University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM
MATHEMATICS ENGINEERING SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (MESA) AND STUDENT
PERSISTENCE IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS
(STEM) ACTIVITIES AND COURSES: THE PERCEPTIONS OF MESA TEACHER
ADVISORS IN THE EFFECTIVENSS OF INCREASING PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS’ INTEREST IN STEM
by
Jacob Jung
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2017
Copyright 2017 Jacob Jung
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 2

MATHEMATICS ENGINEERING SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (MESA) AND STUDENT
PERSISTENCE IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS
(STEM) ACTIVITIES AND COURSES: THE PERCEPTIONS OF MESA TEACHER
ADVISORS IN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCREASING PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS’ INTEREST IN STEM
by
Jacob Jung

A Dissertation Presented

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

2017

APPROVED:

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

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

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

Abstract
This research study investigated the MESA teacher advisors’ perceptions of MESA’s
effectiveness in supporting and increasing educationally disadvantaged high school students’
interest in STEM activities and courses. The researcher also explored the resources and support
systems needed to successfully have educationally disadvantaged students to persist through the
STEM pipeline. The study was conducted using a sequential mixed-method approach. In the first
phase of the mixed-method approach, 50 online surveys were distributed to USC-MESA teacher
advisors’ currently working in various high schools in the greater Los Angeles area. In the
second phase, the researcher interviewed five MESA teacher advisors in a focus group setting,
followed with an individual interview. The findings revealed that the advisors believe the MESA
program effectively supports students’ interest and persistence in STEM through hands-on
activities, continuing professional development for MESA teacher advisors, networking
opportunities for both students and teacher advisors, and collaboration with STEM-based
organizations. The findings from this study begin to address the gaps in the literature
surrounding the effectiveness of STEM outreach programs and stakeholder’s perceptions.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 4

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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 5

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, father, brother, and best friend/wife. I cannot
thank you enough for your love, patience, and support from day one of this process.
To my mother, Min Jung, I want to thank you for the countless sacrifices that you have
made so that I could have the opportunity to achieve anything I wanted to accomplish. You
showed me love, kindness, and humility. You have molded my heart and I am who I am today
because of you.
To my father, Michael Jung, I want to thank you for the countless hours you worked so
you could provide for the family. You taught us hard work, perseverance, and resiliency,
characteristics that pushed me to complete this dissertation.
To my brother, Jason Jung, I want to thank you for mentoring me and paving the road for
me. Your words and wisdom have not gone unnoticed for you have pushed me to become a
better person, brother, and son.
Finally, to my best friend and now wife, Isabel Jung. You were my biggest fan and
always encouraged me to dream big. Thank you for loving me unconditionally and supporting
me on pursuing my goals. You bring the best out of me and for that I love you!

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge those who provided this opportunity and allowed for this
achievement to be made possible. Thank you to the members of my dissertation committee:
Dr. Pedro Garcia, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and Dr. Michael Escalante; their leadership, support,
guidance and mentoring throughout the doctoral program has been instrumental. I also want to
thank Ben Louie and Darin Gray for assisting my team the opportunity to gather information and
data for our research study.
The following professional mentors played a significant role by helping me to grow
professionally, personally, and always believing in me; Thank you Yvette Meneses, Frank
Chang, Scott Cavanias, Miriam Kim, Yo Yamamoto, RIC and Dr. Richard Sheehan. Your
leadership, ambition and dedication to all students have inspired me to keep expanding my mind.
I want to give a special shout-out to all the Workman staff and students for allowing me to
develop my passion for education and for cultivating a life-long learner mindset in me. Thank
you Mandy Cevallos, Christine Sardo, Susan Chang and the science department for always
having my back.
I would also like to acknowledge my extended family; Mr. and Mrs. Lee, Daniel Lee,
David Lee, and Marlon Menendez. Your encouragement, insights, and wisdom allowed me to
dig deeper and kept me moving forward when things became challenging. Thank you for always
knowing what to say to keep me motivated.
Lastly, I would like to recognize my USC classmates, the weekend cohort and most
importantly my two dissertation partners, Rhonda Haramis and Nisha Parmar. This dissertation
could not have been possible without you two. Thank you for always challenging me, pushing
me, and reminding me to never, ever, ever give up and to always fight on!
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................9
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................10
List of Appendices .............................................................................................................11
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................12
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................14
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................22
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................23
Research Questions ................................................................................................25
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................26
Assumptions ...........................................................................................................26
Delimitations ..........................................................................................................27
Limitations .............................................................................................................27
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................28
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................30
Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................32
Historical Perspective and Politics of STEM .........................................................32
STEM Pipeline .......................................................................................................41
Students in STEM Education .................................................................................57
Outreach Programs .................................................................................................69
Key Features of Effective Programs ......................................................................72
MESA Program ......................................................................................................73
Summary ................................................................................................................74
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................76
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions ..................................76
Research Questions ................................................................................................78
An Introduction to MESA ......................................................................................79
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Study ...........................................82
Population and Sample ..........................................................................................85
Site Selection .........................................................................................................89
Data Collection ......................................................................................................90
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................95
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................98
Ethical Practices ...................................................................................................106
Ethical Interviews ................................................................................................106
Summary ..............................................................................................................108
Chapter Four: Findings ....................................................................................................109
Background ..........................................................................................................100
Purpose .................................................................................................................110
Research Questions ..............................................................................................112
Participants ...........................................................................................................113
Quantitative Data .................................................................................................114
Qualitative Data ...................................................................................................115
Findings by Research Question ...........................................................................116
Ancillary Findings ...............................................................................................130
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 8

Reflection .............................................................................................................135
Summary ..............................................................................................................140
Chapter Five: Discussion .................................................................................................142
Overview of the Study .........................................................................................142
Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................145
Limitations ...........................................................................................................151
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................153
Recommendations for Future Study ....................................................................154
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................155
References ........................................................................................................................157

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 9

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Survey Item Breakdown per Research Question ...............................................101
Table 2. MESA High Schools ..........................................................................................114
Table 3. Quantitative Survey: Number of Years Served as a Teacher/Advisor
for MESA High School ......................................................................................115
Table 4. Participants to the Study ....................................................................................116
Table 5. Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question One ..................................117
Table 6. Total Mean for Research Question One ............................................................118
Table 7. Research Question One: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question ..................118
Table 8. Reliability Statistics for Research Question One ...............................................119
Table 9. Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question Two .................................121
Table 10. Total Mean for Research Question Two ..........................................................121
Table 11. Research Question Two: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question ...............123
Table 12. Reliability Statistics for Research Question Two ............................................123
Table 13. Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question Three .............................124
Table 14. Total Mean for Research Question Three ........................................................125
Table 15. Research Question Three: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question .............126
Table 16. Reliability Statistics for Research Question Three ..........................................127
Table 17. Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question Four ...............................127
Table 18. Total Mean for Research Question Four ..........................................................128
Table 19. Research Question Four: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question ...............129
Table 20. Reliability Statistics for Research Question Four ............................................129
Table 21. Ancillary Emerging Themes ............................................................................131
Table 22. Comparison of Research Based Features of Effective Programs
and MESA Schools Program ...........................................................................136

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of How Outreach Programs, such as MESA
Target Educationally Disadvantaged Populations ..............................................25
Figure 2. Federal STEM Education Funding FY2006, by Agency ...................................37
Figure 3. Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM ....................................................................43
Figure 4. Multiple Pathways Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM .....................................56
Figure 5. Alternative Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM .................................................56
Figure 6. Earned Bachelor’s Degrees in STEM by Race, Class, and Gender ...................59
Figure 7. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Mathematics Courses ...................................62
Figure 8. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Science Courses ...........................................62
Figure 9. Top Program Goals Selected by Survey Respondents .......................................70
Figure 10. Percentage of Programs that Offer Academic Services, by Service Type .......71
Figure 11. Percentage of Programs that Offer Non-Academic Services, by
Service Type .....................................................................................................72
Figure 12. Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Approach .........................................83
Figure 13. Conceptual Framework of How Outreach Programs such as
MESA Target Disadvantaged Populations .....................................................112

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 11

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Information Sheet .......................................................................................182
Appendix B. Recruitment Letter ......................................................................................184
Appendix C. Consent Form .............................................................................................185
Appendix D. MESA Survey Questionnaire .....................................................................186
Appendix E. Data Collection: Interview Protocol for MESA Teachers in K-12 .............191

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 12

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

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

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are listed
alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 13

with a STEM degree, and enter a STEM career (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005). While educationally
disadvantaged populations constitute a growing number of students in the educational system,
their presence in STEM does not reflect this trend. A study conducted by the American Council
on Education (Anderson & Kim, 2006) found that 13% of African-American and Hispanic
students elected to pursue a major in STEM, and of those minority students who elected a STEM
major, the graduation rate is nearly half as compared to their White peers (Foltz, Gannon,
Kirschmann, 2014). Similarly, the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES, 2006) data
showed that female high school seniors enrolled in STEM majors at one-third the rate of male
high school seniors. Consequently, even when minorities successfully graduate with a STEM
degree, and enter the STEM workforce, they do not receive equal compensation as their White,
male colleagues (Chen, 2009).
As there is an increasing need for qualified individuals in STEM fields, this problem
becomes a priority to understand and contextualize because the absence of minorities and
females from STEM majors leads to inequities in access to STEM curricula, differences in
compensation, and a lack of diversity in the work force (Milgrim, 2011). Understanding the
unique barriers that educationally disadvantaged populations face is imperative to increasing
their numbers and persistence in STEM courses during pivotal transitions throughout their
educational careers.
Among the many reasons educationally disadvantaged populations are uniquely
challenged in their pursuit of STEM degrees and careers, four main themes emerged from the
literature. Educationally disadvantaged populations face a lack of institutional support such as
inadequate resources and lack of academic assistance (Griffith, 2010), lack of social or peer
support (Szelényi, Denson, & Inkelas, 2013), negative racial and gender stereotypes (Riegle-
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 14

Crumb et al., 2012), and issues related to motivation (Wang, M. T., & Degol, 2013). Each of
these four themes will be further broken down into subcategories and examined in detail within
the context of the literature review in the subsequent chapter.
In response to the issue of the underrepresentation of minorities and females in STEM,
many institutions, from primary school through four-year universities, have implemented STEM
outreach programs that aim to increase the retention of educationally disadvantaged populations
in STEM by providing students with academic, social, and emotional support systems within
their institutions. In order to gain a better understanding of how STEM outreach programs work
and the experiences of educational disadvantaged populations in STEM outreach programs, this
dissertation will examine the effectiveness of current STEM outreach programs on the
persistence and support of Latino ELLs in STEM educational disadvantaged populations.
Background of the Problem
The need for a strong STEM workforce in the US has led to a resurgence of ensuring
there are sufficient numbers of high quality STEM graduates (Foltz et al., 2014). Having a
strong STEM workforce would allow the US to enhance its innovative capacity, economic
development, and global competitiveness (Beede et al., 2011; Foltz et al., 2014). While STEM
specific jobs constitute only 5% of the entire US Workforce, policy makers and leaders in
academics and businesses alike, strongly believe that STEM fields have a significantly higher
impact on the US economy (Hira, 2010). For example, it is widely known that the technical and
scientific industries play an important role in maintaining national security, increasing the
standard of living in the US, and solving the nation’s most challenging issues such as disease
control, infrastructure, and global warming (Hira, 2010).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 15

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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 16

Retaining a Strong STEM Workforce
Previous research has shown that the STEM disciplines struggle to recruit, retain, and
graduate students (Cannady, Greenwald, & Harris, 2014). This remains especially true for
minorities and females, who are disproportionately educationally disadvantaged in STEM fields
as compared to their White peers. For instance, females occupy nearly half the jobs in the US
economy, but females only occupy about 25% of the jobs in STEM (Beede et al., 2011). This is
problematic because as the number of jobs in STEM is expected to increase, the compensation is
also expected to rise as well (U. S. Department of Commerce, 2011). The United States
Department of Commerce (2011) estimated that STEM workers earn 26% more than non-STEM
workers. Thus, it is essential that the number of minority and female students pursuing STEM
disciplines increase in order to remain representative of the US population (Carnes, Schuler,
Sarto, Lent, & Bakken, 2006; Foltz et al., 2014). Furthermore, minorities and females could
bring a much-needed diversified perspective on how to approach global issues that impact
traditionally underserved populations (Foltz et al., 2014; Milgram, 2011).
If the goal is to increase the number of educationally disadvantaged populations in
STEM, then it is imperative to understand why they are not entering STEM disciplines, and why
those who enter STEM are not persisting. Specifically, this study aimed to examine the
mechanisms that contribute to how educationally disadvantaged populations are currently being
supported in STEM endeavors through STEM outreach programs, and why educationally
disadvantaged populations are less likely to persist in STEM majors and careers.
STEM Pipeline
Historically, the conceptual model of students following a STEM trajectory has been
portrayed by an ever-narrowing leaking pipeline (Cannady et al., 2014). The pipeline model
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 17

suggests that as students’ approach milestone transitions such as the shift from middle school to
high school, students leave the STEM pipeline. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars
dedicated to patching up the leaks to increase the number of students retained in STEM careers,
especially women and minorities, the investment has yielded poor returns, and the number of
students who leave STEM fields continues to be an issue of societal and economic concerns
(Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al., 2014).
Minorities and females are especially susceptible to leaking from the STEM pipeline
because these educationally disadvantaged populations face additional barriers peripheral to their
participation and persistence in STEM. They must contend with inequities in academics, societal
and cultural norms that conflict with personal goals in STEM, negative gender stereotypes, lack
of role models, peer criticism, and feelings of being an outsider, which contributes to their
overall persistence in STEM (Thoman, Arizaga, Smith, Story, & Soncuya, 2014).
Barriers to Diversity in STEM
Previous research has indicated that the strongest determinants of choosing a STEM
major in college are students’ prior academic preparation and achievement in mathematics and
science, and their attitudes (interest) in mathematics and science in high school (Cannady et al.,
2014; Correll, 2001; Tai, Sadler, & Mintzes, 2006). For both young women and men, those who
earned higher grades in advanced coursework, were 1.6 times as likely to pursue STEM majors
(Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Thi, 2014). Data from previous studies found that minorities,
including African Americans and Hispanics, take lower level courses in mathematics and
sciences in high school as compared to their White peers, and are therefore inadequately
prepared for college level STEM courses, while females reported negative attitudes regarding
STEM (Tyson, Lee, Borman, & Hanson, 2007).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 18

Minority students are less likely to participate in higher-level courses due to lack of
access to rigorous courses. Ogbu and Simons (1998) suggested that minorities face school
systematic factors and community forces that result in their underachievement compared to their
White peers. Additionally, minorities are faced with language barriers, that adversely lead to
limited access to high paying jobs, and result in living in poverty and attending schools with
inadequate resources (Tienda & Haskins, 2011; Yun & Moreno, 2006). Finally, parents of
minority students, specifically involuntary minorities, lack the social capital to advocate for their
students to be in higher-level courses, which are gateway courses to STEM majors (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). Fortunately, for those minorities who are able to navigate the system and take
rigorous courses in high school, data indicated they are equally likely to pursue STEM majors in
college as their White peers (Tyson et al., 2007). These findings suggest that the lack of
adequate preparation and institutional barriers in access during high school present significant
barriers for minorities who seek to pursue STEM.
Females, on the other hand, may elect to engage in higher-level coursework in
mathematics and science in high school, but are less likely to pursue STEM degrees and careers
than their male peers due to lack of interest in mathematics and science, and lack of self-identity
in STEM (Tyson et al., 2007). First, interest related to STEM is developed during elementary
education and reinforced both negatively and positively throughout experiences in secondary and
postsecondary education. Females are discouraged from pursuing STEM disciplines due to the
competitive nature of the courses and the perceived male-dominant culture in STEM (Riegle-
Crumb et al., 2012). Second, motivational elements that heavily influence persistence and
choices for females in STEM include their self-identity and self-concept in STEM. Females
have difficulty viewing themselves as scientists and have difficulty reconciling and achieving a
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 19

work-life balance. These findings indicate that females, even when they have the academic
capacity to excel in STEM courses, opt out of these disciplines due to negative attitudes related
to STEM (Tyson et al., 2007).
STEM Outreach Programs and Partnerships
Outreach programs, also known as pipeline programs, are one of the oldest strategies
used to increase the enrollment of students in college and their success in higher education
(Strayhorn, 2011). STEM outreach programs are a division of these pipeline programs that are
specifically focused on the active recruitment, retention, and graduation of educationally
disadvantaged populations, such as minorities and females, in STEM majors (Contreras, 2011).
Outreach programs represent one type of intervention that seeks to improve conditions for
educationally disadvantaged populations, by creating a more inclusive and balanced STEM
workforce, increasing outreach and equity to groups that have been excluded from STEM, and
preparing more high quality students for STEM careers (Gilmer, 2007). These STEM outreach
programs operate under the pretenses that implementing and developing interventions that target
the recruitment and retention of minorities and females requires that programs address the two
factors which most significantly impact students’ success rates in college – academic preparation
in mathematics and science and students’ attitudes in mathematics and sciences (Strayhorn,
2011).
STEM outreach programs are highly diverse in their organization, their duration of
program, and their targeted population/demographics. STEM outreach programs range from the
federally funded programs such as Upward Bound and GEAR UP, to state funded programs such
as Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Achievement (MESA) in California (Contreras,
2011). They also include intervention programs established by educational nonprofits, school
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 20

district partnerships programs such as Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)
(Contreras, 2011), and university partnership programs such as the Minority Opportunities in
Research Program (MORE) at California State University at Los Angeles (CSULA, Slovacek,
Whittinghill, Flenoury, & Wiseman, 2012). What all these outreach programs have in common
is they have evolved to address the key transition periods in a student’s educational career
identified by the conceptual pipeline model. These transitions include: primary school to middle
school, middle school to high school, and high school to college (Cannady et al., 2014).
Furthermore, they provide interventions such as academic enrichment, mentoring and social
development, cultural and gender role models, and emotional support, which for students from
educationally disadvantaged communities are instrumental in creating access where the cultural
message has not always been positive (Contreras, 2011).
Academic enrichment. Because minorities are often denied access to rigorous
curriculum in high school, targeted academic interventions implemented by outreach programs
are used to compensate for the inequities in resources (Contreras, 2011; Gilmer, 2007). The
Academic Investment Program in Math and Science (AIMS) at Bowling Green State University
was purposefully designed to target the needs of minority and female university students who are
traditionally educationally disadvantaged in STEM (Gilmer, 2007). The AIMS program
provided students with an intensive five-week summer course each year during their university
career, which integrated mathematics, science, and peer tutoring. The program was found to
foster a support system, facilitate faculty-student interaction, provide networking opportunities,
assist with financial hardships, and retain more underrepresented students in STEM majors
(Gilmer, 2007).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 21

Social interactions. Outreach programs promote social and career-related pursuits
around issues in STEM, which is imperative to increasing persistence in STEM (Szelényi et al.,
2013). Research relating to the importance of social support showed that participation in a
Living Learning Program (LLP) increased the persistence of females in STEM majors. LLPs are
designed as a cohort model for students, and their use created a sense of community for students,
fostered interactions with diverse peers, and increased professional outcome expectations for
minorities and females in STEM (Szelényi et al., 2013). Moreover, mentoring and fostering
positive relationships between faculty and students in STEM, helped to break down negative
stereotypes of the STEM disciplines, and provided students opportunities to engage in STEM
related research (Gilmer, 2007; Slovacek et al., 2012).
Role models. Historically, the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering existed
as White, male-dominated professions (Riegle-Crumb et al., 2012). This perception has led to
the gender and racial disparity in STEM. This is further confounded by the issue of a lack of
minority and female role models in STEM (Griffith, 2010; Xu & Martin, 2011). Some
researchers have hypothesized that increasing the number of minority and female faculty in
STEM may increase students’ persistence in STEM (Griffith, 2010). When students are
provided role models that they can identify as similar to themselves, then they are able to
conceptualize themselves in the same role. Accordingly, if students in STEM are provided
faculty and advisors in STEM with whom they can identify with, then they are more likely to
develop a self-identity in STEM.
Motivational support. Students’ self-efficacy is directly related to their motivation and
directly impacts students’ mental effort, active choice to engage in a task, and persistence during
adversity (Rueda, 2011). Minorities and females in STEM majors must contend with negative
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 22

cultural/gender stereotypes, lack of academic resources, peer criticism, and feelings of being an
outsider, which negatively affects their self-efficacy (Thoman et al., 2014). Outreach programs
that incorporated mentoring and informal professional networks have been instrumental in
helping minorities and females advocate for themselves, reshape their role in STEM, and
increase their self-efficacy (Xu & Martin, 2011). Furthermore, research indicated that the mean
academic self-efficacy and students’ social skills were significantly higher after participation in
pipeline programs (Strayhorn, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness of the Mathematics, Engineering,
Science Achievement outreach program in influencing educationally disadvantaged high school
students to persist in STEM education. Minorities are the fastest growing subgroup with the
highest growth in grades seven through twelve (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011), According
to Luster (2011), 42 % of the total number of students enrolled in US public schools represent
educationally disadvantaged minorities. These escalated numbers in various parts of America
highlight the urgency to invest in this growing population so that they are prepared to join the
workforce in STEM related fields. It is more than speculation that educationally disadvantaged
minorities repeatedly underperform in all areas of academics when compared to the White
majority as well as several other minority subgroups (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, &
Callahan, 2003). Faulty education systems and outdated policies and legislation are significant
barriers between minorities and their road to higher education (Gándara et al., 2003; Yun &
Moreno, 2006). Various factors contribute to their marginalization and identification as
educationally disadvantaged students, which include the lack of community resources and
support programs to increase minorities’ access to high demanding fields like science,
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 23

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and as a result, severely impede their ability
to acquire high level skills for the STEM workforce (Mohr-Schroder et al., 2014).
Purpose of the Study
The initial purpose of this study was to observe, compare and evaluate STEM outreach
programs that are currently in place. Moreover, this study explored the effectiveness of STEM
outreach programs on the retention of first-generation females educational disadvantaged
populations enrolled at a four-year university. The final intent of this study was to identify the
key elements that contribute toward a successful STEM outreach programs. This is crucial
because it provides future implications for rethinking and restructuring existing STEM outreach
programs to ensure they provide equitable services for all educationally disadvantaged
populations.
The conceptual framework was structured around the key elements that create an
effective STEM outreach program for retaining minorities and females in STEM disciplines.
The components of the conceptual framework included the following: academic support systems
which compensate for inequities in educational system, positive social interactions with like-
minded peers and mentors, built-in support network to counteract negative gender and racial
stereotypes, and motivational elements that influence students’ in students’ persistence in STEM
(Figure 1). STEM outreach programs such as the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Outreach
(CTLO) at California Institute of Technology (CalTech), the AIMS Program at Bowling Green
State University, and the MORE program at CSULA, have proven to be successful due to their
high retention rate of educationally disadvantaged populations. Figure 1 illustrates effective
elements in outreach programs.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 24

This research study investigated the MESA teacher advisors’ perceptions of MESA’s
effectiveness in supporting and increasing educationally disadvantaged high school students’
interest in STEM activities and courses. The researcher also explored the resources and support
systems needed to successfully have educationally disadvantaged students to persist through the
STEM pipeline. The study was conducted using a sequential mixed-method approach. In the
first phase of the mixed-method approach, 50 online surveys were distributed to USC-MESA
teacher advisors’ currently working in various high schools in the greater Los Angeles area. In
the second phase, the researcher interviewed five MESA teacher advisors in a focus group
setting, followed with an individual interview. The findings revealed that the advisors believe
the MESA program effectively supports students’ interest and persistence in STEM through
hands-on activities, consist professional development for MESA teacher advisors, networking
opportunities for both students and teacher advisors, and collaboration with STEM-based
organizations. The findings from this study begin to address the gaps in the literature
surrounding the effectiveness of STEM outreach programs and stakeholder’s perceptions.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 25

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of How Outreach Programs Such as MESA, Target
Educationally Disadvantaged Populations.

