significance for practitioners who are
interested in retaining women and minorities in STEM through evidence based practice. While
this study did not examine the efficacy of an intervention to support the academic success of
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
58
women and minorities in STEM, it does reveal some of the underlying mechanisms that explain
why mentoring, and structured research programs in the sciences are successful. Namely that
through validation experiences, students internalize their beliefs about their ability to “do
science” well, and subsequently develop their identities as scientists which are key to their
success in STEM. Practitioners can validate their students in classrooms and laboratories along
with offering mentorship and research experiences to boost their students’ science self-efficacy
and science identity. Ultimately, this study provides evidence that validation experiences are
important in the development of science students. Using a model of validation could be a
successful tool in pedagogy and other interventions to insure educational equity among all
students in STEM, especially women and minorities.
Limitations of the Study
While this study had several significant findings, there are some limitations that should
be considered. Firstly, this study employed a non-random sampling method to recruit study
participants. Using a sample of convenience, the researcher invited all students enrolled in
several gateway biology courses to participate in the study in order to obtain a study sample that
was large enough to enable to research to conduct structural equation modeling which requires
large sample sizes. A more robust sampling method would have been a random sample of study
participants who met the parameters of the study. Secondly, this study is limited in that groups of
participants were aggregated in order to conduct the study analyses. While this study sought to
examine group differences among gender and race/ethnicity, small sampling of different racial
groups led to study participants being collapsed in white and non-white categories. A larger
study sample would have allowed the researcher to examine group differences at a disaggregated
level. Additionally, purposeful sampling of groups such as Latina/o and African American study
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
59
participants may have allowed the researcher to conduct these between group analyses.
Furthermore, this study had a small sample of male participants, and a larger sample could
contribute to a more robust study. Similarly, because a large sample sizes was needed for
structural equation modeling, it was not possible to consider between group models to
understand how these variables may interact differently between women and men, or
underrepresented and non-underrepresented students. In this case, larger samples would provide
the means to do this analysis.
Additionally, two limitations the outcome variables in this study exist. The first is that
while actual persistence measures were collected alongside intention to persist, the binary nature
of the true persistence measure (yes/no) makes it unsuitable for structural equation modeling,
hence the use of an intent to persist measure. While intent to persist is useful in prediction actual
persistence, it is not as robust a measure as true persistence. Finally, the academic performance
variable in this study was measured by grade point average reported for one general biology
course only. A more comprehensive measure of all a composite STEM course GPA may have
been a more robust measure of academic performance in this case. Furthermore, some students
who participated in the study withdrew from the course. Because a grade of “W” cannot be
converted into a number, these participants were excluded from the structural equation model.
While their experiences were of great interest to the researcher, they could not be included due to
the categorical nature of their outcome variables. Finally, it is of note that this study only
considered the experiences of students at a large, private research university, and is therefore
limited in its generalizability to all STEM students. Further study that examines these
relationships across institutions is merited.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
60
Recommendations for Future Study
Future research should further examine the relationships among academic and
interpersonal validation and outcome measures like persistence and academic performance. This
study revealed that among STEM students academic and interpersonal validation play a role in
the development of science self-efficacy, science identity, and ultimately persistence and
academic performance. With larger and purposeful sampling, future research could model the
relationships between these variables to see if these relationships that were generalized among
the study population exist for populations of students that are of special interest to STEM
educational researchers like women and minorities. Research into the relationships between
validation and science self-efficacy and science identity could further the understanding of the
psychological processes that help a student become successful in STEM. In addition to further
research into these relationships, research should be conducted that examines the efficacy of
pedagogical models and interventions that make use of academic and interpersonal validation to
build science self-efficacy, science identity, and ultimately STEM persistence and academic
performance. It is important to know how these variables interact, but it is even more useful to
know how they can be used to ensure educational equity for all students in STEM, especially
women and minorities. Given the findings of this quantitative study, it is of interest to conduct
qualitative work to further understand how validation ultimately plays a role in persistence and
academic performance by hearing about the unique experiences of STEM students from their
personal narratives.