Research Questions
1. How is the MESA program preparing teachers to support educationally disadvantaged
high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities
and courses?
2. How do MESA teachers perceive the impact of the MESA program in the retention of
educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics activities and courses?
3. What resources are utilized in the MESA program to prepare and support educationally
disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics activities and courses?
4. How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of the MESA program in increasing the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and courses?
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 26

Significance of the Study
STEM not only embodies the integration of content and subject matter disciplines, it
prepares students with the skill set of problem solving and critical thinking, which are essential
for the 21st Century. This study aimed to illustrate how effective STEM outreach programs
support the persistence of educationally disadvantaged populations by providing academic
support systems, fostering positive social interactions, building support networks, and
developing student motivation. Additionally, the goal is to increase the number of educationally
disadvantaged minorities and females populations in identified STEM education and careers
through STEM outreach programs. Ultimately, this study sought to maximize the retention and
persistence of students flowing through the STEM pipeline, close the achievement gap/gender
gap/racial gap in K-16 STEM education, and rebalance social injustices and inequities in the
STEM job market.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this research study:
1. The STEM outreach programs observed in this study are representative of a typical
STEM outreach programs that aim to:
a. Increase participation in STEM focused schools and STEM careers
b. Increase the number of educationally disadvantaged populations in STEM education
and careers
c. Close the achievement gap in K-16 education
d. Promote retention and persistence
e. Rebalance social justice
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 27

2. The selected schools are a representative sample of a typical successful STEM outreach
programs in California.
3. Participants who were surveyed or interviewed responded with honesty and provided
accurate information.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were as follows:
1. The low number of successful STEM outreach programs within urban communities in
Southern California available to participate in this study.
2. Only the MESA outreach programs that have been established with four or more years
were selected.
3. Interviews were delimited to minorities and females who are currently in enrolled or have
participated in a successful STEM outreach program.
Limitations
The following study limitations are recognized:
1. Time availability and distance feasibility.
2. The ability to gain access to successful STEM outreach programs was limited.
3. Amount of time needed to collect and analyze the data to determine commonalities of
successful STEM outreach programs.
4. Self-report responses may not be indicative of true responses leading to issues of
reliability and validity of data collected.
5. Small sample size and self-report responses of minorities and females participating in
STEM outreach programs could reduce the generalizability of the findings for this study.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 28

Definition of Terms
The following definitions and terminology below are used throughout this study:
• Achievement gap: The discrepancies in student performance outcomes (retention,
persistence, degree completion, STEM career) when comparing student subgroups at the
same program. The subgroups are often characterized by nationality, race, and gender
(Educational Testing Service, ETS, 2016).
• Advanced Placement Program (AP): Established by College Board to help gifted
students to earn college course credit while still in high school (College Board, 2016a).
• Educationally disadvantaged students: Students placed at special risk due to factors
such as economic status, educational environment, family and home circumstances,
gender, or race (MESA, 2016). For the purposes of this study, educationally
disadvantaged students include minorities and first-generation females.
• Engineering: Applied or practical aspect of several processes used in devising a system,
component, or protocol to meet an identified need (Carberry, Lee, & Ohland, 2010,
p. 71).
• English Language Learners (ELLs): students who are unable to communicate fluently
or learn effectively in English, who often come from non-English speaking homes and
require specialized or modified instruction in both the English language and in their
academic courses (Kena et al., 2015)
• First-generation student: Students from families with low socioeconomic status or from
middle- or higher-income families without a college-going tradition (College Board,
2016b).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 29

• Interest: A mental state that is activated, or triggered, by creating “uncertainty, surprises,
novelty, complexity, or incongruity” in the learner as a response to a previously unknown
experience or information (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 4).
• Mathematics: Study of patterns and relationships (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber,
2014).
• MESA: Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement is a California outreach
program designed to recruit and retain educationally disadvantaged students in STEM
(MESA, 2016).
• Motivation: The process whereby goal-directed behavior is instigated and sustained
(Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2012)
• Persistence: a student’s continuation behavior leading to a desired goal (Schunk et al.,
2012). For this study, persistence in STEM was defined as student enrollment in a STEM
major, graduate program, or career.
• Pipeline: The progression from middle school, high school, and postsecondary education
(Cannady et al., 2014).
• Retention: Refers to an institution’s ability to keep students (in STEM) from one
performance period to the next (Tinto, 1997).
• Science: The body of knowledge about the natural world as investigated through the
process of inquiry to uncover new knowledge (Honey et al., 2014).
• Self-efficacy: An individual’s belief or judgment of the capability of organizing and
executing required to complete a task (Schunk et al., 2012).
• Self-concept: A self-perception that influences behavior (Xu & Martin, 2011).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 30

• Self-identity: The ability for students to incorporate the STEM culture and profession
into their visions of themselves (Tyson et al., 2007)
• STEM: The integration of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) into a
single field of study (Planty et al., 2008).
• STEM outreach program: outreach programs to support students with curriculum and
resources in their pathway towards a STEM major and eventually a STEM career
(Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstein, 2007).
• STEM workforce: Individual who works with computers (software developers,
information technology, and analysts), engineers, mathematicians and statisticians, life
scientists, physical scientists, and limited social scientists (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2011).
• Technology: Tools used to solve problems (Honey et al., 2014).
• Underrepresented populations/minorities: Refers to Latino English Language Learners
and female students who are traditionally left out of careers in STEM (Allen-Ramdial &
Campbell, 2014).
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provided an introduction to the
study by overviewing the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, and the
purpose and importance of the study. Chapter Two is a detailed review of the existing literature
that pertains to effective STEM education/outreach programs and how they impact academic
support, social support, and emotional support. Chapter Three presents the methodology used in
this study and explains the appropriateness of the mixed-method approach. In addition, the
methodology section includes the sample population, survey instruments, and tools used to
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 31

analyze the data collected. Chapter Four includes the findings of the study as they relates to the
research questions proposed. Finally, Chapter Five is a summarization of the findings of the
study and provides recommendations and insights for future research opportunities related to the
problem of practice.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 32

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2

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

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

the opposition stress that PhDs are not the only individuals needed in STEM companies.
Graduates with 2 and 4-year STEM degrees have increased in demand in non-STEM identified
companies (Bayer Corporation, 2014).
In addition to building a larger pool of high quality individuals to meet the demands of an
evolving STEM workforce, the need for gender and ethnic diversity is a growing concern.
Museus, Palmer, Davis, and Maramba (2011) argued that the demographic composition of
America has changed dramatically over the past several decades. Within the study, the
researchers include a trajectory graph generated by the U. S. Census Bureau that shows the
country’s racial make-up by 2050, and the data predicts a 16% increase in Hispanic
representation over the next 40 years (Museus et al., 2011). Additionally, the number of women
represented in the workforce, and particularly the STEM field, continues to increase nationally
and globally (Espinosa, 2011). The number of females, specifically women of color who attend
college, has increased; however, the number who actually are conferred with a degree in STEM
is not representative of the number of females attending college (Espinosa, 2011). Empirical
studies show that “a more diverse student body in STEM fields lead to a workforce of scientists,
engineers, and mathematicians who are more equipped to function effectively in today’s diverse
and global workforce” (Museus et al., 2011, p. 5).
STEM Legislation
Longstanding interests in America’s goal to improve the country’s science and
technology literacy dates back as far as the first Congress and President George Washington
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). However, America’s interest in taking a pioneer role in STEM
education increased during the 20th Century. The National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 1950 (NSF, 2013) was founded to “develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 34

for basic research and education in the sciences” (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012, p. 31; NSF, 2013).
Although the NSF’s primary purpose was to support pre- and post-doctoral STEM students, the
NSF also included teacher institutes to support the improvement of STEM education at the K-12
levels (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
The launch of the Soviet Union’s Sputnik in 1957 was also a catalyst in the United States
decision to take a more aggressive role in STEM (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). Growing concerns
about “existing balances in our educational programs which have led to an insufficient
proportion of our population educated in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages
and trained in technology” (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012, p. 32) prompted the National Defense
Education Act of 1958 (NDEA; National Defense Education Act of 1958). This was the first
time the government offered federal loans to students and funding to states for science,
mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction.
Some scholars argued that the NDEA paved the way for the establishment of one of the
most influential bipartisan measures in the history of the United States, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). When first enacted, the
ESEA did not explicitly include STEM-specific provisions. However, throughout the
subsequent reauthorizations, and more recently, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB,
U. S. Department of Education, 2002) STEM requirements have been inserted for Local
Educational Agencies (LEAs) to maintain compliance (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). As of
December 10, 2015, the ESEA bipartisan measure was again reauthorized as the Every Student
Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) , and continues to incorporate science and math accountability
measures for each state (STEM Education Coalition, 2015; Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA,
Sec. 1005 State Plans, 2015a). Officially beginning implementation in the 2017-2018 fiscal
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 35

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

in Education (NCEE, 1983) highlighted the ascending economies in Germany and Japan; this
heightened America’s concern about its descending rank globally in educational competitiveness
and spurred the enactment of the Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 (EESA).
ESSA’s policies mandated ED to improve teacher training and development in STEM
education by providing grants to states and LEAs (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2007; Museus et al.,
2011; Education for Economic Security Act, 1984). More recently, the America COMPETES
Act of 2007, and its reauthorization in 2010, approved the creation of a variety of STEM
education programs at several federal science agencies in addition to ED such as NSF, the
Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012;
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, 2011). Given the increase in agencies,
America COMPETES also established a federal government-wide STEM education coordinating
committee, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), to monitor program
effectiveness and reduce the duplication of services (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
STEM Funding
Both the NSTC and the Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2014) conducted
inventory reports in 2011 and 2012, respectively, which identified between 209 and 252 distinct
STEM education programs, and about $3.4 billion dollars earmarked to sustain these programs
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi, Matthews & Mangan, 2006). Figure 2 shows
the percentage of funding allocated to the key agencies that facilitate STEM education programs
(Kuenzi, 2008).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 37

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

Figure 2. Federal STEM Education Funding FY2006, by Agency

Three distinct programs monopolized approximately $622 million of the total federal
dollars dedicated to STEM education: the Health and Human Services (HHS 27%), the NSF
Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF 29%), and the Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP,
Education 23%) program (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012).
Although the overarching goal of government support in STEM is to increase America’s
competitiveness in the global STEM workforce, the avenues in reaching this goal are numerous
and varied. The Ruth L. Kirchstein National Research Service Awards program, which is
administered by HHS and awards $274 million in STEM funding, targets postgraduate students
who are awarded individual fellowships to support their area of research, particularly in health-
related fields. Award applicants must be US citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 38

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

engineering, or mathematics (STEM) education at the elementary and secondary through
postgraduate levels, including adult education. (p. 7).
Merrill (2009 as cited in Brown, 2012), however, defined STEM as
A standards-based, meta-discipline residing at the school level where all teachers,
especially science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, teach an
integrated approach to teaching and learning, where discipline specific content is not
divided, but addressed and treated as one dynamic, fluid study. (p. 7).
Researchers argued that defining STEM is quite complicated due to its ties to federal
funding, vastness in program goals, and a variety of targeted subgroups (Gonzalez & Kuenzi,
2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi et al., 2006). The $3.4 billion earmarked, and the 207 plus
programs dedicated to STEM education, target a number of groups such as existing individuals
in the STEM workforce, postgraduate students, undergraduate students, kindergarten through
12th grade students, educationally disadvantaged minority subgroups, and women (Bayer
Corporation, 2014; Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi et al., 2006). Moreover,
Gonzalez and Kuenzi (2012) and Kuenzi (2008) asserted that STEM education programs define
STEM based on the targeted disciplines such as engineering and physical sciences, biological
and biomedical sciences, computer and information sciences, mathematics and statistics, and
environmental sciences.
Program goals also affect the STEM definition; the study conducted by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO, 2014) on federally funded STEM programs in 2005 found multiple
goals within and among the identified 207 programs, which influenced the definition of STEM
(Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; Kuenzi, 2008; Kuenzi et al., 2006). Six major goals were found to
recur throughout the programs: (1) attract and prepare kindergarten through postsecondary
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 40

students to pursue and persist in all areas of STEM coursework, (2) attract students to pursue and
persist postsecondary degrees and postdoctoral appointments, (3) provide college and graduate
students with research opportunities in STEM fields, (4) attract graduates to pursue careers in the
STEM field, (5) improve teacher education and preparation in STEM areas, and (6) improve or
expand the capacity of institutions to promote STEM fields (Kuenzi, 2008). These goals, along
with the targeted group of individuals, and the identified disciplines within the STEM field, have
generated an array of definitions in STEM education. Zollman (2012 as cited in Brown 2012)
suggested that educators should “focus more on defining STEM education as a dynamic process
that changes over time, not as a set construct” (p. 7). Zollman (2012 as cited in Brown, 2012)
also emphasized that “the overall goal should be to move from learning for STEM literacy to the
ability to use STEM literacy for continued learning (pp. 18).” (p. 7).
STEM Skill Set
According to Bayer Corporation (2014), STEM identified companies expect 4-year and
2-year STEM degree graduates to enter the workforce well equipped with a particular STEM
skill set. Moreover, Bayer Corporation’s (2014) study found that non-identified STEM
companies and industries are increasingly demanding candidates who possess STEM skills to fill
current and future positions. Talent recruiters who were interviewed in the study noted that
today’s candidates are lacking in certain competencies such as leadership, conflict resolution,
complex problem solving, and team building. Most Fortune 1000 companies have internal
trainings and mentorships to address the mismatch in the skill set needed to thoroughly fulfill the
job requirements, but they are hoping to have these skills incorporated into the higher education
curriculum for STEM degrees (Bayer Corporation, 2014; Gonzalez and Kuenzi, 2012).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 41

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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 42

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

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

Reprinted with permission
3

Figure 3. Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

benchmark that influenced STEM persistence because it predicted college level preparedness in
students (Cannady et al., 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011; Nicholls et al., 2010; Tai, Salder, &
Mintzes, 2006). Additionally, Sadler et al. (2014) found that students who earned high grades in
advanced and rigorous coursework were 1.6 times more likely to pursue STEM majors as their
peers.
George (2006) also reiterated that the transition from middle school to high school was a
threshold point where students, in particular, females, begin to lose interest in science. An
empirical study conducted by Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2011) demonstrated how during early
childhood, defined as kindergarten to third grade, boys’ and girls’ science interests were the
same. However, by the end of high school, the gap in science interest increased 20-fold, with
young males more interested in physics than young females (Baram-Tsabari & Yarden, 2011).
For females, positive attitudes fostered by positive classroom experiences in mathematics and
science were associated with choosing a STEM major (Tai, Sadler, & Maltese, 2007). Sadler et
al. (2012) discussed as males and females prepare to declare their majors at post-secondary
institutions, young males are three times as likely to choose a STEM major as young females.
In addition, Maltese and Tai (2011) investigated the variable classroom experiences of
students in mathematics and science and found that the type of learning experiences students had
impacted who entered STEM and who left. Students were more likely to have positive attitudes
towards STEM when their teachers utilized hands-on learning activities, incorporated relevant
topics, used cooperative learning, provided appropriate scaffolding, and employed pedagogical
strategies (Maltese & Tai, 2011; Myers & Fouts, 1992; Piburn & Baker; 1993).
College major selection and graduation. Berryman (1983) stated that of the pool of
potential STEM professionals declines after high school. Similarly, Hilton and Lee (1988) found
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 49

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

in order to persist in the pipeline. Second, students’ achievement in mathematics and science
courses, especially during secondary school, indicated students’ preparedness for more rigorous
coursework in college. Finally, students’ attitudes and interests in mathematics and sciences are
factors that are important to their enrollment in the appropriate courses that allow them to persist
through adversity.
However, the utility of these milestones in students’ pathways to STEM careers requires
the following two numeric assumptions about the pipeline metaphor: 1) the proportion of
scientists and engineers who actually flowed through the pipeline as suggested, and 2) the
uniqueness of these factors as being predictors of STEM outcomes (Cannady et al., 2014). This
means that the greater the number of scientists and engineers included in the pipeline, the more
general the criteria must be for differentiating scientists and engineers from the remaining
population (Cannady et al., 2014). Because the pipeline metaphor needs to be so broad, the
model leads to insufficient understanding of the variables for students who are likely to persist in
STEM (Cannady et al., 2014). Cannady et al. (2014) suggested that it might be possible that
some benchmarks, such as graduating from high school, are necessary and prevalent amongst all
STEM professionals, while others are not as essential.
Students Who Leak from the Pipeline
Berryman (1983) traced the progression of students in the STEM educational pipeline
and specifically studied persistence and field choice. Berryman’s study revealed that all
subgroups experience losses throughout the pipeline; however, there are specific subgroups that
experience more losses than others. Moreover, these losses occur at different points along the
pipeline (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Using national data, Berryman examined the times that
losses from the STEM pipeline occurred and disaggregated the data by subgroup. The data
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 51

indicated that the loss of women from the STEM pipeline transpired at the end of secondary
school (pre-college years), and during college (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Moreover, the
loss of Hispanic and African-American students from STEM was found to happen significantly
earlier in their educational careers (Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990).
Implications for STEM Education
The supply side, quantitative pipeline model has been the basis for targeted efforts of
recruiting and retaining females and students of color in STEM for the past 40 years (Clark
Blickenstaff, 2005; Blum, 2006; Metcalf, 2010). Policymakers and researchers alike have
referenced the pipeline to illustrate there will be a shortage of highly qualified individuals in
STEM to maintain a robust STEM workforce (Metcalf, 2010). In fact, the NSF (2007) used data
from pipeline studies to predict there would be a shortfall of 675,000 earned bachelor’s degrees
in science and engineering fields due to the leaky pipeline in STEM. In turn, the NSF (2007)
claimed that females and minorities would be an optimal untapped resource to fill-in the ever-
growing needs in STEM.
Policymakers underestimate the difficulty of designing effective programs and initiatives
for recruiting and retaining females and minorities in STEM. A leaky pipeline presents overly
simplistic ideals to fix the issue of retention in STEM – find the leaks, and fix the patches
(Metcalf, 2010). Yet, despite the popularity of the STEM pipeline model, data continually show
there are still problems with inequities and underrepresentation in STEM (Clark Blickenstaff,
2005; Blum, 2006; Metcalf, 2010).
The leaky pipeline has been a common reference point and model for developing broad
initiatives to increase the number of students in STEM. For example, California and Wisconsin
were among the states that tried to require all students to take algebra in 8th grade (Best, 2011;
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 52

Liang, Heckman & Abedi, 2012). The rationale for the movement was based on the STEM
pipeline benchmark that suggested students who took algebra by 8th grade would be more likely
to persist in STEM (Best, 2011; Liang et al., 2012). However, researchers pointed out that there
is very little evidence that forcing all students to participate in a gatekeeper course such as
algebra, when they are unprepared, produces higher numbers of students entering STEM.
Berryman (1983) concluded that any intervention that could be implemented to stop the
flow of students must specifically occur right before high school and continue throughout high
school. In addition, Berryman proposed that strategies to prevent attrition should be
implemented throughout the pipeline because students leak at each point throughout the pipeline.
Berryman’s landmark study has no doubt contributed to the many subsequent studies that
followed which aimed to focus on retention along junctures in the pipeline. For example, a
number of summer bridge programs and pipeline programs in STEM have been created to bridge
the gap between high school and college (Strayhorn, 2011). Regardless of their popularity and
prevalence, there is little empirical evidence to indicate their effectiveness (Strayhorn, 2011).
Policymakers are still faced with the underlying issues that need to be reconciled regarding how
to recruit females and minorities to STEM, and which strategies to implement in order to retain
females and minorities and STEM.
Limitations of the STEM Pipeline Model
Even though the pipeline model has managed to serve as the predominant frame of how
students become a STEM professional for several decades, there are several critiques of the
model that have emerged (Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al, 2014; Maltese & Tai, 2011;
Metcalf, 2010). First, Cannady et al. (2014) cautioned that the use of a leaky pipeline as a
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 53

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

(Metcalf, 2010). However, as Metcalf (2010) noted, the measure of retention becomes a short-
term measure because it is defined as a supply for a given juncture in the pipeline, without much
concern for the demand at the subsequent juncture in the pipeline (Metcalf, 2010). A major
critique with this model is that the supply-side focus does not account for those individuals who
successfully earn a college degree or graduate degree in STEM, only to be unemployed from the
field due to lack of available positions (Metcalf, 2010).
Finally, as a frame to develop initiatives and policy, the pipeline model is severely
inadequate (Cannady et al., 2014). The metaphor of a pipeline has ill-served policy makers
because it suggests patching up the leaks at given junctures is the solution to increasing flow
through the pipeline. Yet, this notion is a very simplistic view that does not consider the
individual differences in the students who pursue STEM (Cannady et al., 2014). Also, it
suggested that all students must flow through a linear pipeline and experience the same set of
academic benchmarks (Cannady et al., 2014). Because the focus is on the homogenization of
students rather than scrutiny of the academic benchmarks, the path elevates the importance of the
benchmarks and narrows the range of acceptable and adequate political responses to fix the
underlying issues in underrepresentation (Cannady et al., 2014). Simplistic policies that indicate
students must develop an early interest in STEM and then take calculus in high school eliminates
a high number of individuals who did not fulfill this attribute yet still managed to become
scientists and engineers (Cannady et al., 2014). Cannady et al. (2014) found that three out of
five students who did not possess both of these attributes became scientists or engineers, while
16% have neither attribute.
Alternative conceptual models. Sensing that the linear pipeline model was inadequate
for addressing the attrition of educationally disadvantaged populations, many researchers have
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 55

proposed alternative conceptual pipeline models that aim to conceptualize the trajectory of
students in STEM. Allen-Ramdial and Campbell (2014) re-envisioned the STEM pipeline as a
vertical structure where students enter the pipeline at the bottom of the structure and flow
upwards until they enter the STEM workforce. According to this model, the vertical STEM
pipeline is subject to the laws of physics, whereby downward forces such as lack of mentoring,
institutional culture, and poor academic preparation oppose students upward flow (Allen-
Ramdial & Campbell, 2014). This model is suggested to be an improvement from the original
horizontal flow model because it illustrates how students must overcome many built-in
challenges and innate obstacles to become a scientist or engineer.
Cannady et al. (2014) re-envisioned the pipeline as a multiple trajectory pathway
metaphor rather than a singular pipe with only one inlet and outlet. Cannady et al. (2014) used a
four-pathway model to a STEM occupation with non-linear paths to better explain the various
trajectories experienced by students in STEM. Similarly, Museus et al. (2011) proposed a model
of a STEM circuit to better explain how students progressed to a STEM career. Museus et al.
suggested that their circuit model serves as an improved framework for guiding future research,
policy, and practice (Figure 4).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 56

Reprinted with permission
4

Figure 4. Multiple Pathways Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM

Soe and Yakura (2008) used a cultural-layers approach to redesign the original linear
pipeline model. Their model incorporated the societal, occupational, and organizational cultural
layers that influence students’ pathways to STEM (Soe & Yakura, 2008) (see Figure 5).

Reprinted with permission
5

Figure 5. Alternative Model of Leaky Pipeline in STEM

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

Students in STEM Education

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

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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 59

Reprinted with permission
6

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

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

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

Research completed by Schneider, Marschall, Teske, and Roch (1998) found that the
effects of high school course taking were more of a factor for enrolling into a STEM discipline
rather than background factors such as parental education or income. STEM education and
student success in STEM has been well established and associated with supportive teachers, high
expectations, rigorous curriculum, and student engagement (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010;
Bodilly & Beckett, 2005; Kerr, 2005; Krause, Culbertson, Oehrtman, & Carlson, 2008; Lantz,
2009; Marzano, 2003; McComas & McComas, 2009; Morrison, 2006; National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 2010; Toldson, 2008).
Math and science curriculum. A number of studies have explored that the quantity and
level of science and mathematics courses have been an essential part to the educational pathway
to a STEM degree (Csikszentmihalyi & Schneider, 2000; Lee & Frank, 1990; Maltese & Tai,
2011). Students who initially express interest in STEM education had the inability to pursue
higher levels of math and science curricula in high school due to the fact that 75% of America’s
youth failed to meet 8th grade standards of mastery in math (U. S. Congress Joint Economic
Committee, 2012). Adelman (1999) found that success in high school mathematics and science
had a correlation with students aspiring to major and persist in a STEM discipline. Supported
later by Anderson and Kim (2006), strong performance in pre-college math and science
significantly correlated with college students persisting in a STEM discipline beyond their first
year. Advanced courses in math and science not only prepared students for the rigorous college-
level STEM courses, but also provided students with the academic confidence to be successful
and persist in STEM (Burkam & Lee, 2003; Horn & Kojaku, 2001). In addition, students taking
higher-level science courses, made greater gains in proficiency on science assessments,
regardless of their initial levels. This indicated the academic level of courses mattered more than
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 61

the number of classes completed (Madigan, 1997), as well as increased their chances in enrolling
into a postsecondary institution (Schneider, 2002).
Schneider et al. (1998) identified sequences of science and mathematic courses taken in
high school and categorized the courses into low, intermediate, and high levels of rigor. It was
organized by Burkam and Lee (2003) into a detailed category of eight levels for math, and seven
for science (see Figure 7 and Figure 8), which allowed for a better indicator for future behavior
and achievement in STEM-related coursework. Using previous research, Burkam and Lee
identified advanced courses in mathematics to be trigonometry, analytical geometry, statistics,
pre-calculus, and calculus. Chemistry 2 and physics were identified as advanced courses in the
sciences (Burkam & Lee, 2003).
Burkam and Lee (2003) concluded only a small percentage of students completed
advanced levels of mathematics and sciences; students who progressed further into the higher
levels for mathematics courses took those courses based on personal interest and majored in a
STEM discipline; students who took physics had the largest increase in science proficiency.
Since 1990, the trend in US high school students taking advanced mathematics and science
courses has increased (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Specifically, the percentage of high school
students who completed calculus doubled (7% to 16%) between the years of 1990 – 2009, and
25% more students completed algebra II and trigonometry (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Moreover
approximately 20% more high school students had taken science courses in chemistry and
physics (Lauff & Ingels, 2013). Trusty (2002) concluded that there was a positive correlation
between high school coursework and selection of a STEM major; specifically, high school
females who enrolled in advanced mathematics and males who enrolled in physics were more
likely to choose a major in STEM.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 62

Reprinted with permission
7

Figure 7. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Mathematics Courses

Reprinted with permission
8

Figure 8. Levels of Corresponding Rigor in Science Courses

7
Reprinted from “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science
and Math Coursework and Postsecondary Degree Attainment,” by W. Tyson, R. Lee, K. M. Borman, and M. A.
Hason, 2007, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(23), p. 253. Copyright 2007 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc./Taylor and Francis Group.
8
Reprinted from “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways: High School Science
and Math Coursework and Postsecondary Degree Attainment,” by W. Tyson, R. Lee, K. M. Borman, and M. A.
Hanson, 2007, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(23), p. 254. Copyright 2007 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc./Taylor and Francis Group.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 63

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

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

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

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

females, even when they have the academic capacity to excel in STEM courses, opt out of these
disciplines due to negative attitudes related to STEM (Tyson et al., 2007).
Minorities. Latino and African-American students begin their exit out of the STEM
pipeline as early as elementary school due to lower achievement in mathematics courses
(Berryman, 1983; Oakes, 1990). Researchers found that White and Asian children were
identified in elementary school to exhibit higher achievement in mathematics and science than
non-Asian minorities despite reporting equal enthusiasm and positive attitudes about
mathematics and science (Carpenter, Hiebert, & Moser, 1983; Dossey, Mullis, Lindquist, &
Chambers, 1988; Oakes, 1990; Mullis & Jenkins, 1988). Subsequently, as Latino and African-
American students progress through middle school and high school, the gap in achievement in
mathematics and science continues to widen and the number of students who exit the STEM
pipeline grows (Oakes, 1990).
Researchers investigated the reasons why minorities were less likely to persist through
the STEM pipeline and found that minorities were less academically prepared than their White
and Asian peers for college coursework. Studies conducted by Klopfenstein (2004) and Mayer
and Tucker (2010) suggested that racial and ethnic minorities, first-generation students, and low
income students are disproportionately placed in remedial classes and special education courses
in high numbers, regardless of comparable test achievement to their White peers (Klopfenstein,
2004; Mayer & Tucker, 2010). Additional data suggested that minorities are more likely to
attend high schools with fewer resources, less qualified teachers (McDonough & Fann, 2007,
Strayhorn, 2011), lower academic expectations (Mayer & Tucker, 2010; Werkema & Case,
2005) and insufficient opportunities to participate in honors and advanced placement (AP)
courses (Zarate & Pachon, 2006). As a result of these challenges, minorities are likely to
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 68

underperform on college entrance exams, express feelings of low confidence in their abilities to
earn college degrees, and engage in remedial courses in college (Strayhorn, 2011).
Furthermore, Ogbu and Simons (1998) suggested that minorities face additional cultural
and community forces that exacerbate their underachievement and inadequate preparation to
pursue STEM as compared to their White and Asian peers. First, minority students are more
likely to be pressured to work and they may have the added burden of family responsibilities that
deter them from taking more rigorous courses in high school even when such courses are offered
(Klopfenstein, 2004). Second, minorities are faced with language barriers, that adversely lead to
limited access to high paying jobs, and result in living in poverty and attending schools with
inadequate resources (Tienda & Haskins, 2011; Yun & Moreno, 2006). Third, parents of
minority students, specifically involuntary minorities, lack the social capital to advocate for their
students to be in higher-level courses, which are gateway courses to STEM majors (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). Finally, minorities are not provided with an adequate number of relevant role
models and supportive peer groups to stress the importance and value of a STEM career
(Klopfenstein, 2004). These findings suggest that the lack of adequate preparation and
institutional barriers in access during high school present significant barriers for minorities who
seek to pursue STEM.
Tyson et al. (2007) suggested that for those minorities who are able to navigate the
system and take rigorous courses in high school, data indicated they are equally likely to pursue
STEM majors in college as their White peers. For example, Allen-Ramdial and Campbell (2014)
stated that between 2000 and 2010, 34.8% of underrepresented minorities (URM) and 37.6%
non-URM college students declared STEM majors during their first year of college. However,
the total number of URMs enrolled as undergraduates was 24.1% as compared to the 75.9% of
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 69

non-URM undergraduates enrolled (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014). These data are
misleading because they indicated there were comparable percentages of students from both
populations declaring STEM majors, yet the overall number of URMs enrolled in college is
significantly less than non-URMS. Thus, the potential pool of STEM graduates is much smaller
for the URM subgroup.
Outreach Programs
Educationally disadvantaged students deal with a significant number of barriers toward
higher education, such as lack of access to information and resource networks, lack of peer
support for academic achievement, segregation, ineffective counseling, low expectations, and
aspirations (Gándara & Bial, 2001). According to Adelman (1999), educationally disadvantaged
students are overrepresented in schools that are underfunded and lack resources; as a result, the
schools are less likely to offer challenging curriculum, including rigorous math courses, which is
one of the most important predictors to succeed in STEM. Not only has the educational system
failed to prepare educationally disadvantaged students academically, the system has also failed to
address the social and psychological barriers (Gándara & Bial, 2001). As a result, institutions of
higher education have invested a substantial amount of time to develop outreach programs for
educationally disadvantaged students with the opportunity to be college and career ready
(Villalpando & Solorzano, 2005). Outreach programs serve to compensate for the inadequacies
that the education system has placed and aim to find ways to promote and maintain students’
interests and achievement in academic and social success (Armstrong, 1980; Berryman, 1983;
Cannady et al., 2014; Swail & Perna, 2001; Oaks, 1990). Research indicates that educationally
disadvantaged students significantly benefit from attending an outreach program, especially
improving their access towards college (Gándara & Bial, 2001; Macy, 2000; Vargas, 2004). In
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 70

fact, moderate- to high-risk students doubled the odds of enrolling into a postsecondary
education when attending an outreach program in high school (Horn & Chen, 1998).
The National Survey of Outreach Programs (NSOP) estimated that two million students
are enrolled in outreach programs across the United States each year (Swail & Perna, 2001).
According to NSOP (Swail & Perna, 2001), two-thirds of the programs offer services to students
K-9 and one-third focusing on the later years of high school, targeting low-income, first-
generation, and minority students. Figure 9 shows the frequency of outreach program goals with
the highest goals of promoting college attendance, college awareness, and college exposure
(Swail, Quinn, Landis, & Fung, 2012).

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

Figure 9. Top Program Goals Selected by Survey Respondents

Although services provided by outreach programs may vary, mostly all programs that reported to
the NSOP (Swail et al., 2012) included services that prepare students for the academic and social
life experiences of college (see Figure 10 and Figure 11).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 71

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

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

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

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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 72

Key Features of Effective Programs
Schultz and Mueller’s (2006) compiled key features of effective programs based on
previous research, literature reviews, program evaluations, and commonalities found in programs
with the best evidence for effectiveness.
a. Prepare students academically. Effective outreach programs help prepare students
academically by providing academic counseling, enrichment, remediation, study skills,
and allowing for personalized learning environments (Gándara & Bial, 2001).
b. Balance academic support with social support. Strong social networks support students’
academic and emotional development, influencing each other to enroll in college
(Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001).
c. Intervene early. Programs with the strongest evidence for effectiveness begin serving
students prior to high school (Schultz & Mueller, 2006).
d. Involve and encourage parents/family. Parents who are knowledgeable about college
allow them to know how to support their child’s education and are more likely to attend
college (Corwin, Colyar, & Tierney, 2005; Perna, 2002).
e. Help students navigate the college admissions process. Helping students complete
college admissions and prepare for entrance exams are important initial predictors of
enrolling in college (Horn & Chen, 1998).
f. Provide comprehensive, long-term support. Programs that are comprehensive and offer
support for at least four years showed a strong correlation on student success and college
enrollment (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Swail et al., 2012).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 73

g. Encourage systemic reform. Programs that partnered between secondary schools and
postsecondary institutions ensured that students completed graduation and college
entrance requirements (Martinez & Klopott, 2005).
h. Provide financial assistance. Programs that provide students with information and assist
students in applying for financial aid positively associated with college enrollment
(St. John et al., 2004). Students who receive financial aid persist in college more than
those who do not receive aid (Hu & St. John, 2001).
Out of the thousands of available outreach programs nation-wide, only 13 programs had
acceptable levels of evidence for effectiveness (Gándara & Bial, 2001). Swail and Perna (2001)
stated that evaluating the effectiveness of outreach programs is challenging due to the
availability of empirical data, along with appropriate use and reporting of data for many
programs.
MESA Program
The Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) program is one of the core
members of the University of Southern California (USC) Community Educational Academy
(CEA, Hong, 2009). The MESA program was founded in 1970 with the mission to promote
persistent for educationally disadvantaged populations in STEM, beginning in elementary
through university (MESA, 2016). The MESA program was chosen for 35 years of motivating
and preparing students for STEM majors in the greater Los Angeles area (MESA, 2016).
Moreover, MESA reported that 53% of MESA pre-college students go to college in STEM
majors and 97% of MESA community college students transfer to four-year institutions in
STEM majors (MESA, 2016). According to MESA’s mission, students who participate in the
MESA program succeed for the following reasons (MESA, 2016):
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 74

• Academic support based on high standards
• Individual counseling to ensure that college prerequisites and transfer/college graduation
requirements are met
• Industry involvement in activities and strategic planning
• Reinforcement of California math and science standards through hands-on projects and
collaborative learning
• Supportive student communities based on academic success
• Professional development for math and science teachers in low-performing schools
• Networks of parents, educators, industry leaders, and community resources to support
students
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of literature that examined the
historical perspective of STEM education in the United States, the pipeline that leaks
educationally disadvantaged minorities and females at key transitional points, barriers that deter
educationally disadvantaged minorities and females in persistence in STEM, and lastly outreach
programs that support and provide opportunities for educationally disadvantaged minorities and
females for 21st century college and career readiness.
The literature review revealed in order to remain competitive in the STEM workforce the
United States needs to strengthen the number of students who enter STEM fields. As a result,
several federal initiatives including the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, NDEA Act,
NCLB, ESSA Act, America COMPETES Act, and Obama’s STEM: 5 Year Strategic Plan have
increased the accountability measures for mathematics and science achievement in public
schools. These federal initiatives have also sought to address the underrepresentation of
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 75

minorities and females in STEM as typically indicated by a leaky pipeline model. According to
previous literature, minorities and females are more likely than their peers to exit the STEM
pipeline prior to obtaining STEM careers because they are inadequately prepared for the rigors of
college coursework, are provided fewer opportunities to engage in mathematics and science
courses, and report lower levels of interest in mathematics and science courses.
Moreover, educationally disadvantaged students deal with additional barriers such as lack
of access to information and resource networks, lack of familial support, ineffective counseling,
and low expectations which hinder their persistence in STEM. Many higher education
institutions have invested substantial amounts of funding for outreach programs to level the
playing field and close the inequities in STEM. One such outreach program that has
demonstrated success for educationally disadvantaged populations in STEM is the MESA
Program in California. The MESA Program provides students with academic and social support,
community partnerships, college counseling, and research opportunities outside of the classroom.
For this reason, the MESA Program was investigated for its effectiveness in retaining
educationally disadvantaged populations in STEM. In Chapter Three, the research design,
participant selection, study site, data collection approach, and data analysis techniques are
discussed in detail to further investigate how the MESA Program operates and its effectiveness
for promoting student retention in STEM.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 76

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the research design and methodology of this
study. The first part of this study restates the problem, purpose, and research questions from
Chapter One. Next, the methodological design, participants and setting, data collection protocol,
data analysis, and ethical considerations are described. Finally, this chapter summarizes and
introduces Chapters Four and Five.
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions

The literature has revealed that while the US was once the frontrunner in science and
technology, as a result of globalization, competition from growing nations is threatening the
U.S.’s position as a global leader. The National Academy of Science (Augustine, 2005)
suggested that the scientific and technical building blocks of the U.S.’s economic leadership are
collapsing at a time when other nations are garnering strength. The gradual decline of the U.S.’s
economic prosperity has been attributed to the declining numbers of highly qualified individuals
entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training fields and the
STEM workforce. In order to compete with nations such as Finland, China, and India whose
economies are growing, the US must optimize its knowledge, leverage its resources, and refocus
its attention to bolstering the STEM pipeline from primary through postsecondary education
(Augustine, 2005).
Previous research indicated that strengthening the pipeline in STEM would require that
appropriate interventions target the retention of minority students and females in STEM fields
beginning as early as primary school. However, because educationally disadvantaged students
are highly vulnerable to leaking from the pipeline, a concerted effort must be made to track the
progression of these students through the pipeline (Cannady et al., 2014; Griffith, 2010).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 77

Berryman (1983) suggested that subsequent age and gender specific interventions must continue
to occur at each pivotal junction within the pipeline to maximize the retention of educationally
disadvantaged students in STEM fields.
Researchers urge that middle and high school is a pivotal time when students are most
influential in moving forward in the STEM field (Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014). STEM magnet
schools and extracurricular enrichment programs have been established to address the
underrepresentation of minorities in the STEM field. However, there is still a huge deficit in the
amount of support programs needed to prepare America’s underrepresented populations to meet
the industry’s demands (Goldsmith, Tran, & Tran, 2014).
It is imperative to further investigate how the MESA program is providing access to
support educationally disadvantaged populations in order to increase their representation in
science and math activities in middle school, science, and math college preparatory courses in
high school, STEM majors in higher education, and STEM jobs post-graduation. This data
collection report presents the study research questions, and briefly reviews the study’s research
design and methods, including a reflection on data collection. The gap in the number of White
males and underrepresented populations who persist in a STEM field continues to widen at each
junction within the pipeline from middle school to high school, and degree completion to career
selection (Thoman et al., 2014). This suggests that there are additional factors, when controlling
for academic preparation, that are inhibiting underrepresented minorities from persisting in
STEM majors. Such factors are hypothesized to include motivational factors such as self-
efficacy, negative gender and racial stereotypes, and poor self-identity due to lack of role
models.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 78

Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) has received a great deal of
recognition for their effort in recruiting and retaining educationally disadvantaged populations in
STEM. MESA provides academic, social, networking, and motivational supports to retain
students in STEM fields beginning in elementary school and continuing on through higher
education. At the postsecondary level, MESA offers the following two programs: MESA
Community College Program at two-year colleges, and MESA Engineering Program at four-year
colleges and universities. As such, current female students in higher education may have
participated in MESA at previous pivotal junctures throughout their educational careers, and may
still be participating in MESA at the postsecondary level. The primary purpose of this study was
to discover and identify how effective MESA is in the persistence of educationally
disadvantaged students in college preparatory STEM courses. A second goal of the study sought
to evaluate the components of the MESA Program that have been widely publicized as
increasing educationally disadvantaged students to persist in STEM.
Research Questions
Research questions are essential for the researcher to design an effective methodology,
and they help the researcher articulate what he/she would like to answer from the study
(Maxwell, 2013). For this study, it was necessary to understand how high school MESA
outreach programs were providing support to educationally disadvantaged populations.
Moreover, additional components of the research study investigated the impact that MESA had
on educationally disadvantaged populations to continue interest in STEM courses and declaring
STEM majors, and the required resources needed to promote persistence in taking stem courses
and declaring STEM majors in college. Finally, it is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of
MESA high school programs in increasing educationally disadvantaged populations toward
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 79

participating in STEM courses and activities in high school and declaring STEM majors in
college. As such the following research questions will serve as the framework that will guide
this research study:
1. How is the MESA program preparing teachers to support educationally disadvantaged
high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities
and courses?
2. How do MESA teachers perceive the impact of the MESA program in the retention of
educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics activities and course?
3. What resources are utilized in the MESA program to prepare and support educationally
disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics activities and courses
4. How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of the MESA program in increasing the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and courses?
The aforementioned questions were important to address because they served to qualify,
measure, and evaluate the impact that MESA had on the persistence of educationally
disadvantaged students’ college preparatory courses.
An Introduction to MESA
The research study was conducted on the effectiveness of MESA for retaining
females/educationally disadvantaged students in STEM careers. MESA was founded in 1970 to
promote the retention and graduation of educationally disadvantaged students in mathematics-
based academic degree programs (Hong, 2009). The MESA program is dedicated to ensuring
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 80

that educationally disadvantaged students/females are provided the necessary resources to enter a
four-year institution or transfer to a four-year institution and persist with STEM. MESA
provides individual academic support, study skills training, hands-on competitions, career and
college exploration, parent leadership development, teacher training opportunities, field trips and
workshops. Due to the unique combination of enrichment activities MESA has been nationally
recognized for being innovative and having an effective academic development program for
STEM (MESA, n.d.). In 2004, MESA served as a model for Hewlett-Packard Diversity in
Engineering Program, preparing more educationally disadvantaged minority students at
community colleges and successfully transferring to a four-year institute as engineering and
computer science majors (Hewlett-Packard, 2005). In 2006, “MESA was named by Bayer
Corporation as one of 21 exemplary programs to help K-12 students especially educationally
disadvantaged and girls to participate and succeed in STEM fields (Bayer Corporation, 2006 as
cited in Wikipedia, 2017, para. 4); and, “The Silicon Valley Education Foundation named MESA
its 2013 STEM Innovation awardee in math” (Wikipedia, 2017, para. 4). MESA has received
awards from the White House and the Ford Foundation and has been replicated in 11 states, and
is the basis for many other programs (MESA, n.d.). .
In 2011-2012 MESA served a total of 28,192 students within the state of California. The
largest program serving in the pre-college K-12, followed by Community College and the
University (USC Viterbi School of Engineering, n.d.). Among the 20,299 students serviced in
the pre-college K-12 program, 53% of those students entered college declaring a STEM major
and of the 4,707 students who represented the MESA Community College program, 97% of the
students transferred to a four-year institution (MESA, 2012).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 81