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
61
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the key findings of this study, its implications for practice, its
limitations, and suggestions for future research. This study sought to understand the relationships
between academic and interpersonal validation, science identity, science self-efficacy,
persistence, and academic performance among biomedical undergraduates at a large, private
research university. Using structural equation modeling, this study revealed significant findings
among these variables. Primarily, this study found that academic and interpersonal validation
predict science self-efficacy, which in turn predicts science identity, which predicts both STEM
persistence and academic performance. These findings further the work of Hollenbeck-Estrada et
al. (2011) on science identity and science self-efficacy who emphasized the importance of these
constructs to success in STEM, and the work of Hurtado et al. (2015) on validation who sought
to understand what role validation played in predicting outcome measures such as academic
performance and persistence. While this study had limitations in sampling, its findings still have
significance and contribute to the current body of knowledge surrounding validation, science
identity, science self-efficacy, academic performance, and persistence. Future research into these
relationships should be completed on a larger scale with special attention to capturing the
validation experiences of underrepresented minority students pursuing study in STEM.

STEM UNDERGRADUATES
62
References
Alexander, C., Chen. E., Grumbach, K. (2009) How Leaky Is the Health Career Pipeline?
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Association of American Medical Colleges. (2012) Diversity in Medical Education: Facts &
Figures 2012.
Association of American Medical Colleges. (2016). The Complexities of Physician Supply and
Demand: Projections from 2014 to 2025.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Barnett, E. A. (2011). Faculty validation and persistence among nontraditional community
college students. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 97–117.
Barnett, E. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college students.
The Review of Higher Education, (34)2, 193-230.
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule. (1986). Women’s Ways of Knowing.
Burke, P., Stets, J. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler. (1992). The Convergence between Two Theories of
College Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education. 63(2), 143-164.
Carlone and Johnson. (2007). Understanding the Sciences Experiences of Successful Women of
Color: Science Identity as an Analytic Lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
44(8), 1187-1218.
Chang, Eagan, Lin, Hurtado. (2011). Considering the Impact of Racial Stigmas and Science
Identity: Persistence Among Biomedical and Behavioral Science Aspirants. The Journal
of Higher Education. 82(5), 564-596.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
63
Chemers, M. M., Zurbiggen, E., Barbara Goza, M.S., Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy
and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students.
Journal of Social Issues. 67(3), 469-491.
Chen, A., Grumbach, K. (2009) Minority Student Achievement in College Gateway Courses.
Academic Medicine. 84(6), 797-802.
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College
Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.
Estrada-Hollenbeck, Woodcock, Hernandez, and Schultz. (2011). Toward a Model of Social
Influence that Explains Minority Student Integration into the Scientific Community.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 103(1), 206-222.
Guiton G, Chang MJ, Wilkerson L. (2007). Student body diversity:
relationship to medical students’ experiences and attitudes. Academic Medicine.
82(10), 85–88.
Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students:
Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 42(5), 82-91.
Hernandez, P. R., Schultz, P. W., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Chance, R. C. (2013).
Sustaining optimal motivation: A longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden
participation of underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(1), 89-107.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
64
Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, and Espinosa. (2009). Diversifying Science: Underrepresented
Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs. Research in Higher Education.
50(2), 189-214.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M., Cabrera, N., Lin, M., Park, J., Lopez, M. (2008). Training Future
Scientists: Predicting First-year Minority Student Participation in Health Science
Research. Research in Higher Education. 49, 126-152
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’
sense of validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments.
Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 53-71.
Hurtado, S., Alvarado, A. R., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Creating inclusive environments:
The mediating effect of faculty and staff validation on the relationship of
discrimination/bias to students’ sense of belonging. Journal Committed to Social
Change on Race and Ethnicity, 1(1), 60-81.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011).
“We Do Science Here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different
college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553-579.
IPEDS Data Center. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: nces.ed.gov
Jones & McEwan. (2000). A Conceptual Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Journal of
College Student Development, 41(1).
Lent, R., Brown, S., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social
cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
65
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Gloster, C. S., Wilkins, G., . . .Treistman, D.
(2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility
for women and students at Historically Black Universities. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 84–92.
Merolla, D., Serpe, R. (2013). STEM enrichment programs and graduate school matriculation:
the role of science identity salience. Journal of Psychology Education. 16, 575-597.
Merolla, D., Serpe, R., Stryker, S., Schultz, P. (2012). Structural precursors to identity processes:
The role of proximate social structures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(2), 149-172.
National Academy of Sciences. 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM
degrees.
Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from
twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2013). The role of identity development, values,
and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to Excel:
Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a model of learning and
development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community College Puente: A validating model of education.
Educational Policy, 16(4), 642-667.
Rendón, L & Munoz, S. (EDS) (2011). Revisiting validation theory. Theoretical foundations,
applications. Enrollment Management Journal. Summer 2011, 12-33.
STEM UNDERGRADUATES
66
Reynolds, A., & Pope, R. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple
oppressions. Journal of Counseling and development, 70(1), 174-180.
Robnett, R., Chemers, M., Zurbriggen, E. (2015). Longitudinal Associations Among
Undergraduates’ Research Experience, Self-Efficacy, and Identity. Journal of research in
science teaching. 52(6), 847-867.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Whitla DK. (2003) Educational benefits of diversity in medical school: a survey of students.
Academic Medicine. 78, 460–466.
Williams, M., George-Jackson, C. (2014). Using and Doing Science: Gender, Self-Efficacy, and
Science Identity of Undergraduate Students in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities
in Science and Engineering 20(2), 99–126
Winston, A., Estrada, Y., Howard, C., Davis, D., & Zalapa, J. (2010). Influence of social
cognitive and ethnic variables on academic goals of underrepresented students in science
and engineering: A multiple-groups analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(2),
205-218.
Woodcock A., Hernandez, P., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. (2012). The Consequences of Chronic
Stereotype Threat: Domain Disidentification and Abandonment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 103(4), 635-646.

67
Appendix A: Information Sheet and Survey Items

Default Question Block

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

USC Science Survey

You are invited to participate in a research study about your experience as a science student at the
University of Southern California (USC). You are eligible to participate in this study because you are
aged 18 or older and were enrolled in a general biology course (BISC 120, 220, 221) in the spring of
2016. 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
This study is part of a dissertation research project in the USC Rossier Doctor of Education program
and aims to understand how your identity and experiences as a science student explains academic
outcomes.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which is
anticipated to take about 10 minutes; in addition, you will be asked to allow the researcher to verify the
grade you received in the general biology course you were enrolled in during the spring of 2016. If you
agree to allow the researcher access to your grade, the general biology course administrator will
provide that grade to the researcher for the purposes of the study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with USC, including your grades, will not be
affected whether you participate or not in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
At the end of the survey, you will be eligible enter to win 1 of 4 $25 Amazon gift cards by providing an email address.
If you are randomly selected for a gift card, it will be emailed to you at the end of the study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your USC
email address that you provide in this study for the purposes of verifying your general biology course
will be coded into a number in order to protect your identity before it is released to the researcher.

The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s
Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors

68

research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored in a locked office and/or on a secure computer/laptop which has security
software installed and will be password protected. Your email address will be destroyed at the end of
the study; the remaining (de-identified) data will be retained by the investigator for future research use.
If you do not want your data used in future research studies, you should not participate in this study.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Dylan Worcester via email at worceste@usc.edu or Faculty Advisors Briana
Hinga at hinga@rossier.usc.edu, or Ruth Chung at rchung@usc.edu

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

We want to thank you in advance for completing the survey. Please click the Continue button below to give your
permission to participate in this study and start the survey. By clicking continue, you are also indicating that you
understand that your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and that if you choose to participate you will
be asked to take an online survey that will take approximately 10 minutes, and you give permission for your general
biology course grade to be verified and provided to the researcher for the purposes of the study.
Continue