History
In the late 1960’s educators from California launched a study to determine why few
African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians were enrolling into the Engineering
Department at University of California Berkeley (MESA, 2015). As a result, educators
developed a solution based on a pre-college intervention program and began the MESA program
at Oakland Technical High School in 1970 with the goal to develop academic and leadership
skills and build confidence for students historically educationally disadvantaged populations in
engineering, physical science, and math-based fields (MESA, 2015). Over the year’s other states
such as Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Utah, and Washington have partnered with MESA to become a National program. California
MESA serves students in pre-college (K-12) through the MESA schools program, community
college through the MESA community college program, and four-year college level students in
the MESA engineering program (MESA, 2015).
The MESA program operates based on a partnership with local industries, higher
education as well as K-12 institutions. MESA is funded by the State of California and
administered by the University of California and the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office. MESA services students who are the first in their families to attend college and most are
in low-income and attend low-performing schools with few resources.
USC-MESA Program Description
USC-MESA program is housed under the USC Viterbi School of Engineering
Department and provides a pipeline of academic services from middle school through the
University level. USC-MESA currently serves 12 middle schools and 15 high schools to
improve achievement and increase the number of students who graduate with a STEM degree in
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 82

the greater Los Angeles region. The school districts that are supported by USC-MESA are
Alhambra Unified School District (AUSD), Culver City Unified School District (CCUSD),
Hawthorne Unified School District (HUSD), Inglewood Unified School District (IUSD), Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and two charter school programs. Student
participation is based upon their personal interest and potential in math and science. MESA
advisors cultivate their interest and potential by facilitating workshops and clubs, organizing
competitions and incorporating high-interest activities during the MESA period.
Middle school USC-MESA students begin the process by developing important study
skills, meeting STEM career professionals, hands-on experiments, field trips to high schools and
colleges. High school USC-MESA students receive a full range of services to be prepared and
eligible to the university or college of their choice and major in a STEM-based field. High
school MESA students receive academic support, career exploration opportunities, hands-on
math and science competitions, leadership training, college counseling, and participating in pre-
college day.
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Study
This study employed a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed-methods design as shown
in Figure 12 (Creswell, 2014). The first phase of the mixed methods design entailed the
collection of quantitative data through survey administration, analyzing the results, and using the
results to plan and inform the second phase (Creswell, 2014). The second phase of the
methodology utilized the quantitative data analysis and results to purposefully design a
qualitative research study to meaningfully answer the research questions (Creswell, 2014). The
overall intent of an explanatory sequential mixed methods design was to have the qualitative data
help explain, in detail, the initial quantitative results, and develop to a better understanding of
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 83

changes needed for a marginalized group through a combination of both types of data (Creswell,
2014). This figure illustrates the sequence of phases associated with a the research design.

Figure 12. Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Approach

Quantitative Approach
The quantitative research method is a deductive approach that examines a relationship
between and among variables, which is central to answering questions and hypotheses through
surveys and experiments (Creswell, 2014). As part of the researcher’s quantitative approach, an
electronic survey was administered through SurveyMonkey™ to MESA advisors and teachers.
The survey design provided objective numeric description of trends, attitudes, and opinions of a
sample population (Creswell, 2014). From the survey results, the researcher then generalized
and drew inferences about the population sample (Creswell, 2014).
For the study, a quantitative approach was appropriate to include for the following
reasons. First, the researcher sought to determine the association and relationship between two
variables. Specifically, the researcher investigated whether there was a correlation between
participation in the MESA outreach programs and a persistence towards a STEM majors.
Second, the baseline data collected from the surveys was used to purposefully select participants
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 84

for the qualitative methodology, and develop a line of questioning that would appropriately
expand on the survey responses. Finally, the quantitative approach was appropriate because the
sample size is larger and sample data can be extrapolated to represent the given population of
study (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative Approach
Qualitative research is distinguished from quantitative research because it is an inductive
process that includes gathering data, analyzing data, and making interpretations from the data
(Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research focuses on uncovering the meaning of a phenomena
rather than making predictions and examining cause and effect relationships (Merriam, 2009). A
researcher may elect to use qualitative methods when he/she is interested in understanding how
individuals interpret and construct meaning from their experiences (Merriam, 2009).
Furthermore, qualitative research is effective when the objective of research is to gain rich,
descriptive data.
The use of a qualitative research approach was appropriate for this study because the
researcher was interested in gaining meaningful data of the experiences of MESA advisors and
teachers who support educationally disadvantaged students to persist in STEM. The qualitative
portion of the study sought to explore how MESA advisors and teachers perceived the MESA
program’s effectiveness in educationally disadvantaged students’ persistence in STEM courses,
electives. and activities. Understanding the experiences of MESA advisors and teachers
provided genuine insight to which components of the program directly affected the students’
persistence in STEM. Teachers and advisors were able to detect the small nuances that enhanced
effectiveness because of their daily interactions with educationally disadvantaged students and
being immersed in the school’s routine.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 85

In qualitative research, interviews are essential because they provide information that
cannot be obtained through direct observations such as feelings, thoughts, and actions that
occurred in the past (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, a researcher cannot observe how another
person constructs meaning from an experience; a researcher would have to ask about that
(Merriam, 2009). Thus, the qualitative design included conducting interviews with MESA
advisors and teachers who support educationally disadvantaged students. A review of the
literature surrounding the topic of persistence in STEM revealed that while academic support
programs are increasing, much of the research reveals the impact of outreach programs on
college access and persistence and excludes which program features contribute the most to the
program’s success (Schultz & Mueller, 2006).
Population and Sample
Participant Selection
Units of analysis. According to Patton (2002), a particular population may be selected as
a unit of analysis based upon characteristics the population has which are important for
understanding the phenomenon studied. The units of analysis for this study included advisors
and teachers who currently worked at school sites overseen by the USC-MESA program. The
rationale for selecting advisors and teachers was based on their daily interactions with
educationally disadvantaged students participating in the MESA program at some capacity and
the public school system routine.
Recruitment of participants. The first step in recruiting the intended sample population
was to create meaningful relationships with gatekeepers who could facilitate connections with
potential survey participants and interviewees. For this reason, the MESA Program Office at the
University of Southern California was approached about a collaborative study that could be
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 86

mutually beneficial regarding the information about the effectiveness of MESA for retaining
educationally disadvantaged students in STEM.
An initial meeting with the director of MESA, associate director of MESA, and the
research study group was held in February 2016 to determine if the research study could be
feasibly conducted and whether the data produced could be informative for the MESA program.
At this time, potential recruiting techniques, intended study population, and methodologies were
discussed and refined. Feedback regarding the survey instrument was discussed in order to
establish validity of the tool. Also, a follow-up meeting was held in May 2016 once the study
was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). All eligible participants received an
information sheet (see Appendix A), recruitment letter (see Appendix B), and consent form (see
Appendix C) to partake in the research study.
At the follow-up meeting, the finalized survey instrument was reviewed and approved by
the director and associate director of MESA. It was determined during the May 2016 meeting
that the researchers would attend an in-person Virtual MESA Academy for Science and
Mathematics Educator (vMASME) event held on the campus of the USC during August 6, 2016.
The purpose of this conference was to encourage the sharing of mathematics and science
strategies amongst regional MESA teachers and MESA program directors at the middle school
level through postsecondary education. The vMASME was a whole day event whereby MESA
teachers and directors participate in professional development and foster collaborative learning
techniques to improve the effectiveness of MESA.
The vMASME event served as the initial point of contact to facilitate distribution of the
electronic survey to MESA teacher advisors. Current MESA high school teacher advisors from
the greater Los Angeles region were asked at vMASME to complete the teacher survey during
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 87

their lunch break. MESA teachers were informed that participation in the survey was voluntary
and confidential, and that their responses would be used for the purposes of the research study.
Participants were also informed about the potential benefits of participation in the research study
such as the evaluation of the MESA program and its effectiveness for retaining students in
STEM. An electronic web link to the survey and access to a computer lab with desktop
computers were provided for teachers to complete the anonymous survey if they elected to
participate.
Sample
Quantitative approach. For the quantitative portion of the study, a survey instrument
was created with the intended sample population in mind, and the survey was distributed during
the summer of 2016. The instrument consisted of 21 closed-ended response items that anchored
a 5-point Likert Scale, and ranged from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). A total
of 54 electronic questionnaires were distributed to the sample population. The survey instrument
was distributed to participants through an electronic web link using SurveyMonkey™ on August
6, 2016, as well as emailed to other eligible participants on August 8, 2016. The web link
remained active through the end of August 2016. The rationale for distributing the electronic
surveys at the vMASME event was to ensure there was an adequate number of responses for the
research study. Also, the number of surveys distributed was designed to take into consideration
a 95% confidence level, margin of error, and a conservative 50% response rate (Creswell, 2014;
Fowler, 2009). A detailed description of the sampling method employed in this study are
discussed below.
To obtain an ample sample size that would be representative of the study population, the
researcher used the purposive convenience sampling method. The potential sample population
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 88

was identified using an online database of teachers and advisors involved in a site-based MESA
program under USC-MESA. Within each identified subgroup, purposive convenience sampling
was used to target a sample size of 50 or more participants, which ensured the data collected was
representative of the target population (Fink, 2013).
Qualitative approach. For the qualitative portion of this study, multiple layers were
used to collect data. The first layer entailed a review of MESA documentation, which included a
list of advisors and teachers eligible to partake in the survey and interview portions of the study.
The next layer was informed by the results of the quantitative data analysis. Of the participants
surveyed, five teacher advisors were purposefully selected to participate in the interview process.
The criteria for selecting these participants included voluntary participation, which was indicated
on the previously administered electronic survey, and whether participants’ experiences would
provide deeper insight about how MESA influenced educationally disadvantaged students’
persistence in STEM. Teachers and advisors who currently taught MESA courses or coordinated
MESA activities, and who also indicated a willingness to participate in an in-depth interview
after completing the electronic survey, were contacted for the qualitative interview process.
Access/Entry
Negotiating relationships with the participants in the study and with gatekeepers who can
either facilitate or inhibit the study is a key part of designing an effective qualitative study
(Maxwell, 2013). Gaining access to the study site and participants needed to be considered prior
to conducting the study to ensure that data can be collected ethically and without harm, and so
that the information collected will answer the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Obtaining
access to participants’ sites to conduct research was granted by the USC-MESA program
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 89

director. The researcher informed the program director about the proposed research design to
ensure the gatekeeper was fully aware of the intentions and purpose of this study.
Site Selection
Site selection was determined by accessibility, proximity to the Greater Los Angeles
Area, and ability to survey and interview criterion based populations. The researcher selected
the MESA Program that is housed and operated by the University of Southern California (USC)
MESA program. The researcher selected the USC Viterbi School of Engineering to conduct the
research study. The Viterbi School of Engineering works in partnership with the MESA Schools
Program to support educationally disadvantaged students to persist in STEM. The goal for USC
Viterbi is to support and matriculate students who are going through the MESA pipeline in the
greater Los Angeles Region, and in turn, increase the number of students earning STEM degrees.
Site Specifics
Under the USC-MESA Program, MESA advisors and teachers from four school districts
participated in both the survey and interviews.
District one. District One is located near the foot of the Angeles Forest and the San
Gabriel Mountains. Considered a “large” school district, approximately 18,000 students attend
the thirteen kindergarten through eighth grade schools and five high schools (reference withheld
for confidentiality). The majority of District One’s demographics consist of 50% Asian, 43%
Hispanic/Latino with 72% of the population identified as low socioeconomic. The middle and
high school sites offer the MESA program through the after school club format formats.
District two. District Two is a mid-sized school district located near the Los Angeles
International Airport in the Los Angeles Basin of Southern California. Approximately 9,000
students attend seven elementary schools, three middle schools and one science and math magnet
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 90

charter high school (HUSD, 2015; reference withheld for confidentiality). The students not
enrolled in District Two’s charter high school attend a public high school in a neighboring school
district. About 82% of the population are categorized as low socioeconomic and about 33% are
part of the English Language Learner (ELLs) subgroup (reference withheld for confidentiality).
MESA’s three middle schools and one middle school offers clubs, after school and activity-based
programs.
District three. District Three is located near the southwest region of Los Angeles
County. The total enrollment is approximately 3,000 students with the White and Hispanic
subgroups dominating the demographics at 53% and 22% respectively, and the Black and Asian
subgroups trailing at 15% and 10% respectively. Thirty-three percent of the student population
fall under the low socioeconomic subgroup, and approximately 3% are ELLs. District Three’s
charter school offers the MESA program through after school clubs.
District four. Established in 2004 and located near Downtown Los Angeles, District
Four is a STEM-focused educational program, which is part of a three-school-site educational
program; one elementary, one middle and one high school. Together, the schools service over
1,300 students with over 93% qualifying as low socioeconomic, and just over 24% identified as
part of the ELL subgroup (reference withheld for confidentiality). Students have the opportunity
to access the MESA program through District Four’s middle and high school clubs.
Data Collection
Prior to conducting any surveys or interviews, the study design was approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California. An explanatory
sequential mixed-methods approach, including a quantitative phase followed by the qualitative
phase, was used for this study (Creswell, 2014). The quantitative data were collected through the
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 91

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

served as a springboard to design a meaningful, in-depth interview protocol that provided
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 92

detailed explanations for how MESA has influenced the persistence of educationally
disadvantaged students in STEM courses, activities, and college preparatory courses (Creswell,
2014). The researcher elected to utilize SurveyMonkey
TM
for its capacity to analyze open-ended
results, create comparison reports, and filter responses.
The research team was invited to attend a virtual MESA Academy for Science and
Mathematics Educators (vMASME) event in July, 2016. During the event, a total of 54
electronic surveys were administered using SurveyMonkey
TM
via web link to eligible USC-MESA
high school teacher advisors. Some of the participants were present at the vMASME, while
others attended the event virtually. The USC-MESA directors allocated 30 minutes of the
vMASME schedule for the participants to voluntarily complete the survey. Of the total number
of surveys administered, 37 were completed and collected in August, 2016 for quantitative data
analysis.
Survey collection. Upon beginning the electronic survey, participants were notified their
responses would be confidential, their names would not be associated with their responses, and
their participation was completely voluntary. Participants of this research study were given a
time frame of approximately one month to complete the confidential and anonymous survey.
Beginning in August 2016, the electronic link for the survey on SurveyMonkey
TM
became active
and accessible to the participants, and the link remained open for responses through the end of
August 2016 to accommodate the collection of data from snowball sampling. Responses were
gathered and stored directly on the SurveyMonkey
TM
website which was password protected and
only accessible to the research team. On August 31, 2016, the link to the electronic survey on
SurveyMonkey
TM
became inactive and no further responses were recorded. Once all survey data
had been entered, item responses for the closed-ended questions were prepared for analysis by
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 93

exporting the results from SurveyMonkey
TM
into an SPSS Statistics, a software tool that allows
for statistical analyses of quantitative data.
Confidentiality. Confidentiality was established through the use of an anonymous and
confidential survey. Through the use of SurveyMonkey
TM
, a web-based survey application,
participants were able to complete the electronic survey without identifying themselves. The
researcher ensured the feature which encrypts IP addresses was selected to ensure complete
anonymity of electronic surveys. Furthermore, as the sample participants have no association or
previous connection with the research team, there is no way to identify participants.
An open-ended item on the survey was included, which allowed for participants to
indicate whether they were willing to be contacted for a follow up interview. Participants could
respond by selecting “No” and their answers would be stored as completely anonymous.
Alternatively, if participants selected “Yes,” they were provided a text box to provide their
personal contact information such as their name, email, and phone number. In this case, the
participants who volunteered to move forward with the interview process were granted
confidentiality by having an assigned code name. Throughout the data collection and data
analysis process, the researcher separated participants’ contact information from participants’
respective code names, and stored each list on two different password protected laptop
computers. Furthermore, when not in use, the two laptop computers were stored under lock and
key in separate locations. Only the team of researchers coded all surveys and had access to the
survey data collected.
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative data collection occurred subsequent to quantitative data collection and
analysis. In order to identify the effectiveness of the MESA program for increasing the
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 94

persistence of economically disadvantaged students in STEM majors, a series of interviews with
various stakeholders were conducted during the summer and fall of 2016. The research team
interviewed MESA teachers and advisors who indicated a willingness to provide in-depth
responses via their electronic survey. The interviews were conducted in various formats based
on participant convenience, as well as opportunities for the research team to attend key MESA
events where greater numbers of advisors and teachers were present in one location. The
research team selected the focus group format during the Fall, 2016 MESA Advisors Planning
Retreat in order to maintain the integrity of the event’s scheduling. Participants who agreed to
the interview, yet did not attend the retreat, were given the option to conduct the interview at
their school site, by telephone, or at an agreed upon site. The highest priority for the research
team was to ensure that the participants were in a location where they felt comfortable enough to
answer honestly without fear of being overheard by school stakeholders. Environment-wise, the
interview locations and times were selected when it was relatively quiet in order to minimize
distractions and clearly hear the participants’ responses.
A semi-structured interview protocol was formulated to gain rich, meaningful data
(Merriam, 2009). The interview protocol, including an anticipated sequence of questions and
appropriate probes, was predetermined prior to conducting any interviews, but was adapted to fit
the needs of each interview. One of the reasons the researcher employed the use of a semi
structured interview protocol was it allowed for a structured approach when specific data needed
to be elicited, and it provided flexibility to include probes or follow-up questions if more
information from the respondent was needed (Merriam, 2009). For this study, a semi structured
interview was also advantageous because it utilized the time allotted efficiently and afforded the
researcher the ability to collect the data necessary to answer the research questions.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 95

During the actual interviews, all participants were reassured their responses would only
be used for the purposes of this study and that their responses would be anonymous. Also, each
participant was verbally asked if they would consent to being audio recorded to accurately
capture the data. During each interview, the researcher wrote down key responses via paper and
pencil in addition to audio recording. The researcher remained neutral, but reassuring through
use of nonverbal cues such as nodding and frequent eye contact. Post data collection, the audio
records were transcribed via a neutral outside member who was not affiliated with the research
study.
Williams and Katz (2001) suggested that the use of focus groups in education offers the
potential to generate rich, detailed data that may not otherwise be gleaned through individual
interviews. According to Krueger and Casey (2014), people are more likely to share their
opinions when they are alike in some ways. Individuals decide to reveal based on their
perceptions of the people they are with (Krueger & Casey, 2014). For this study, the researcher
was interested in learning not only the effective practices that promote the persistence of
economically disadvantaged students in STEM, but areas that the MESA Schools program can
improve to increase access and retain as many students in the pipeline.
Confidentiality measures were also established for the qualitative data collection. The
materials were transcribed by a professional third party transcriber, who had no affiliation to the
MESA program. Additionally, the transcribed interview responses, audio recordings, and
codebook were stored in separate locations on two password-secured laptop computers.
Data Analysis
The researcher analyzed the data collected from surveys using a quantitative method, and
the data collected from interviews and documents using a qualitative method (Creswell, 2014;
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 96

Merriam, 2009). Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately in accordance to the
explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative data were analyzed
first so that the results of the data could inform the sampling procedure and the planning of the
qualitative data collection and analysis approach (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative Data Analysis
Prior to analyzing qualitative data collected in the form of focus groups and interviews,
documentation and data provided by the MESA program was analyzed first. The USC-MESA
director provided the database of the school districts and school sites supported by USC-MESA,
a list of eligible participants, and a description of each site’s program. After analyzing the data
provided by the USC-MESA director, the interview data collected by the researcher were coded
using two steps. First, the researcher conducted an informal debrief immediately following each
interview and the focus group session, and second, the researcher employed a thorough analysis
using the Constant Comparative Method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The process of data analysis
is elaborated upon in more detail below.
The first step of data analysis involved an informal process of reflective commentary
following each interview as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007). Initially, all data were
handwritten with pen and paper, and interview data were audio recorded. Audio recordings were
securely submitted to rev.com for transcription. Rev.com keeps all client information
confidential (rev.com, 2016). The files for this research study were securely stored and
transmitted using 128-bit SSL encryption, which is currently the highest level of security
available (rev.com, 2016). Rev.com did not share files or personal information with anyone
outside of the rev.com company. Files were visible only to the professional who signed strict
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 97

confidentiality agreements. Once the service was complete, rev.com deleted the study’s files at
the research team’s request (rev.com, 2016).
Following each interview, audio recordings and interview notes were compared to
confirm consistency of recorded responses. In addition, each evening after an interview had
been held, questions and memos were jotted down near the raw data to begin developing ideas
(Maxwell, 2013). Finally, to prepare the handwritten data for analysis and interview, data were
imported into Dedoose, a web-based coding application, to facilitate the coding process.
Next the researcher analyzed the patterns identified from Dedoose, and applied the
Constant Comparative Method to code the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The Constant
Comparative Method is rooted in the Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The
goal of using the Grounded Theory approach is to develop a theory to explain how an aspect of
the social world operates, thus the theory that emerges is connected to the reality from which it
was formed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggested that when the
Constant Comparative Method is used to generate a theory, the process includes the following
steps: selecting a phenomenon to study, identifying key concepts, making decisions about the
data collection techniques, and determining a relevant study sample. Using these ideals, the
researcher ensured the study sample was appropriate for understanding the phenomena studied,
and that the data collected would directly address the research questions.
The first cycle of coding in the Constant Comparative Method was Open Coding (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). During Open Coding, each line of text was typed into the Dedoose coding
program and organized, compared, and contextualized at the broadest level while trying to
maintain the integrity of interviewees’ responses. Each code was highlighted in Dedoose and a
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 98

comment was added in the margins. The process of Open Coding continued until saturation was
achieved and no further codes could be derived from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Following Open Coding, the next cycle of coding, Axial Coding, was used to identify
larger recurring themes and ideas within the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During Axial
Coding, the researcher systematically categorized the smaller Open Codes based on emergent
cross-cutting themes in the literature, and common ideas within the interview and observation
data.
Finally, the researcher used the Axial Codes to complete the final step of Selective
Coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The Selective Codes were the core themes that were used to
construct meaning from the data collected and derive a working theory grounded in the research.
All Open, Axial, and Selective Codes were recorded in the Dedoose application.
Merriam (2009) and Creswell (2014) indicated that the final step in data analysis involves
a period of intensive analysis with findings. Using data collected, in addition to literature review
and theoretical framework, the researcher was able to triangulate the data to determine if each of
the findings supported other findings, and whether they were aligned with the research questions.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation selected to collect data for this study was based on the requirements
of conducting an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. The first instrument used was
an electronic questionnaire, followed by the researcher as the instrument to review MESA
documents, and lastly, the semi-structured interview protocol to interview participants.
Quantitative Data Collection Instrument
Pilot testing. The electronic survey was pilot tested in June 2016, a month prior to
distributing the survey to the sample population. The link to complete the electronic survey was
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 99

emailed to ten volunteers, including the advisor and associate advisor of MESA at USC. All ten
volunteers completed the survey within the time frame of one week. Pilot testing established that
the average completion time for the survey was between 10-15 minutes. Moreover, pilot testing
revealed two significant factors that were reconsidered prior to distributing the survey to
participants. First, five of the 20 closed-ended items from the survey were slightly reworded to
be clear for participants, one question was added as per the request of the advisor, and the
aesthetics of the survey were redesigned to include the MESA logo and pictures to further appeal
to participants. However, this minimal revision did not significantly affect the content of the
survey questionnaire or the information that was assessed. Once these changes were made to the
survey questionnaire, the link was redistributed two weeks after the original administration of the
pilot test to the same ten volunteers to establish test-retest reliability.
Instrumentation. The survey instrument used to collect data in this study was an
anonymous, self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to eligible site-based
MESA advisors and teachers. The survey contained a brief description of the research study,
which was followed by a section for participants to indicate informed consent regarding their
willingness to voluntarily complete the survey questionnaire. In addition, participants completed
demographic data indicating their school district and number of years as an advisor/teacher.
The 21-item instrument was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree” (Fink, 2013). Point values were assigned to each
response in order to facilitate data analysis and values are indicated as follows: Strongly
Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree or Disagree (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5).
The decision to provide participants with a neutral response was based on the principle that not
all items would be applicable to each participant completing the survey (Fink, 2013).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 100

Furthermore, because the survey required an answer for each of the closed-ended items, this
allowed participants to denote their neutral stance without skipping an item or quitting the
survey. The final question asked participants to indicate whether they would like to be contacted
for a follow-up interview, and provided a space for participants to denote their contact
information.
In reference to the 21-item survey questionnaire, the closed-ended items were constructed
in order to address one of the four research questions guiding the study. A detailed item
breakdown for each research question is included in Table 1.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 101

Table 1
Survey Item Breakdown Per Research Question
Research Questions Survey Items
Research Question One:

How is the MESA program preparing teachers
to support educationally disadvantaged high
school students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and
courses?
4. The MESA program is structured to monitor students’
progress throughout the math and science courses.
5. The MESA program provides the students with opportunities
to network with like-minded peers.
6. The MESA program facilitates networking opportunities with
like-minded professionals.
9. The hands-on STEM activities prepare and support students in
STEM learning.
12. I believe that MESA has influenced students’ persistence in
STEM.
Research Question Two:

How do MESA teachers the impact
of the MESA program in the retention of
educationally disadvantaged high school
students in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics activities and courses?
7. I have seen an improvement in my students’ self-efficacy in
their science and math courses because of the MESA program.

8. My students’ science and math course grades have improved
because of their experiences in the MESA program.

10. My MESA students have a positive attitude towards math
and science courses because of their experiences in the MESA
program.
11. MESA has helped my students find other peers with similar
goals in STEM.
Research Question Three:

What resources are utilized in the MESA
program to prepare and support educationally
disadvantaged students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and
courses?
3. The activities in the MESA program motivated the students to
persist in STEM.
13. The MESA program provided opportunities for students to
be exposed to careers in STEM.
15. MESA has provided professional development opportunities
that I would otherwise never have been exposed to.
17. The MESA program shows me how to get the resources I
need to teach my courses effectively.
18. MESA provides opportunities for students to visit
universities/colleges to learn about STEM majors.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 102

Table 1 (Cont’d.)

Research Questions Survey Items
Research Question Four:

How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of
the MESA program in increasing the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged high
school students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and
courses?

14. The MESA program is essential for educationally
disadvantaged populations to succeed in a STEM workforce.
16. Without the MESA program, my students would have
difficulty competing with their Southern California peers in
STEM.
19. What percentage of your MESA students participated in
supplemental STEM opportunities?
20. What percentage of your MESA students in question 19
participated in Pre-MESA Day?
21. How often do your students in question 20 participate in
other STEM competitions within a school year?

Validity and reliability. Threats to the reliability and validity of quantitative data can
occur when the instrument has not been tested prior to being administered to the sample
population (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Prior to item generation, the researcher thoroughly
investigated the literature and theories related to the effectiveness of STEM access programs at
four-year universities in influencing the persistence of first generation females in STEM majors
(Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Next, the researcher scrutinized the survey using item analysis,
which determined whether each item contributed to building a strong test by analyzing whether
the content matches the information, attitude, character, or behavior being assessed (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). Finally, the survey was administered to a pilot group, and the answers were
analyzed to determine if they were clearly understood by the participants and the answers
provided were within the expected range based on the literature review (Fink, 2013).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 103

Qualitative Data Collection Instruments
The researcher used MESA program descriptions and longitudinal data provided by
MESA to examine patterns that corroborated the survey data. After analyzing descriptive
statistics generated by the quantitative survey, and reviewing documentation provided by MESA,
the interview data protocol was established.
Interviews in the format of focus groups were conducted in qualitative research with the
intent to gain insight into another person’s mind when they are with others who have like
interests, professions, and lifestyles (Krueger & Casey, 2014; Merriam 2009; Katz & Williams,
2002). In qualitative research, interviews are essential because they provide information that
cannot be obtained through direct observations such as feelings, thoughts, and actions that
occurred in the past (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, a researcher cannot observe how another
person constructs meaning from an experience; a researcher would have to ask about that
(Merriam, 2009). For this study, the researcher conducted interviews of MESA teachers and
advisers to understand their perceptions about MESA’s supplemental educational and student
support services, and had them describe their experiences in their own words. Moreover, the
interviews were semi-structured, which included open-ended questions and probes (Merriam,
2009). The semi-structured interview protocol allowed the researcher to gain rich data about
how teachers and advisors construct meaning from their experiences. Moreover, though the
protocol was established prior to conducting interviews, the use of a semi-structured approach
allowed for flexibility in the interview process.
Credibility and trustworthiness. According to Merriam (2009), internal validity deals
with the question of how well the findings from a research study are congruent with reality.
Because humans are the primary instrument for data collection in qualitative methods, assessing
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 104

validity is relative to how people construct the meaning of reality (Merriam, 2009). In turn, it is
almost impossible for qualitative researchers to objectively declare one truth or reality; instead,
qualitative researchers must ensure they employ strategies to increase the credibility, or
trustworthiness, of their research findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that trustworthiness of findings is contingent upon
establishing the following: credibility, confirmability, transferability, and dependability.
Throughout the inquiry process of answering research questions, the researcher established
credibility and trustworthiness through peer review/examination, triangulation, and an adequate
amount of engagement in the data collection (Merriam, 2009; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana,
2014).
Triangulation is a well-known practice to increase credibility of the researcher’s findings
(Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014). When data is extrapolated from a variety of sources, the
researcher is able to cross-check for consistencies and inconsistencies (Merriam, 2009). The
researcher selected the explanatory sequential mixed-methods design to collect data from
multiple sources. For this study, survey responses, and MESA document analysis, were
corroborated with the data results from interviewing MESA teachers and advisors about the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged students in STEM. The researcher cross-checked the
data from each source and analyzed whether it validated or contradicted the findings. In
addition, to ensure credibility, all participants were fully informed of the purpose of the pilot
study, provided informed consent, and were told they could elect to withdraw from the study at
any point (Shenton, 2004).
The researcher was part of a team of three individuals who had similar research topics.
The team worked together to reach saturation of the relevant literature on STEM education, craft
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 105

research questions, and design the interview protocols. The team engaged in frequent
discussions about how to analyze the data collection findings. In the early stages of analysis, the
team reviewed the raw data and discussed whether the codes and emergent themes were logical,
plausible, and tied to the literature reviewed (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher also devoted an adequate amount of time engaging in the raw data
collection to the point of saturation (Merriam, 2009). The researcher reviewed the raw data
repeatedly to generate an extensive list of codes and emergent themes. The time spent
exhausting the raw data is what allowed the researcher to extrapolate variations and themes that
were not necessarily evident in the early stages of data analysis (Merriam, 2009).
Confirmability, is analogous to objectivity in science, and ensures the data collected is
the true voice of the informants (Patton, 2002). Additionally, the researcher used
position/reflexivity throughout the entire inquiry process. Merriam (2009) suggests that the
researcher keep a journal, use observer comments, and record one’s thinking post observations
and interviews in order to continuously monitor for personal biases. The research team shared
the reflective journals, observer comments, and voice recordings, and cross-checked the raw data
to look for evidence of biases or misinterpretation.
Transferability refers to showing the findings are applicable in other contexts, while
dependability shows that the findings are consistent and repeatable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
With regard to transferability and dependability, limitations in the duration of the study, as well
as the small sample size and single sampling site, constrain the results of the study. However,
corroboration and triangulation attempted to address these issues. More data would need to be
collected over a larger scale and longer time frame to ensure transferability and dependability
(Merriam, 2009).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 106

Ethical Practices
Patton (2002) stated that credibility includes “intellectual rigor, professional integrity,
and methodical competence” (p. 570). These characteristics are important to any study because
all research must be conducted with integrity and the researcher should maintain an ethical
stance at all times (Merriam, 2009). Thus, it is important that research be conducted in an ethical
manner so that participants are protected from harm, given the right to privacy, are fully
informed of the study design, and are shielded from deceptive practices (Merriam, 2009).
In the quantitative portion of the study, the researcher maintained ethical practices by
creating a sound survey instrument and respecting the confidentiality of the participants who
took part in the survey. Furthermore, using Patton’s (2002) literature as a reference, Merriam
(2009) stated that the researcher’s level of credibility, rigorous methods of ensuring validity and
reliability, and upholding a deep respect for the qualitative inquiry process, are the essential
components of true qualitative research. The researcher constantly monitored the process for
collecting data by employing multiple credibility and trustworthiness strategies, as well as
preserved the confidentiality of the participants and the educational institution. Additionally,
Corbin and Strauss’ (2008) analytic tools were used to help the researcher dissect the data
through a lens that was not skewed by personal biases.
Ethical Interviews
In order to ensure ethical practices were maintained, the researcher reflected upon one’s
own personal values and ethical beliefs prior to designing the study and conducting any
interviews. One of the strategies the researcher implemented was informing all participants of
the purpose of the study. Furthermore, the researcher ensured confidentiality of their responses
and obtained each participant’s verbal and written consent to interview and audio record prior to
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 107

beginning each interview (Merriam, 2009). The researcher’s goal in doing this was to show the
participants that their time, perceptions, and experiences were valued, but more importantly, their
expertise of knowledge was well respected. It was very important to preserve the integrity of the
interviewees’ responses and to construct meaning from their perspectives. Finally, while
conducting interviews, the researcher consciously avoided passing judgments on participant
responses by a warm, but neutral stance.
Focus groups require additional ethical considerations that are above and beyond
conducting individual interviews. Since more than one person is part of the interview process,
the researcher requested that all participants commit to keeping the information, opinions and
discussion confidential (Longhurst, 2003). Additionally, the researcher took into consideration
that the confidentiality of the shared information cannot be guaranteed, so the researcher
reminded all participants to only share those things that they would feel comfortable being
repeated outside of the group (Krueger & Casey, 2014; Longhurst, 2003). Lastly, the researcher
paid careful attention to participant responses that may offend others in the group such as sexist,
racist, and other offensive remarks. Since the manner in handling each comment is unique and
sensitive to the context, the researcher was careful to take into consideration each participant’s
culture, gender, and beliefs to ensure that the content remained at a professional level (Krueger
& Casey, 2014; Longhurst, 2003). Participants who felt the need share their thoughts and
opinions in a more confidential manner were able to speak with the researcher after the focus
group session. All participants’ comments were recorded with permission from the participants.
The following are additional ethical practices guided by Creswell (2014) that were
persistently monitored during the data collection, analysis, and interpretation process:
a. Protecting the anonymity of individuals
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 108

b. Storing data in a safe location
c. Debriefing between the researcher and respondents to check for accuracy of the data
d. Anticipating repercussions of conducting the research on certain audiences and not
misusing results to the advantage of any one group, which is part of the IRB process
Summary
The explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was utilized to support the
researcher in the investigation of how the MESA Schools Program prepares and supports
educationally disadvantaged high school students in college preparatory STEM courses, the
impact MESA had on educationally disadvantaged students’ decision to persist in STEM, the
resources needed for teachers, advisors, and students to promote persistence, and how effective
MESA has been in retaining educationally disadvantaged students in the pipeline? Data were
first collected using surveys provided to MESA Schools teachers and advisers who worked at a
school in the greater Los Angeles County area. Then MESA documentation was analyzed, and
finally purposefully selected individuals from the surveyed population participated in interviews
conducted by the researcher. In Chapter Four, the researcher will present the findings, including
emerging themes, on MESA’s impact on the persistence of educationally disadvantaged students
in STEM courses and activities. Chapter Five will connect the findings from the data with the
literature and theoretical practices reviewed in Chapter Three. The researcher will also evaluate
MESA’s effectiveness for supporting and retaining educationally disadvantaged students in
STEM as well as promising practices for the MESA Schools program, the study’s limitations,
and recommendations for future studies.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 109

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Background
With the US steadily falling behind in the global ranks for math and science, the
government has flooded K-12 education, higher education, and the existing workforce with
STEM based initiatives to promote persistence and retention in STEM (Gonzalez & Kuenzi,
2012). Moreover, America’s trajectory graphs report a change in demographics over the next 40
years. Both Hispanic and women are increasing in representation over the next 40 years, yet the
STEM workforce does not reflect these proportions. The STEM initiatives also address the
multicultural and gender deficiencies within the pool of high quality individuals to supply the
demands of the STEM industry (Bayer, 2014; Museus et al., 2011).
The leaky pipeline is the most widely used model to depict the pathway to careers in
STEM (Augustine, 2005; Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010). Over
the course of elementary, secondary, and higher education, students fail to persist in entering the
STEM workforce, thus contributing to America’s shortage of highly qualified individuals
(Metcalf, 2010). Additionally, target populations such as minorities and females are particularly
vulnerable to falling out at multiple points of the pipeline. Researchers attribute the loss at each
juncture to students’ lack of interest at the elementary level, limited access and positive exposure
to more complex math and science courses at the middle and high school levels, and the
indecisiveness to commit or “declare” a STEM major during the first year of undergraduate
school (Adelman, 2006; Berryman, 1983; Bonus-Harnmarth, 2000; Cannady et al., 2014; Hilton
& Lee, 1988; Maltese & Tai, 2011; McKnight, 1987; Oakes, 1990; Strayhorn, 2011).
STEM initiatives, also known as outreach programs, are designed to remove the
significant barriers that the education system has placed between underrepresented populations
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 110

and their opportunities to persist in STEM. Although the outreach programs vary, mostly all
provide services that prepare students for college-level academic and social life experiences
(Swail et al., 2012). The Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) program has
provided 35 years of motivating and preparing students for STEM majors and jobs throughout
California (MESA, 2016). The core of MESA’s mission is based upon the research that has
determined what STEM outreach programs should include in order to effectively support
educationally disadvantaged students (MESA, 2016). According to the meta-analysis data
results from the Wilder Research Report (Schultz, & Mueller, 2006), effective STEM outreach
programs feature academic preparation, social networking and support, early intervention, parent
involvement, navigating the education system, long-term support, financial assistance, and
promoting systematic reform. MESA asserted that students who participate in its program
succeed because they have received rigorous academic support, individualized college and career
counseling, opportunities for industry-related activities, opportunities for hands-on projects and
collaborative learning, student community support, well-trained math and science teachers, and
extensive networking (MESA, 2016). The body of literature reviewed by the researcher
suggested that support in these key areas play an important role in motivating students to persist
in STEM.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the MESA Schools Program
(MSP) on the retention of educationally disadvantaged populations in STEM college preparatory
courses. The intent of this study was to identify the key elements that contribute toward a
successful STEM outreach program. The findings will help provide future implications for
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 111

rethinking and restructuring current STEM outreach programs, and to ensure they provide
equitable services for all traditionally disadvantaged populations.
The conceptual framework is structured around the key elements that create an effective
STEM outreach program for retaining educationally disadvantaged populations in STEM
activities and disciplines. The components of the conceptual framework include the following:
academic support systems which compensate for inequities in the education system, positive
social interactions with like-minded peers and faculty mentors, built-in support networks to
counteract negative gender and racial stereotypes, and motivational elements that influence
students’ persistence in STEM (see Figure 13). STEM outreach programs such as the Center for
Teaching, Learning, and Outreach (CTLO) at California Institute of Technology (CalTech), the
AIMS Program at Bowling Green State University, and the MORE Program at CSULA have
proven to be successful due to their high retention rate of underrepresented populations.
Coding of Data
Once the data were collected, the researcher used an open-coding system to consolidate
the results and interpret what the participants stated in the interviews in order to conduct data
analysis (Merriam, 2009). The first step of data analysis involved an informal process of
reflective commentary following each interview as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007).
Following each interview and the focus group session, audio recordings and interview notes were
compared to confirm consistency of recorded responses. In addition, after each interview,
questions and memos were jotted down near the raw data to begin developing ideas (Maxwell,
2013).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 112

Note: This figure illustrates effective elements in outreach programs.

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

After collecting and reviewing all the survey results using the SPSS quantitative analysis
program, and the interview data using Dedoose, the researcher finalized the categories/
subcategories and coded the information. Next the researcher analyzed the transcribed
interviews and identified common emerging themes from the data to align with the guiding
research questions.
Research Questions
The following questions served as the framework that guided this study:
1. How is the MESA program preparing teachers to support educationally disadvantaged
high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities
and courses?
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 113

2. How do MESA teachers perceive the impact of the MESA program in the retention of
educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics activities and course?
3. What resources are utilized in the MESA program to prepare and support educationally
disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics activities and courses
4. How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of the MESA program in increasing the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and courses?
This chapter will review the participants, schools, and organizations that participated in
this study. The guiding questions previously stated will be addressed individually following the
key statements made by the participants. Themes will emerge from data analysis and from
participants’ responses.
Participants
This study was completed with the support of the USC-MESA directors. Participants
were surveyed and interviewed based on availability during the data gathering process. Surveys
and interviews using a focus group format were used to help triangulate the data collected in
order to present descriptive information, reduce bias, and increase reliability of data (Creswell,
2014). Participants have been kept anonymous for confidentiality and to ensure authentic
information was obtained. Table 2 lists the participating school sites that are serviced by a
college-designated MESA service center which is located within the boundaries of the greater
Los Angeles Area. Each site’s program depends upon the school’s culture, facility resources,
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 114

and student demographics; the type of program; total number of students participating in the
MESA Schools Program; as well as the total student body count are noted.

Table 2
MESA High Schools
Sites Type of Program Offered
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Site F
Site G
Site H
Site I
Site J
Site K
Site L
Site M
Site N
Site O
Site P
Site Q
After School
After School
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
After School
Lunch
After School
After School
After School
MESA Period
Lunch
MESA Period
Lunch
After School
Lunch

The majority of the participants from the 17 high school sites completed the survey at the
vMASME conference on August 6, 2016. The most popular formats for offering the MESA
program are during the lunch period and after school. Eight school sites offered MESA at lunch,
seven provided MESA after school, and two have preserved a course period for MESA.
Quantitative Data
Based on the selection criteria, a quantitative survey (see Appendix D) was distributed to
53 reliable MESA advisors and teachers. From those 53 MESA advisors and teachers, 27
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 115

responses were received. Participants responded to a 21 closed-ended item survey through
SurveyMonkey™. Participants were asked to report their years of service as a MESA
advisor/teacher.
Table 3 presents a breakdown of the total number of survey participants and the years
they have been an advisor/teacher for the USC-MESA program.

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Number of Years served as a Teacher/Advisor for MESA High School

Measure 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-8 years 9 years or more Grand Total
Number

Percentage
6

22.2%
12

44.4%
5

18.5%
4

14.9%
27

100%

The amount of years’ participants has served as MESA advisors ranges from zero, or brand new,
to nine or more years. Although the span is somewhat evenly distributed between 0-2 years, 6-8
years, and 9 years or more, almost 45% of the participants fall into the 3-5 year category.
Advisors serving over nine years decreased to less than 20%.
Qualitative Data
The qualitative portion of the study consisted of one focus group meeting, in-person
interviews, and phone interviews. Of the 27 survey respondents, a total of five advisors/teachers
voluntarily participated. A predetermined set of open-ended questions (see Appendix E) was
utilized for the interview protocol.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 116

Table 4

Participants to the Study
Participant Years as a MESA
Advisor/Teacher
Total Number of Years in
Education
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
2
3
6
3
9
4
4
8
5
11

All five teachers participated in the focus group interview held at the MESA Advisor
Workshop in the Natural History Museum conference room on September 7, 2016. Additionally,
each teacher participated in a follow-up interview in October either in person or by telephone.
The researcher interviewed Teachers 1 and 2 in person, and Teachers 3, 4, and 5 completed the
interview by phone.
Findings by Research Questions
The tools that helped identify the factors that contributed toward preparing and
supporting educationally disadvantaged students in STEM included the self-administered survey
using SurveyMonkey™, and the semi-structured interviews in both individual and focus group
formats. Combined, the data was synthesized and analyzed to determine how the Mesa Schools
Program (MSP) is being implemented at the selected sites. In order to narrow the focus down to
the most influential components that contribute toward an effective STEM outreach program, the
researcher compiled a list of best practices based on the literature reviewed. These practices
were translated into the survey questions that helped extrapolate measureable data to determine
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 117

which practices were considered most effective by MSP teachers and advisors. The survey
results revealed patterns that guided the researcher in the preparation of qualitative-based
questions that provided a more detailed participant response about how MSP implemented these
supports and what that actually looked like at the participating sites.
Data was collected using self-report survey instruments and was analyzed in SPSS using
an appropriate statistical test to answer the four research questions proposed in Chapter One. To
answer research question one, the researcher provided a teacher survey that was sub-scaled based
on the research questions. SPSS provided the overall mean, the mean for each individual teacher
survey question, standard deviation, and reliability for how closely related the teacher survey
questions were to the research question. The questions in the teacher survey that helped answer
Research Question One are noted in Table 5.

Table 5
Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question One
Research
Question
One
How is the MESA program preparing teachers to support
educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities and courses?
SQ4

SQ5

SQ6

SQ9

SQ12
The MESA program is structured to monitor students’ progress throughout the
math and science courses.

The MESA program provides the students with opportunities to network with like-
minded peers.

The MESA program facilitates networking opportunities with like-minded
professionals.

The hands-on STEM activities prepare and supports students in STEM learning.

I believe that MESA has influenced the students’ persistence in STEM.
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 118

Table 6 indicates that the overall results for research question one were (M= 3.86,
SD=.72) conveying that there is somewhat of an agreement that the MESA high school teachers
felt that they were being prepared to support educationally disadvantaged high school students in
STEM activities and courses.

Table 6
Total Mean for Research Question One
Computation N Mean Std. Deviation
(SQ4 + SQ5 + SQ6 + SQ9 + SQ12) / 5 27 3.8593 .72285

Table 7 shows the results for each teacher survey question that helped answer research
question one. Of the four survey questions asked, survey question 9 resulted with the highest
mean (M= 4.11) and survey question 4 resulted with the lowest mean (M= 3.48). Although the
overall mean of the data indicated somewhat of an agreement, the alpha coefficient for the five
teacher survey items was .876, suggesting that the survey items had a high internal reliability in
regards to research question one (see Table 8).

Table 7

Research Questions One: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question

SQ N Mean Std. Deviation
4 27 3.48 1.189
5 27 3.89 .847
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 119

Table 7 (Cont’d.)

SQ N Mean Std. Deviation

6 27 4.04 .808
9 27 4.11 .751
12 27 3.78 .751

Table 8

Reliability Statistics for Research Question One
9

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N
.876 5
Note. A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered acceptable.

Digging deeper into the data, the items that revealed which types of support were most
impactful in preparing and supporting students were SQ6 and SQ9. Survey question 9 received
the highest mean score of 4.11, which indicates that teachers and advisors agreed that the hands-
on activities equipped students to be successful in STEM. When cross-analyzing survey
question 9 with the teacher and advisor participant responses in the focus group interviews, the
teacher and advisor responses reinforced their belief that the MESA hands-on activities are
highly effective. One emerging theme showed that teachers and advisors believe that the hands-

9
This table is provided to show the Survey Questions were closely aligned with the Research Questions.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 120

on activities are beneficial for students who struggle learning math or science concepts in their
STEM courses and are highly engaging.
For example, participant statements showed evidence of perceived value of the hands-on
STEM based activities leading to increased chances for success in high school STEM courses.
Teacher 2 stated,
A lot of my students can see the transfer between what they learn in our hands-on
activities and in the math course that I teach. As they build their projects. my students
begin to see the connections between the concepts and skills as they solve math
problems.
Teacher 2 further elaborated by stating, “The students that have moved on to my
advanced placement course were more prepared than those who were not involved with the
program at an earlier stage.” Therefore, advisors felt that the MESA students are better equipped
to understand the curriculum when compared to non-MESA students in their science and math
courses.
As shown in Table 9, the survey questions specifically addressed the MESA teachers’
perceptions of whether the MESA program showed an improvement in students’ self-efficacy in
their science and math courses, the students’ perceived abilities and attitudes in successfully
completing STEM courses, and an increase in networking among student peers in order to
continue supporting one another in STEM activities and courses. The response data indicated
which types of support most significantly impacted student retention in STEM. From the results,
additional semi-structured qualitative questions were generated in order to gain insight about
MESA teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of why they thought the identified support was
successful in retaining educationally disadvantaged high school students in STEM education.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 121

Table 9
Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question Two

Research
Question
Two
How do MESA teachers perceive the impact of the MESA program in
the retention of educationally disadvantaged high school students in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities and
courses?
SQ7 I have seen an improvement in my students’ self-efficacy in their science
and math courses because of the MESA program.
SQ8 My students’ science and math course grades have improved because of
their experiences in the MESA program.
SQ10 My MESA students have a positive attitude towards math and science
courses because of their experiences in the MESA program.
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

The overall quantitative data results for research question two were (M= 3.82, SD=.84).
This signifies that MESA high school teachers/advisors were neutral, but slightly leaned toward
the agreement that the program makes an impact in retaining educationally disadvantaged
students in STEM activities and courses (Table 10),

Table 10
Total Mean for Research Questions Two

Table 11 indicates that survey question 7 had the highest mean score of 3.89 in teachers
seeing an improvement in their students’ self-efficacy in their science and math courses because
Computation N Mean Std. Deviation
(SQ7 + SQ8 + SQ10) / 3 27 3.8272 .83906
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 122

of the MESA program. The qualitative data corroborates with the survey results for SQ7 and
further explains why teachers have seen an improvement in their students’ self-efficacy
particularly in their science and math courses. Teacher 3 stated,
They recognize the challenges that they face but are hopeful and willing to put in the
extra work/effort to succeed because they feel supported by the program. They view
themselves as underdogs who will show the world what they are capable of.
In the focus group interview, Teacher 4 explained why he believes students’ self-efficacy
improves due to the MESA program,
Participating in MESA teaches the students the very important lesson that smarts aren’t
everything. Rather, students learn the importance of perseverance, critical thinking,
teamwork and hard-work. Being a part of MESA helps to redefine what it means to be a
STEM learner.
Teacher 3 added, “The STEM specialist at my school site suggested to add the student
who was failing my Engineering Design class to my MESA club. He thought that these positive
experiences would improve his motivation to do better.” The advisors believe that as the
students continue in the MESA program year after year, they begin to see the value in the skills
learned through the hands-on activities, collaborating with like-minded peers, and the positive
reinforcement from prior MESA students who are now in college. Teacher 3 added, “USC
students who were previously in the MESA program come and lead workshops for the high
school students, allowing students to believe that if they can do it, so can I.” The questions in the
teacher survey that helped answer Research Question Three are noted in Table 13.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 123

Table 11
Research Question Two: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question
SQ N Mean Std. Deviation
7 27 3.89 .847
8 27 3.78 .892
10 27 3.81 1.001

Table 12
Reliability Statistics for Research Question Two
10

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.904 3
Note. A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered acceptable.

10
This table is provided to show the Survey Questions were closely aligned with the Research Questions.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 124

Table 13
Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question Three
Research
Question
Three
What resources are utilized in the MESA program to prepare and
support educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities and courses?
SQ3 The activities in the MESA program motivate the students to persist in
STEM.
SQ11 MESA has helped my students find other peers with similar goals in STEM.
SQ13 The MESA program provides opportunities for students to be exposed to
careers in STEM.
SQ15 MESA has provided professional development opportunities that I would
otherwise never have been exposed to.
SQ17 The MESA program shows me how to get the resources I need to teach my
courses effectively.
SQ18 MESA provides opportunities for students to visit universities/colleges to
learn about STEM majors.
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

Research question three addresses the need to provide educationally disadvantaged
students with resources to support and prepare them in STEM activities and courses. The body
of literature reviewed by the researcher suggests that underrepresented minorities, including
females, benefit from STEM outreach programs that provide support specific to preparing them
for academic and social life experiences (Swail et al., 2012). MESA utilized the meta-body of
literature for effective STEM outreach programs to craft its mission statement as well as the
critical support components to ensure educationally disadvantaged participants in MSP are
successful. Both the body of literature and the key support components in MSP were the basis
for creating the quantitative portion of this study. The survey instrument contained questions
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 125

that investigated MESA teachers’ perceptions of which evidence based resources were most
effective in encouraging ED students to persist in STEM. The researcher analyzed the responses
and crafted semi-structured interview and focus group questions to delve deeper into
understanding exactly why teachers felt that certain supports are more effective.
Table 14 shows the overall results for research question three were (M= 4.14, SD=.70).
The data indicates that the majority of MESA teachers surveyed agreed that the resources
provided by MSP prepared and supported educationally disadvantaged high school students in
STEM activities and courses.

Table 14
Total Mean for Research Question Three
Computation N Mean Std. Deviation
(SQ3 + SQ11 + SQ13 + SQ15 + SQ17 + SQ18) / 6 27 4.1358 .69804

Based upon the results for individual questions, the survey questions that showed an
overall agreement with a mean score of 4 and above were SQ3, SQ13, SQ15 and SQ18 (see
Table 15). This indicates that the hands-on MESA activities, exposure to careers in STEM,
teacher professional development, and visitations to colleges and universities were key resources
to prepare and support educationally disadvantaged students in STEM.
According to SQ3, the advisors believed that the activities provided by MESA highly
motivates students to persist in STEM. Also, advisors agreed that the professional development
is valuable in helping them to support their students at their sites. Teacher 4 explained,
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 126

Advisors meet once a month for about two hours. In the past, two advisor meetings,
we’ve mainly experienced demo lessons that we could take back to our sites. This really
helps us understand how to work through the activities ourselves and draw our own
conclusions. Then we know how to guide our students.
With the monthly support and guidance of the USC-MESA directors, the teachers feel more
confident in ensuring the students will be able to understand the engineering process and apply it
to the hands-on activities when they have the time to explore STEM-based concepts during a
protected time. The MESA advisors also believed that the interaction between the high school
and college students is a valuable resource in encouraging them to persist. Teacher 5 said, “The
mentorships and discussion panels from college students reinforce the values of hard work and
persistence.” Advisors believed that a combination of all these types of support resources
directly impacts students’ motivation to continue in pursuing STEM opportunities. The
questions in the teacher survey that helped answer Research Question Four are noted in Table 17.

Table 15
Research Question Three: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question
SQ N Mean Std. Deviation
3 27 4.22 .641
11 27 3.85 .864
13 27 4.22 .892
15 27 4.41 .931
17 27 3.96 1.055
18 26 4.15 .907

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 127

Table 16
Reliability Statistics for Research Question Three
11

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.875 6
Note. A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered acceptable

Table 17

Survey Questions Applicable to Research Question Four

Research
Question
Four
How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of the MESA program in
increasing the persistence of educationally disadvantaged high school
students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
activities and courses?
SQ14 The MESA program is essential for educationally disadvantaged
populations to succeed in a STEM workforce.
SQ16 Without the MESA program, my students would have difficulty competing
with their Southern California peers in STEM.
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=
Disagree 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree).

MESA’s overall mission statement is to serve and increase educationally disadvantaged
students to be engaged in STEM. MESA engages educationally disadvantaged students by
providing more than academic services. In order to pursue and graduate with degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, the MSP also provides mentoring, and social and
early exposure to STEM experiences. Based on the Wilder Research Report (Schultz & Mueller,

11
This table is provided to show the Survey Questions were closely aligned with the Research Questions.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 128

2006), common key features in effective STEM outreach programs include academic support,
social networking, and social support; early intervention, exposure to and guidance in navigating
college; long-term support; and financial assistance. Research question four investigated
whether the MESA teachers/advisors perceived that these supports influenced educationally
disadvantaged students’ decision to persist in STEM courses and activities throughout middle
school and into their high school years.
Table 18 shows the overall results for research question four were (M= 4.02, SD=.78).
This signifies that MESA high school teachers/advisors perceived that comprehensively MSP
was effectively influencing educationally disadvantaged students to persist in STEM, particularly
in cultivating their interests through hands-on STEM activities, mentorship, and college
visitation.

Table 18
Total Mean for Research Question Four

Computation N Mean Std. Deviation
(SQ14 + SQ16) / 2 27 4.02 .78267

Table 19 shows the results for each teacher survey question that helped answer research
question four. Survey question 14 and 16 had relatively similar mean scores, 4.08 and 3.96.
Teacher SQ14 and SQ16 ask if the MSP is essential for educationally disadvantaged students to
succeed and compete with their peers in STEM.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 129

Table 19
Research Question Four: Mean for Each Teacher Survey Question
SQ N Mean Std. Deviation
14 27 4.08 .759
16 27 3.96 .940

Table 20
Reliability Statistics for Research Question Four
12

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.704 2
Note. A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered acceptable.

Based on the qualitative data results, MESA advisors perceived that the program was
effective in connecting educationally disadvantaged students to STEM-based opportunities
through MESA’s network of partners in the STEM field. Teacher 2 explained,
MESA really offers a lot more than that. They start offering connections to do more
things, and they get the chance to say if I'm really interested and I apply, I'm going to try
to see all these opportunities and try to take advantage of it. MESA does that. It opens
the doors for other opportunities because they have connections with other things.
Teacher 3 elaborated on one type of extension opportunities some of her students
participate in. “A good number of kids, like 20 kids, are taking a course for credit at East LA

12
This table is provided to show the Survey Questions were closely aligned with the Research Questions.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 130

College twice a week after school.” The advisors believe that MESA’s connections to extra
opportunities are valuable to the students, and that they are motivated to continue their education
in STEM on their own.
Ancillary Findings
During the focus group and individual interviews, the participants provided additional
information that contributed towards gaining a more precise understanding of how the MESA
program supported educationally disadvantaged students in STEM, yet was not the central focus
of the four research questions. Participants shared their opinions about the current resources
available for both the MESA advisors and the MESA students, as well as their perceptions about
the possible barriers in maximizing the program’s effectiveness in increasing the persistence of
educationally disadvantaged students in STEM courses and activities. The following themes
emerged based on the participant response results: funding determines program implementation,
advisor support and retention and competing against other programs for recruiting new students.
Table 21 exhibits these emerging themes, number of responses for each theme, and a sample
participant response.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 131

Table 21
Ancillary Emerging Themes

Emerging
Themes
Number of
Participant
Responses

Sample Participant Response
Funding
Determines
Program
Implementation
5 “There is a small cost and commitment for schools to join
MSP; however, many of the high schools cannot afford to
create a MESA period due to the lack of full-time employee
(FTE) funding.” (Teacher 4)
Advisor
Support and
retention
11 “My biggest struggle with being a new MESA advisor has
been learning about the events and trying to figure out the
logistics/paperwork/deadlines for participating in these events.
At advisor meetings, everyone speaks with the assumption
that everyone else has been an advisor before and knows what
is going on, what all these acronyms are, and what needs to be
done to prep students for an event.” (Teacher 3)
Competition
with Other
Programs
6 “I think it makes a lot of difference whether there's a class on
MESA that's offered as an option or it's something after
school. I've found that a lot of kids are interested in it but it
seems like the sports program always trumps MESA and that's
grabbing people away.”
(Teacher 4?)
Educational
Pathways
4 “The experience I've had in the high school, perhaps some
of the educationally disadvantaged kids would not get a
four-year degree in Science or Engineering, or be looking
for that. But, they could still very well qualify for a
technical position.” (Teacher 5)

Funding Determines Program Implementation
Several advisors expressed that the ideal type of MESA program for high schools would
dedicate one class period that is tied to a science or math course. Teacher 5 shared, “So I feel
funding in those areas really makes it difficult for me to be able to expose the students to some of
these subject areas.” Funding plays an important role in the type of program that is offered. Of
the total number of participants in this study, only two school sites implement MSP during
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 132

period. The remaining 15 site offer MESA during lunch or after school. Teacher 4 expressed
her belief as to why so few schools have a MESA period. “There is a small cost and
commitment for schools to join MSP; however, many of the high schools cannot afford to create
a MESA period due to the lack of full-time employee (FTE) funding.” Funding also affects field
trips and activities for students. Teacher 2 quoted,
They had a science camp where it focuses on math and science. At this point, it was used
to be through the Bernard Harris foundation but that connection shut off so they're trying
to still do it but they need to find funding for it.
Teacher 5 expressed,
Funding to support field trips and activities are usually provided based on the availability
of school site funding. If there are just a small number of MESA students interested in
going on the trip, oftentimes, the school will not pay for it because it’s too expensive to
dedicate funding that will only affect just a few students.
New Advisor Support and Advisor Retention
During the focus group interview, the researcher asked all participants to introduce
themselves and share how they became a MESA advisor. A common theme among the
participant responses was their journey in learning about the responsibilities of the advisor role
and how to manage the program at their site.
• “That's where I feel like I am right now. I'm not really sure what my role is and
where I'm supposed to go because it's a brand-new start to the school year. The
students know more about the program than I do. It's a little bit of a frustration.”
(Teacher 2)
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 133

• “I agree. My first year was terrible. I didn't know anything that I was doing and I
didn't have any support in terms of the former advisors. So it was also a very
stressful first year.” (Teacher 3)
• “At advisor meetings, everyone speaks with the assumption that everyone else has
been an advisor before and knows what is going on, what all these acronyms are, and
what needs to be done to prep students for an event. Those who don’t say much are
probably new like me. Half the time I am just trying to figure out what the group is
talking about . . . pre-mesa day? Mesa day? Prosthetic arm? JPL?” (Teacher 1)
• “I have no idea what each of these events entailed and what I, as the teacher advisor,
need to do for the students. I had hoped for more guidance and clarification at the
first advisor retreat about what my role was, what all these events were, and the
expected timeline/pacing guide of sorts that could keep me on track.” (Teacher 2)
Advisor participants also shared how they managed to configure the MESA program to
make it work with their school climate, scheduling and student population.
• “If you're going to stay and do it, you choose what's going to be best for you. Is it a
balance of taking every kid that wants to do it, or are you going to make some sort of
application process for the kids? That's something that's not standardized for the most
part and that each school handles differently.” (Teacher 5)
Competition with After-School Programs
Based on the interview responses during the focus group interview, MESA advisors that
have the programs after school face specific obstacles when compared to having a dedicated
MESA period. Teacher 4 specifically noted the benefit of having MESA as a class period rather
than a club or after-school program.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 134

I think it makes a lot of difference whether there's a class on MESA that's offered as an
option or it's something after school. I've found that a lot of kids are interested in it but it
seems like the sports program always trumps MESA and that's grabbing people away.
Another advisor participant added,
Sports programs tend to be in the afternoon. Kids somehow see sports as an avenue to
some sort of success and don't want to participate in an academic program. And realizing
that 99.9% of the people go academic and the .1% that get something out of doing
athletics. (Teacher 3)

Additionally, advisors noticed that there are after-school programs that offer similar activities to
MESA’s activities and events.
This year, particularly, there's sort of an independent program on robotics. I'd like to see
a lot more robotics and something earlier in the year than the robotics challenge at the
end of the year. We've got a lot of kids that are interested in getting involved in that.
(Teacher 2)
Educational Pathways
MESA may stimulate interest, increase influence, and retain a larger population of
educationally disadvantaged students if they could provide other pathways into the STEM field
other than a four-year degree, such as entering a trade school and receiving a certificate.
Students may not initially enter a traditional STEM pathway, however, may be able to gain
partial STEM skills that may stimulate interest and eventually persist into a STEM field.
Participant: (Please id as (Teacher 5)
“Yeah, yeah. Thinking back partly on my career and partly the experience I've had in the
high school, perhaps some of the educationally disadvantaged kids would not get a four-
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 135

year degree in Science or Engineering, or be looking for that. But, they could still very
well qualify for a technical position. Especially where I worked there were a lot of folks
who had gone through school, or gone through a trade school under a scholarship. Six
years in the Navy, or something like that.
Teacher 3 added,
MESA would allow more options for students other than entering a four-year degree if
they are able to embed technical school options. Some of the students have a lot of
interest in learning STEM skills, however the thought of obtaining a four-year degree
does not interest them at all.
Reflection
The reflection portion of this study aims to analyze whether the MESA program is
effectively supporting educationally disadvantaged students to persist in STEM. The body of
literature reviewed revealed that STEM outreach programs such as MESA serve to compensate
for the inadequacies that the education system has placed, and aimed to find ways to promote
and maintain students’ interests and achievement in academic and social success (Schultz &
Mueller, 2006). Research indicated that underrepresented students significantly benefit from
attending an outreach program, especially improving their access towards college (Gándara &
Bial, 2001; Macy, 2000; Vargas, 2004). Table 22 shows a comparison between the researcher’s
conceptual framework, the suggested components of an effective STEM program, and the key
features of the MESA program.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 136

Table 22
Comparison of Research Based Features of Effective Programs and MESA Schools Program

Conceptual
Framework
Research Based Features of
Effective Programs
MESA Schools Program
(MSP)
Academic
Support
• Prepare students academically
• Intervene early
• Help students navigate the
college admissions process
• Provide comprehensive, long-
term support
• Individual Academic Plans
• Study skills training
• MESA Day Academies
• MESA periods
Motivational
Support
• Provide comprehensive, long-
term support
• Incentive awards
Social
Support
• Involve and encourage
parents/family.

Networking
Support
• Balance academic support with
social support
• Provide financial assistance
• Career and college
exploration
• Teacher professional
development opportunities

Academic Support
MESA provides early intervention through the implementation starting at the middle
school level. The purpose is to generate interest and build confidence by preparing educationally
disadvantaged students to persist in STEM activities and courses in high school, enroll and
complete a STEM major, eventually having a STEM career. MESA also offers academic plans
to monitor student progress, study skills development, enrichment activities, allocated times for
MESA periods, and college enrollment support.
Research showed that when educationally disadvantaged students are provided with a
comprehensive support program for extended periods of time, the likelihood of continuing with
the program and being successful in their STEM courses increases (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001;
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 137

Swail et al., 2012). One requirement for MESA participants is to re-enroll every year to reap the
benefits of increasing their STEM knowledge and see their academic growth. Teachers can then
build upon skills from previous years so that students are better equipped to undertake new
STEM concepts and persist through the STEM pipeline.
Although MESA encourages schools to dedicate a MESA period to support educationally
disadvantaged students concurrently with the curriculum, only two sites implement the program
at this capacity. This support model lacks cohesiveness between STEM courses and concepts
learned in the MESA program. Therefore, it is challenging for advisors to provide immediate
support for educationally disadvantaged students to be successful in their science or math
courses. Additionally, by not meeting on a daily basis causes students to learn and practice
STEM concepts in a concise period of time, which may not benefit some students. Teacher 1
quoted, “we are well equipped with a lot of activities that we can directly take back to our
students, however with a limited amount of time the focus is mainly completing just the
activity/project.”
Motivational Support
Research suggested that educationally disadvantaged students need motivational support
to persist in STEM fields (PCAST, 2010). Key components of successful STEM programs
which target motivational support include comprehensive long-term support throughout students’
educational careers. In order to motivate the students to continue with STEM, MESA provides
incentive awards through competitions at the secondary level.
To support a comprehensive long-term system, most MESA schools programs are housed
at universities with connections to faculty members to expose and motivate students to persist
through the pipeline. Competitions are held at the designated university to increase students’
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 138

exposure to the college campus and hopefully motivate them to enroll into a four-year university.
Additionally, MESA advisors learn engaging STEM activities in the professional development
training to motivate students in learning STEM outside of the classroom. Teacher 3 quoted, “As
the students continuously work and complete activities that MESA provides, they seem to be
more interested and motivated in learning the concepts in their science and math courses in order
to be prepared for the next activity.”
Social Support
According to research, educationally disadvantaged students need a strong social support
from their peers and parents, allowing for educationally disadvantaged students to influence each
other to persist in STEM (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). When parents are educated about the
importance and benefits of college, and the students’ peers share similar educational goals, they
are more likely to progress into postsecondary education (Perna, 2002; Corwin et al., 2005).
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data gathered, MESA encourages the site
programs to integrate social interactions and events between peers and advisors; however, a
systematic format to address social barriers to improve networking is not consistently
implemented at all MSP sites. Advisors realized that the social aspect needs to be strengthened.
Since the lunch and after-school programs do not meet on a daily basis, building that
camaraderie takes a longer process which may affect some of the students to continue with the
program. During the focus group interview, Teacher 3 expressed the importance of integrating
time for students and advisors to build key relationships in order to support educationally
disadvantaged students to continue with the program, stating, “many of the students who come
through the program lack a social support group at home and forming key relationships within
the program has allowed many of them to be a part of group that is positive and encouraging.”
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 139

Teacher 4 added, “the relationships that they formed through the social events allowed them to
continue with the program.” However, without having a dedicated time built in for social
support, the advisors are struggling with balancing time of fitting in both the social and
academic.
Network Support
By providing a strong social support system, research indicates that it builds a healthy
foundation for a strong network within the STEM community (Corwin et al., 2005; Perna, 2002).
The literature also suggested that a built-in network allows for educationally disadvantaged
students to feel supported, encourages accountability, and exposes them to a broader selection of
STEM opportunities (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). MESA helps to connect students to peers with
similar interests in college and STEM careers through field trips and events, as well as educators
with common professional experiences and values. Professional development is offered to
support MESA teachers to collaborate and learn new techniques to teach math and science that
will spark students’ interest in STEM activities and courses.
According to both the survey and participant interview responses, networking is strong
among the advisors. The USC MESA coordinators plan during the summer to create the advisor
meeting schedule and conference dates throughout the year. However, the advisor positions are
strictly voluntary. MESA funds teacher release days, field trips, competitions, events, and
supplies for hands-on activities but no additional compensation for teacher time. During the
focus group interview, the researcher asked the participants why they decided to become MESA
advisors given that there is no monetary compensation. Several advisors saw that there was a
gap between what this student population needs, and what is available in public education.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 140

Networking amongst students and parents at other MESA schools is limited to MESA
day academies, which give students a chance to meet and compete with like-minded students.
Networking opportunities are only offered one time in the fall and spring semesters.
Additionally, space is limited to a total of 25 MESA teams and is offered on a first-come, first-
serve basis. Some MESA school sites that are located nearby will coordinate on their own time
to allow for their students to network and collaborate about MESA-developed curriculum.
Funding Support
Programs that provide students with information and assist students in applying for
financial aid positively associated with college enrollment (St. John et al., 2004). Based on the
participant responses during the interview sessions, MESA advisors discussed how funding
affects the extent of how comprehensive the program can be in order to support the areas of
academics, student motivation, social development, and building a larger network. The
researcher found that site-funding support is correlated to the number of students participating in
the program. Programs that can assist a larger variety of students will receive more funding.
Since MESA targets educationally disadvantaged students who have an interest in STEM, it
limits itself to only students who fit this type of program.
Summary
Chapter four reviewed the findings, analysis, and interpretation of the data collected for
this study. Data collected at the USC-MESA program assisted the researcher to answer the four
guiding research questions for this study. The researcher compared this study’s framework, the
body of literature, and supports in place under the MESA program to determine whether there is
alignment with the research-based features of an effective STEM outreach program. It was
determined that MESA is stronger in supporting educationally disadvantaged students in the
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 141

areas of academics and networking, whereas a more systematic approach is needed to enhance
the social support. Although the advisors agreed that the students are motivated in the STEM
activities and events, the researcher was not able to directly measure student motivation.
Through triangulation, the researcher discovered the following recurring themes that indicated
barriers to ensuring that educationally disadvantaged students are appropriately supported, and
continue to persist in the STEM pipeline.
1. Funding – Since 2002, MESA funding has decreased 55% (MESA, 2016). This has
affected the comprehensiveness of the length of support MESA can provide in all areas.
2. Advisor Support and Retention – Site-based mentorship for new advisors is needed to
ensure they are successful in implementing and maintaining the program. Although the
USC-MESA coordinators support advisors by visiting the school sites, there is not
enough personnel to provide a consistent and immediate support.
3. Competing with Other Programs – Students interested in more than one program are
forced to choose. Oftentimes, since sports offer a variety of choices and can be counted
as fulfilling an elective, students tend to lean toward athletics. This lessens the pool of
educationally disadvantaged students eligible to enroll in the MESA program.
Chapter Five includes a summarization of the findings, a discussion of the implications,
and suggestions for additional research on how the MESA program can implement the
missing components of the research-based features of effective programs to build a
successful program that will allow all educationally disadvantaged students to persist
through the STEM pipeline.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 142

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Chapter Five is a review of the overview of the study and provides a summary of the
significant findings from the data in Chapter Four. In addition, this chapter presents a discussion
of potential implications and concludes with recommendations for future study as it relates to
answer the research questions that examine the effectiveness of increasing educationally
disadvantaged students’ interest in STEM.
Overview of the Study
Chapter One provided an introduction of the study, including its purpose and
significance. In addition, Chapter One described the overview of the study and essential
background information on the effectiveness of the MESA outreach program. Chapter Two
included a detailed review of the existing literature. The review began with the historical
perspective and politics of STEM education and continued with an examination of students in
STEM education and their persistence through the pipeline. The chapter concluded with an
examination of STEM outreach programs and key features of effective programs which was used
in the study to compare components with the MESA outreach program and how it impacts
academic support, motivational support, social support, and networking support. A description
of the research methodology used in this study was presented in Chapter Three. The chapter
included an explanation of the appropriateness of the mixed-method approach, in addition to how
the sample populations were selected, and identified the instruments and tools used to analyze
the data. The chapter concluded with ethical practices of maintaining confidentiality of both
quantitative and qualitative results. The results of the study were reported and revealed
emerging themes that pertained to the research questions in Chapter Four. These themes were
discussed in detail, along with the conceptual framework of how outreach programs support
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 143

educationally disadvantaged populations. Chapter Five is the conclusion for this study which
includes the summary of the study and potential implications. In addition, recommendations for
future research opportunities regarding educationally disadvantaged students persisting through
the STEM pipeline are included.
Background
The United States economic strength has been closely linked to its advances in science
and technology (Goldin & Katz, 2008). Given this relationship, there has been a concern as the
United States has been losing its lead in science and therefore global competitiveness. Xie, Fang
& Shauman (2015) indicated that STEM education in the United States has been inadequate in
quality, quantity, and unequally available across social groups. Improving STEM education
especially for educationally disadvantaged groups is pivotal for economic growth and security
(Xie et al., 2015). The U. S. Census Bureau predicts that educationally disadvantaged groups
such as Latinos will increase to become the majority by 2050; however, their presence in STEM
fields does not reflect their numbers proportionally (Museus et al., 2011). Moreover, females
have increased their representation in the workforce now that families require dual incomes to
survive, yet they have difficulty competing with their male counterparts, particularly in the
STEM field (Espinosa, 2011). Educationally disadvantaged groups are susceptible to barriers
that affect them to be successful and persist through the STEM pipeline. Researchers refer to
this as the leaky pipeline model, where the number of females and underrepresented minorities
lessens as they move from elementary and secondary education to higher education and STEM
occupations (Cannady et al., 2014; Clark Blickenstaff, 2005; Metcalf, 2010).
In hopes of being globally competitive, the US has allocated funding to prepare, support,
and retain underrepresented populations in STEM education and the STEM field (Gonzalez &
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 144

Kuenzi, 2012). Founded in 1970, the Mathematics, Engineering, Science, and Achievement
(MESA) program was one of the first organizations to establish a comprehensive support system
to remove educational, social, financial, and gender-type barriers for educationally
disadvantaged students to persist in STEM. The MESA program offers many support systems
such as:
• Personalized learning by providing individual academic plans.
• Build study skills and generate excitement through STEM hands-on activities.
• Inspire and build confidence through STEM competitions and field trips.
• Expose students to college campuses.
• Offer MESA teachers professional development to support disadvantaged groups.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study focused on the effectiveness of the MESA Schools Program
(MSP) on the retention of educationally disadvantaged high school students in STEM activities
and courses. The intent of this study was to reveal the key features that contribute toward a
successful STEM outreach program. The following research questions served as a framework
that guided this study:
1. How is the MESA program preparing teachers to support educationally disadvantaged
high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics activities
and courses?
2. How do MESA teachers perceive the impact of the MESA program in the retention of
educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics activities and courses?
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 145

3. What resources are utilized in the MESA program to prepare and support educationally
disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics activities and courses?
4. 4. How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of the MESA program in increasing the
persistence of educationally disadvantaged high school students in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics activities and courses?
Summary of Findings
After conducting an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design using survey
questions and interviewing teacher advisor participants, it was determined that the MESA
schools program contains supports for educationally disadvantaged students that were
synonymous to the body of literature as well as the framework for this study; however there were
some components that can expand and develop. Overarching themes that arose from the findings
included funding impacts, marketing to key stakeholders, teacher advisor retention, and support
and site-mandated participation requirements.
This study investigated whether the MESA teacher advisor participants perceived the
MESA Schools Program (MSP) as being effective in increasing the persistence of high school
students in STEM activities and courses. Based on the survey responses, MESA advisors
perceived the program to be effective in influencing students to persist in STEM through hands-
on activities, networking opportunities with local STEM corporations, and the availability of
multiple learning avenues for both teachers and students. Much of the survey results indicated
that the advisors’ responses were categorized under the “agree” rating of the five-point Likert
scale. The participant interview responses offered elaboration as to why the teacher advisors felt
this way and which support components of the MESA program aided in its effectiveness.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 146

The participant interviews provided the researcher with ancillary findings that would not
otherwise have been discovered using the survey instrument alone. The MESA advisor
responses uncovered additional emerging themes that painted a clearer picture of the types of
barriers that inhibited the program from reaching its maximum potential.
This research study revealed the strongest components of the MESA program are the
academic support for both students and teachers, MESA’s networking system with colleges,
community and STEM industry resources and the multiple learning avenues. Overall, the MESA
program purposes are to understand and remove barriers that hinder educationally disadvantaged
students from successfully competing with their peers nationally and globally within the STEM
field. Despite the declining of resources, MESA continues to use innovation, creativity, and
collaboration to positively influence students in STEM.
MESA Alignment to Research and Framework
Per the research, underrepresented minorities show success in persisting in STEM when
they receive ongoing academic support at the early stages of their educational career (Gándara &
Bial, 2001; Swail et al., 2012; Schultz & Mueller, 2006). Moreover, when educationally
disadvantaged students incorporate a network of supporters with like-minded peers and
professional goals, they are more likely to persist in their STEM courses and activities, declare a
STEM college major, and ultimately work in the STEM field (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Schultz
& Mueller, 2006) The MESA program strongly corroborates with both the body of STEM
literature as well as this study’s framework in the areas of academic support and network
support.
Academic support. According to the data in this study, teacher advisors believed the
academic support component of the MESA program supported educationally disadvantaged
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 147

students to be successful in their math and science courses and encouraged them to take on
higher-level STEM courses in high school. MESA’s goal for the high school program is to
motivate students to take on higher-level STEM courses by providing positive experiences
through hands-on activities, field trips, and MESA competition events. Teachers valued the
professional development coordinated and presented by the USC-MESA directors. The
uninterrupted-workshop time allowed the advisors to personally explore the hands-on activities,
process and make sense of their findings, and plan how to effectively transfer what they have
learned to their MESA students during club, after school or MESA class period.
Network support. MESA teacher advisors also perceived the program’s network
support as a vital component in effectively supporting educationally disadvantaged students in
STEM. According to the interview responses, teachers believed that the available opportunities
allowed the MESA students to investigate and experience the limitless avenues they could
pursue within the STEM field. The teachers also believed that former students who returned and
provided their experiences motived current MESA students and allowed them to expand their
knowledge as they navigated through the STEM pipeline. In regards to teacher networking,
USC-MESA also includes numerous opportunities throughout the school year for advisors to
exchange ideas and work in partnership with like-minded educators during their scheduled
professional development sessions. During the professional development sessions, the advisors
share ideas about how they configured the MESA program at their schools to overcome
program/site conflicts and meet the needs of their population. Advisors appreciated the time to
collaborate, which allowed for them to reflect and meet the needs of their unique population.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 148

Program Considerations
MESA teacher advisors viewed the current program to be successful in supporting
educationally disadvantaged high school students. The researcher encouraged the advisor
participants to share their opinions of how the MESA program can be even more effective in
including more students and supporting them comprehensively. Overarching themes that arose
from the findings included modifications to the current academic support, a systematic social
support component, funding impacts to several program areas, and student/teacher recruitment
and retention.
Academic support. The study results indicated that although MESA teacher advisors
believed the program to be essential in encouraging educationally disadvantaged students to
continue pursuing STEM courses and activities, the STEM skills learned during the club sessions
do not always align and reflect to the content students are currently learning in their science and
math courses. Advisors who have MESA student participants enrolled in their science and/or
math courses are able see students applying what they learned to content. However, the
transference for students who have non-MESA advisors as science and math teachers cannot be
guaranteed. Moreover unless having a MESA period to fully support the students on a consistent
basis, the frequency of the MESA club or after-school meetings is not daily, which reduces the
amount of time for students to learn and process the necessary STEM skills needed to impact
their confidence in their science and math courses. Lastly, MESA advisors expressed their
concern about the lack of time needed to complete a hands-on-activity within one club or after-
school session. Although the majority agreed that the activities learned from their monthly
professional development are high interest and popular among the student participants, they find
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 149

it challenging to complete and teach the alignment to STEM courses the students are currently
taking.
Social support. One of the requirements for MSP is to re-enroll students in the MESA
program throughout their high school years to build the camaraderie and social cohesiveness.
Teachers agreed that the commitment helped create a sense of community and peer support.
However, a consistent meeting time to implement a systematic format to address social barriers
is not consistently implemented at all MSP sites, only high school sites that have MESA periods
can embed a social component. Advisors realize that the social aspect needs to be expanded.
Based on the interview responses, the limited amount of time allotted for students to meet
weekly in their clubs or after-school meetings slows down the process for incorporating activities
that help build an adequate social support system. Moreover, the once-a-week meetings makes it
difficult for advisors to balance both the academic and social aspects of the program in each
session. High schools that can support a MESA period only have a small number of students
who formulate a bond quickly due to the low numbers.
Funding impacts. The funding cuts from MESA has affected all the essential support
components in the program. Around academic support, the MESA program works best as a
foundational program that is embedded in all curricular areas, such as a learning community.
When the MESA program is more comprehensive, there are increased opportunities for a larger
portion of educationally disadvantaged students to be exposed to STEM-based content through
other disciplinary subjects. However, with cuts, schools are hesitant to provide funding that
would be needed to fund multiple, full-time employees to maintain an integrated STEM learning
environment such as a MESA period at the high school level. The funding that is currently
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 150

available is sufficient in maintaining a highly effective program specifically for the students who
are already inclined to persist in STEM courses and activities.
Funding availability may also hinder the longevity of teachers holding the advisor
positions. According to the interview responses, new MESA teachers felt overwhelmed with
maintaining a balance between their teaching duties and the responsibilities as a MESA advisor.
The current MESA advisor position is strictly voluntary with no stipend available for preparation
and teaching time.
The reduction in MESA funding since 2002 has also impacted student networking
opportunities, field trips, and events. In order to preserve the program’s integrity, MESA chose
to scale back, or modify, traditional events and fieldtrips rather than eliminate them completely.
Field trips and events are prime opportunities for the MESA students to network and build a
support system with like-minded peers from other USC-MESA school sites. Since limited
opportunities to socialize weakens the networking support component, some MESA advisors
have chosen to coordinate meetings and events with neighboring USC-MESA school sites to
boost opportunities to interact and collaborate. The partnerships formed among MESA, local
businesses, and leading STEM organizations play an important role in field trip and event
opportunities for the MESA students, and this can change year-to-year. The veteran MESA
advisors stressed the importance of being flexible to program changes based on the annual
budget. These funding constraints are no different from the current issues public schools face in
preserving major components of their school-wide general program; however, the funding
resources do not match America’s push to prioritize STEM education nationwide.
Student recruitment. The researcher discovered advisor support and program
marketing as an area requiring strengthening to improve the recruitment of potential students and
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 151

advisors. The advisors explained that both the students and teachers know that MESA is a long-
standing program focused on math and science, but they do not have a clear understanding of its
purpose, goals, activities, and opportunities. The advisor participants shared their experiences of
trying to recruit non-STEM related teachers who showed interest in becoming partner MESA
advisors to integrate STEM cross-curricular, but were intimidated because they did not feel their
knowledge in the sciences and math was adequate. Participants further clarified that the
qualifications to be a MESA advisor does not necessarily require teachers to be knowledgeable
in math and sciences, and the step-by-step professional development supports teachers to
properly conduct the hands-on activities. Advisors believed that including non-STEM teachers
during meetings conveyed a message to students that STEM resonates throughout all curricular
areas, and acquiring other skills such as research writing and learning about STEM-related
literature are equally as important to ensure they are well prepared to persist in the STEM field.
MESA advisors believed that the limited marketing and competing with other after-
school programs decreases the potential number of recruits who would greatly benefit from the
program’s supports. STEM education has grown to be trendy in schools, and recently, new after-
school programs are advertising activities that MESA already has in place such as robotics and
coding. Advisors believed that if stakeholders are aware of what MESA offers, more students
will be interested in joining on their own accord.
Limitations
Prior to conducting the study, the researcher noted the following limitations in Chapter
One:
• Time availability and distance feasibility
• The ability to gain access to successful STEM outreach programs was limited
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 152

• Amount of time needed to collect and analyze the data to determine commonalities of
successful STEM outreach programs
• Self-report responses may not be indicative of true responses leading to issues of
reliability and validity of data collected
• Small sample size and self-report responses of minorities and females participating in
STEM outreach programs could reduce the generalizability of the findings for this study
In addition to the previously discussed limitations in Chapter One, other limitations became
apparent throughout the course of this research study. Specifically, the researcher’s inability to
access teacher advisor participants in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The
researcher’s time frame to conduct this study was limited and did not have sufficient time to go
through an additional IRB process with LAUSD.
Another limitation was that the researchers only studied one MESA schools program
which was the USC-MESA schools program. Research conducted at multiple MESA schools
program may have given more information on various models and how cohesive MESA is within
the Southern California area. Although the researcher only studied one MESA schools program,
triangulation of the data provided more insight on teachers’ preparation to support educationally
disadvantaged students in STEM and their perception of the overall effectiveness of the MESA
schools program for educationally disadvantaged students to persist in STEM.
Lastly, the time allotted to collect data was limited and if the collection period was
longer, more evidence of teacher perception of the effectiveness of MESA schools program may
have developed through time. However, the data collected was enough to provide sufficient
information to address the research questions.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 153

Implications for Practice
Implications from this study can inform STEM outreach programs best practices to
support and retain educationally disadvantaged students in STEM, which can lead to a significant
growth in educationally disadvantaged students persisting through the pipeline and obtaining a
career in the STEM field. This research examined one STEM outreach program, the MESA
schools program, to determine if the supports provided are effective in ensuring educationally
disadvantaged students to persist in STEM education. The findings in this study fill-in the gaps
of the STEM literature by explaining the vital supports needed to influence students to persist
through the pipeline, and how the supports can be improved. The following implications were
derived:
• Students will demonstrate a greater interest in STEM if teachers are passionate and
enthusiastic about STEM courses and activities, as they are influential stakeholders in the
college and career decision making process.
• Programs that include project-based and hands-on learning influence the recruitment and
retention of students persisting in STEM courses in high school.
• An increase in STEM experiences will provide more exposure and information about
STEM. STEM-related activities that complement the math and science classes they are
taking, will provide the applications side of those courses and provide additional
exposure to STEM opportunities.
• STEM education policymakers can increase educationally disadvantaged students to
persist in the STEM pipeline by exposing K-12 teachers to hands-on STEM programs
that will allow them to be confident in providing a quality STEM program, increasing the
number of K-12 schools that offer pre-engineering and technology curriculum and
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 154

providing multiple opportunities to access information regarding STEM college and
career pathways.
The quality of a STEM outreach program can directly affect students persisting in STEM.
Although there have been significant gains in the participation of educationally disadvantaged
students in STEM education, they continue to be underrepresented in the STEM achievement
(Chen & Soldner, 2014). The need to monitor and improve the effectiveness of STEM outreach
programs is crucial in making sure that racial and gender gaps continue to narrow. This study is
pertinent to ensure that STEM education across the nation is equally available across all groups
and are being provided with the necessary skills and support service to remain globally
competitive.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this research study provide all stakeholders for STEM education a
better understanding of factors that influence educationally disadvantaged students to persist in
STEM. However, to fully investigate the effectiveness of the USC-MESA program for high
school students, additional research needs to be conducted. Based on the findings in this study
the researcher suggests the following recommendations for educators who want to expand on the
effectiveness of STEM outreach programs increasing educationally disadvantaged students in
persisting in STEM:
1. Experiences and perceptions from other key stakeholders such as past participants and
parents can yield a greater understanding of MESA’s impact on students’ persistence. In
addition to extending the study to other key stakeholders, studying other STEM outreach
programs would identify common supports that contribute towards an effective program
and unique features that may improve a program.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 155

2. MESA offers programs at the secondary level, community college level, and
postsecondary level. A longitudinal study can be conducted to determine how
comprehensive and cohesive the MESA program is as students transition from one
program to another. This research study can also determine the long-term effects of
participation in MESA, which could provide valuable feedback for an increase of
funding.
3. Characteristics of highly effective STEM teachers could be studied to provide a guideline
for teacher development and improve professional development, particularly for those
dealing with educationally disadvantaged students. Researching on techniques and
strategies that highly effective STEM teachers implement can provide a reasoning for the
investment of time, funding, and resources required to have an effective program.
Conclusion
This study explored the effectiveness of USC-MESA schools program in supporting
educationally disadvantaged high school students to persist in STEM courses and activities. The
literature reviewed suggested that STEM outreach programs at the middle, high, and
postsecondary school junctures are crucial to students’ perseverance through the STEM pipeline
(Berryman, 1983; Strayhorn, 2011). As outreach programs develop and improve, it is pertinent
to verify which support systems are successfully meeting the needs and which components
require more attention. The data analyzed in this study illustrated that the MESA
teacher/advisors perceived the program to be effective in influencing students to persist in STEM
in the areas of academic support and networking support; however, motivational support and
social support can expand to provide a long-term comprehensive program. It is the hope that this
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 156

study and initiatives to improve STEM education will close the achievement gaps and increase
educationally disadvantaged students to participate and persist in the STEM pipeline.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 157

References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and
bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office
of Research and Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/Title.html
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Allen-Ramdial, S. A. A., & Campbell, A. G. (2014). Reimagining the pipeline: Advancing
STEM diversity, persistence, and success. BioScience, 64(7), 612-618.
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. (2011). An act to invest in innovation
through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States,
and for other purposes. Public Law 111-358, 124 Stat. 3982. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf
Armstrong, J. M. (1980). Achievement and participation in mathematics: An overview.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1992). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different
college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Final Report. Los
Angles, CA: High Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial
and ethnic groups. NCES 2010-015. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America
for a brighter economic future. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 158

21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/gathering_storm_energizing_and_em
ploying_america2.asp
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2011). Quantifying the gender gap in science interests.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 523-550.
Bare, S. R. (2008). America COMPETES Act. Chemical & Engineering News, 86(9), 3.
Bayer Corporation. (2014). The Bayer facts of science education XVI: US STEM workforce
shortage-myth or reality? Fortune 1000 talent recruiters on the debate. Journal of Science
Education Technology, 23(5), 617-623. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9501-0
Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011).
Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration
Issue Brief, (04-11).
Bergeron, L., & Gordon, M. (2015). Establishing a STEM Pipeline: Trends in male and female
enrollment and performance in higher level secondary STEM Courses. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9693-7
Berryman, S. E. (1983). Who will do science? Trends, and their causes in minority and female
representation among holders of advanced degrees in science and mathematics. A
Special Report. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED245052
Best, L. R. (2011). Algebra for every eighth grade student: One size fits all? (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Blum, L. (2006). Expanding the pipeline: Transforming the culture of computing at Carnegie
Mellon. Computing Research News, 11(2), 6.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 159

Bodilly, S., & Beckett, M. (2005). Making out-of-school time matter: Evidence for an action
agenda. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Bonous-Harnmarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science,
mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 92–111.
Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education,
13(5), 7-11.
Burkam, D. T., & Lee, V. E. (2003). Mathematics, foreign language, and science course taking
and the NELS:88 transcript data (NCES 2003–01). Washington, DC: U. S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Burtner, J. (2005). The use of discriminant analysis to investigate the influence of non-cognitive
factors on engineering school persistence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 335.
Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M.. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing
America’s disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2)2, 199-249.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015). California assessment of student
performance and progress: Test results for English language arts/literacy and
mathematics. Retrieved from http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/SB2015/Search
Campbell, G., Jr., Denes, R., Jr., & Morrison, C., Jr. (Eds.). (2000). Access denied: Race,
ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise: race, ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 160

Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline
metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM
workforce? Science Education, 98(3), 443-460.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). STEM project-based learning:
An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd
ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from
https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1522-stem-project-based-learning.pdf
Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-
efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71.
Carnes, M., Schuler, L., Sarto, G. E., Lent, S. J., & Bakken, L,. (2006). Increasing sex and
ethnic/racial diversity of researchers in aging: Some promising strategies at the
postdoctoral level. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 54(6): 980–85.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00739.x
Carpenter, T. P., Hiebert, J., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The effect of instruction on children's
solutions of addition and subtraction word problems. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 14(1), 55-72.
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for
retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresent racial groups. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555-580. Retrieved from
https://odi.osu.edu/uploads/Chang_Mitchell_J.pdf
Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
in postsecondary education. Stats in brief. NCES 2009-161. Jessup, MD: National Center
for Education Statistics.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 161

Chen X., & Soldner, M. (2014). STEM attrition: college students’ paths into and out of STEM
fields. Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat., Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Clark Blickenstaff, J., (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386.
College Board. (2016a). The AP experience. Retrieved from
https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/exploreap/the-ap-experience
College Board. (2016b). College guidance: First-generation students. Retrieved from
https://professionals.collegeboard.org/guidance/prepare/first-generation
Contreras, F. (2011). Strengthening the bridge to higher education for academically promising
underrepresented students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 500-526.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Corwin, Z., Colyar, J. E., & Tierney, W. G. (2005). Introduction: Engaging research and practice
– Extracurricular and curricular influences on college access. In W. G. Tierney,
Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective
outreach (pp. 1-9). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the
world of work. New York, NY: Basic Books.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 162

Department of Education Organization Act. (1979). An act to establish a department of
education, and for other purposes. Public Law No. 96-88, § 402, 93 Stat. 688 (1979).
Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
Dickert-Conlin, S., & Rubenstein, R. (Eds.). (2007). Economic inequality and higher education:
Access, persistence, and success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics
report card: Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Education for Economic Security Act of 1984. (1984). An act to provide assistance to improve
elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education in mathematics and science; to
provide a national policy for engineering, technical, and scientific personnel; to provide
cost sharing by the private sector in training such personnel; to encourage creation of
new engineering, technical, and scientific jobs; and for other purposes. Public Law 98-
377, § 801, 98 Stat. 2342. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-
98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg1267.pdf
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2016). K-12 Education assessment programs: Achievement
gap. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/k12/research/achievement_gap/
Espinosa, L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors
and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review,
81(2), 209-241.
Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA, Sec. 1005 State Plans. (2015a). An act to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 163

Public Law 114-95, Part A, § 1005, 4. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA, Sec. 1201 State Plans. (2015b). An act to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves.
Public Law 114-95, Part B, § 1201, 4. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year
Strategic Plan. (2013). A report from the committee on STEM education, National
Science and Technology Council. Washington, DC: U. S. Government, 17 U.S.C. 105.
Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2
013.pdf
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Foltz, L. G., Gannon, S., & Kirschmann, S. L. (2014). Factors that contribute to the persistence
of minority students in STEM fields. Planning for Higher Education, 42(4), 46.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gándara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K-12 interventions
for underrepresented youth. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36), 1-54.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 164

George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and
attitudes about the utility of science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6),
571-589.
Gilmer, T. C. (2007). An understanding of the improved grades, retention and graduation rates of
STEM majors at the academic investment in math and science (AIMS) program of
Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 11-21.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goldin, C. D., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap
Goldsmith, C., Tran, T. T., & Tran, L. (2014). An educational program for underserved middle
school students to encourage pursuit of pharmacy and other health science careers.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,78(9), 167.
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) education; A primer. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R42642.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2014). Science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics trends and the role of federal programs (GAO-06-702T). Washington, DC:
Author.
Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the
school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911-922.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A.
(2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1-51.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 165

Hammonds, E., & Subramaniam, B. (2003). A conversation on feminist science studies. Signs,
28(3), 923-944.
Haramis, R. D. (2017). The effectiveness of the mathematics, engineering, science, and
achievement (MESA) outreach program for increasing the on the persistence of
educationally disadvantage populations in middle school(Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2008). How undergraduate engineering students perceive
women’s (and men’s) problems in science, math and engineering. Sex roles, 58(3-4),
251-265.
Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., & Servon, L. J. (2008). Stopping the exodus of women in science.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 22-4, 139.
Hewlett-Packard. (2005). HP philanthropy & education annual report. Palo Alto, CA: Hewlett-
Packard Company.
Hidi, S. & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2):111–127.
Higher Education Act of 1965. (1965). An act to strengthen the educational resources of our
colleges and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher
education. Public Law 89-329, title 1 § 101, 112 Stat. 1585 (1965). Retrieved from
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg1219.pdf
Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005. (2006). Higher education reconciliation act of
2005 (HERA) to student and institutional eligibility, and student assistance general
provisions, under the federal student aid programs. Public Law 109-171, § 1305, 120
Stat. 4 (2006). Retrieved from https://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0605.pdf
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 166

Hilton, T. L., & Lee, V. E. (1988). Student interest and persistence in science: Changes in the
educational pipeline in the last decade. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(5), 510-526.
Hira, R. (2010). US Policy and the STEM workforce system. American Behavioral Scientist,
53(7), 949-961.
Hong, R. C. S. (2009). Women’s self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science:
Investigating USC-MESA students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California).
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12
education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Horn, L., & Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence path
through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of undergraduates 3 years after
entering 4-year institutions. (NCES 2001–163). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 456694).
Horn, L. J., & Chen, X. (1998). Toward resiliency: At-risk students who make it to college.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/resiliency.pdf
Hu, S., & St. John, E. P. (2001). Student persistence in a public higher education system:
Understanding racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 265-
286.
Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in
college science and engineering education. (NCES 2000-601). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 167

Katz, L., & Williams, A. (2002). Pioneering the electronic school by using focus groups for
planning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 320-329.
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., ... & Velez, E. D.
V. (2015). The condition of education: 2015. NCES 2015-144. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education.
Kerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Toward a culturally based model for technology
and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005‒1016.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00570.x
Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity?.
Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115-131.
Krause, S., Culbertson, R., Oehrtman, M., & Carlson, M. (2008.) High school teacher change,
strategies, and actions in a professional development project connecting mathematics,
science, and engineering. Paper presented at the 38th American Society for Engineering,
Saratoga Springs, NY. doi:10.1109/FIE.2008.4720427
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service
Reports. Paper 35. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35
Kuenzi, J. J., Matthews, C. M., & Mangan, B. F. (2006). Science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options. Congressional Research
Service, 1-32. Retrieved from
http://gse.buffalo.edu/gsefiles/documents/alumni/Sp08_CRS_Report_for_Congress.pdf
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 168

Kurpius, S. E. R., & Stafford M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs
Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief# 03-11. US Department of Commerce.
Lantz, H. B., Jr. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:
What form? What function? Retrieved from
http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf
Lauff, E., & Ingels, S. J. (2013). Education longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS:2002): A first look
at 2002 high school sophomores 10 years later. (NCES 2014-363). U. S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014363.pdf
Lee, V. E., & Frank, K. A. (1990). Students’ characteristics that facilitate the transfer from two-
year to four-year colleges. Sociology of Education, 63, 178-193.
Leslie, L., McClure, G., & Oaxaca, R. (1998). Women and minorities in science and
engineering: A life sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(3),239-276.
Liang, J. H., Heckman, P. E., & Abedi, J. (2012). What do the California standards test results
reveal about the movement toward eighth-grade algebra for all? Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 328-343.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In N. J. Clifford &
G. Valentine (Eds.) Key methods in geography, 117-132. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 169

Lucena, J. C. (2000). Making women and minorities in science and engineering for national
purposes in the United States. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 6(1).
Luster, J. (2011). A new protocol for teaching English language learners in middle and
secondary schools. Journal of International Education Research, 7(4), 65-74.
Macy, B. (2000). From rusty wire fences to wrought-iron gates: How the poor succeed in getting
to–and through–college. Policy Perspectives. Washington, DC: The College Board.
Madigan, T. (1997). Science proficiency and course-taking in high school: The relationship of
science course-taking patterns to increases in science proficiency between 8th and 12th
grades. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of
educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science
Education, 95(5), 877-907.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access and
success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy
Forum and Pathways to College Network. Retrieved from
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/webarticles/pdf/hsreform_summary.pdf
Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement (MESA). (n.d.). Our programs. Retrieved from
http://mesa.ucop.edu/about-us/
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 170

Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA). (2016). Brochure. Retrieved from
http://mesa.ucop.edu/.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, A. P., & Tucker, S. K. (2010). Cultivating students of color: Strategies for ensuring high
academic achievement in middle and secondary schools. Journal of School Leadership,
20(4), 470-490.
McComas, W. F., & McComas, K. K. (2009). The contributions of science and mathematics to
STEM education: A view from beyond the disciplines of technology and engineering. In
K. N. Starkweather (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and
engineering (pp. 26‒34). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
McDonough, P. M., & Fann, A. J. (2007). The study of inequality. In P. Gumport, (Ed.),
Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts, 53-93.
McInnes, C., James, R., & McNaught, C. (1995). Diversity in the initial experiences of
Australian undergraduates: Committee for the advancement of university teaching on-
line. University of Melbourne, Center for the Study of Higher Education.
McKnight, C. C. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing US school mathematics
from an international perspective. A National Report on the Second International
Mathematics Study. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 171

Metcalf, H. (2007). Recruitment, retention, and diversity discourse: Problematizing the
“problem” of women and minorities in science and engineering (Master’s thesis).
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce literature. Inter
Actions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(2).
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., Schroeder,
D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students' interests in STEM via summer learning
experiences: See Blue STEM Camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291-301.
Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom.
TIES STEM Education Monograph Series. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for
Excellence in STEM. Retrieved from
https://www.partnersforpubliced.org/uploadedFiles/TeachingandLearning/Career_and_Te
chnical_Education/Attributes%20of%20STEM%20Education%20with%20Cover%202%
20.pdf
Mullis, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery:
Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment. National Assessment of
Educational Progress, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). Special issue: Racial and
ethnic minority students’ success in STEM education. ASHE Higher Education Report,
36(6), 1-140.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 172

Myers, R. E., & Fouts, J. T. (1992). A cluster analysis of high school science classroom
environments and attitude toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
29(9), 929-937.
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and
employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2010). Top stories in NAEP mathematics 2011.
Retrieved from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2011/
National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education. (2006). Education
longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS: 2002) Base-year to second follow-up data file
documentation. NCES 2008-347. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008347.pdf
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the
nation and the secretary of education. Retrieved from
http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CUPM/first_40years/1983-Risk.pdf
National Defense Education Act of 1958. (1958). An act to strengthen the national defense and
to encourage and assist in the expansion and improvement of educational programs to
meet critical national needs; and for other purposes. Public Law 85-864; 72 Stat. 1580
(1958). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-
72-Pg1580.pdf
National Science Board (US). (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of
the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. NSB-07-
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 173

114. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering. (NSF 04-317). Arlington, VA: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2007). Rising above the storm: Report from the committee on
prospering in the global economy of the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
Completions Survey [Data File]. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from
https://caspar.nsf.gov/.
National Science Foundation. (2013). National Science Foundation Act of 1950: An act to
promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare;
to secure the national defense; and for other purposes. Public Law 81-507, 42 U.S.C.
§1861, et seq. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/legislation.pdf
Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Shuman, L. J. (2010). Predicting STEM
degree outcomes based on eighth grade data and standard test scores. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99(3), 209-223.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in
science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-222.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 174

Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Parmar, N. (2017). The effectiveness of the mathematics, engineering, science, and achievement
(MESA) on the persistence of first-generation females in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) at postsecondary institutions (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Perna, L. W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: Characteristics of programs serving
historically underrepresented groups of students. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(1), 64-83.
Piburn, M. D., & Baker, D. R. (1993). If I were the teacher . . . qualitative study of attitude
toward science. Science Education, 77(4), 393-406.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and
inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for
America’s future. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf
Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the
more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry
into stem college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6),
1048-1073. doi:10.3102/0002831211435229
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 175

Rinn, A. N., McQueen, K. S., Clark, G. L., & Rumsey, J. L. (2008). Gender differences in gifted
adolescents’ math/verbal self-concepts and math/verbal achievement: Implications for the
STEM fields. Journal for the Education of the Gifted Prufrock Press, 32(1), 34-53.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career
interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427.
doi:10.1002/sce.21007
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Thi, R. (2014). The role of advanced high school
coursework in increasing STEM career interest. Science Educator, 23(1), 1.
Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National Clearinghouse
for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf
Schneider, M., Marschall, M., Teske, P., & Roch, C. (1998). School choice and culture wars in
the classroom: What different parents seek from education. Social Science Quarterly,
489-501.
Schultz, J. L., & Mueller, D. (2006). Effectiveness of programs to improve postsecondary
education enrollment and success of underrepresented youth: A literature review.
St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the
sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 176

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and
development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and
technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21(3), 303-339.
Slovacek, S., Whittinghill, J., Flenoury, L., & Wiseman, D. (2012). Promoting minority success
in the sciences: The minority opportunities in research programs at CSULA. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 199-217.
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2009). Digest of education statistics 2008.
(NCES 2009-020). Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
Soe, L., & Yakura, E. K. (2008). What’s wrong with the pipeline? Assumptions about gender
and culture in IT work. Women’s Studies, 37(3), 176-201.
Soldner, M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Inkelas, K. K., Garvey, J., & Robbins, C. (2012). Supporting
students’ intentions to persist in STEM disciplines: The role of living-learning programs
among other social-cognitive factors. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 311-336.
Sonnert, G., Fox, M. F., & Adkins, K. (2007). Undergraduate women in science and engineering:
Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5),
1333-1356.
St. John, E. P., Chung, C. G., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, A. D., Wooden, O. S., & Mendez, J.
(2004). Expanding college access: The impact of state finance strategies. Indianapolis,
IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2b/f5/c
e.pdf
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 177

STEM Education Coalition. (2015). STEM education coalition annual report; Sec. 1005 State
Plans. Retrieved from http://www.stemedcoalition.org/2016/02/05/coalition-releases-
2015-annual-report/
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation
for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 142-
159.
Swail, W., Quinn, K., Landis, K., & Fung, M. (2012). 2012 Handbook of pre-college outreach
programs. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/1550213-2012-handbook-of-pre-college-
outreach-programs.html
Swail, W. S., & Perna, L.W. (2001). A view of the landscape: Results of the national survey of
outreach programs. College Board Outreach Program Handbook. Washington, D.C.:
Educational Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/OutreachHandbookEssays.pdf
Szelényi, K., Denson, N., & Inkelas, K. K. (2013). Women in STEM majors and professional
outcome expectations: The role of living-learning programs and other college
environments. Research in Higher Education, 54(8), 851-873. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-
9299-2
Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Maltese, A. V. (2007). A study of the association of autonomy and
achievement on performance. Science Educator, 16(1), 22.
Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Mintzes, J. J. (2006). Factors influencing college science success.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(1), 52.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 178

Thoman, D. B., Arizaga, J. A., Smith, J. L., Story, T. S., & Soncuya, G. (2014). The grass is
greener in non-science, technology, engineering, and math classes: Examining the role of
competing belonging to undergraduate women’s vulnerability to being pulled away from
science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(2), 246-258.
doi:10.1177/0361684313499899
Tienda, M., & Haskins, R. (2011). Immigrant children: Introducing the issue. The future of
children, 21(1), 3-3-18.
Tindall, T., & Hamil, B. (2004). Gender disparity in science education: The causes,
consequences, and solutions. Education, 125(2), 282.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Toldson, I. A. (2008). Breaking barriers: Plotting the path to academic success for school-age
African-American males. Washington, DC: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.
Trusty, J. (2002, fall). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of
science and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(4),
464-474.
Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. A. (2007). Science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and
postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
12(3), 243-270.
UMass Donahue Institute (UMDI). (2011). Increasing student interest in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.mass.edu/stem/documents/Student Interest Summary Report.pdf
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 179

USC Viterbi School of Engineering. (n.d.). Mathematics engineering science achievement
(MESA). Retrieved from
http://viterbi.usc.edu/students/undergrad/ced/stemprograms/mesa/
U. S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2012). STEM education: Preparing for the jobs of
the future. Washington DC: Joint Economic Committee Chairman’s Staff. Retrieved from
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6aaa7e1f-9586-47be-82e7-
326f47658320/stem-education---preparing-for-the-jobs-of-the-future-.pdf
U. S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration. (2011). STEM: Good
jobs now and for the future: 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf
U. S. Department of Education, NCES. (2009). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces. ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_
Vargas