Please provide your USC email address:

What year in school are you as of fall 2016?
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Post-baccalaureate Premedical Program Student
Graduate Student
I graduated in the spring or summer of 2016 and am no longer a student

What is your major?
Biochemistry
Biological Sciences

69

Biomedical Engineering

Biophysics
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Cognitive Science
Computational Neuroscience
Earth Sciences
Environmental Science and Health
Environmental Studies
Geological Sciences
Global Health
Health Administration
Health and Humanity
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Studies
Human Biology
Human Development and Aging
Lifespan Health
Neuroscience
Postbaccalaureate Premedical Program
Psychology
Other
Undecided

Please select one option that best describes your race/ethnicity:
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawai'ian or Other Pacific Islander
White
More than one race
Decline to state

Please select your gender:
Female Male Decline to state

70

Please consider your experience as a science student and select the best answer per statement.
Never Very Often

Please consider your experience as a science student and select the best answer per statement.
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

Please select the best answer on the scale from 1 (not at all confident) to
5 (absolutely confident). I am confident that I can:

I feel like my contributions were
valued in the class.
Instructors provided me with
feedback that helped me judge
my progress.
Instructors were able to
determine my level of
understanding of the course
material.
Instructors encouraged me to
ask questions and participate in
discussions.
Instructors showed concern
about my progress.
Instructors encouraged me to
meet with them after or outside
of class.
Faculty empower me to learn
here.

Faculty believe in my potential
to succeed academically.
At least one faculty member has
taken an interest in my
development.
At least one staff member has
taken an interest in my
development.
Staff recognize my
achievements.
Faculty empower me to learn
here.
Staff encourage me to get
involved in campus activities.

71

Not at all confident Absolutely confident

Please select the best answer on the scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

This fall, I am continuing as a science related major.
Yes
No

Please select the best answer on the scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Strongly disagree

Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5

Use technical science skills
(use of tools, instruments,
and/or techniques).
Generate a research question
to answer.
Figure out what
data/observations to collect and
how to collect them.
Create explanations for the
results of the study.
Use scientific literature and/or
reports to guide research.
Develop theories (integrate and
coordinate results from multiple
studies).

I have a strong sense of
belonging to the community of
scientists.
I derive great personal
satisfaction from working on a
team that is doing important
research.
I have come to think of myself
as a 'scientist.'
I feel like I belong in the field of
science.
The daily work of a scientist is
appealing to me.

72

It is likely that I will re-enroll
next spring (2017) in a science
related major.

In the spring of 2016 I received the following grade in my general biology course:
A (4.0)
A- (3.7)
B+ (3.3)
B (3.0)
B- (2.7)
C+ (2.3)
C (2.0)
C- (1.7)
D+ (1.3)
D (1.0)
D- (0.7)
F (0.0)
W (withdrew)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Discovering implicit academic science norms through the experience of historically underrepresented STEM faculty

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

PDF

The relationship of spirituality and academic engagement to undergraduate student persistence at Christian colleges

PDF

The role of parenting style, ethnicity, and identity style on identity commitment and career decision self-efficacy

PDF

U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

Relationships between academic and psychosocial skills of community college students

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready

Asset Metadata

Creator Worcester, Dylan James (author)

Core Title The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2017-08

Publication Date 06/09/2017

Defense Date 05/20/2017

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

Tag academic performance,academic validation,Ethnicity,gender,interpersonal validation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Persistence,Race,science identity,science self-efficacy,sense of validation,STEM,structural equation modeling,URM

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Rizk, Oliver (committee member)

Creator Email dylan.worcester@gmail.com,dylan.worcester@pomona.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11257670

Unique identifier UC11257670

Identifier etd-WorcesterD-5386.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WorcesterD-5386

Dmrecord 380630

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Worcester, Dylan James

Internet Media Type application/pdf

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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu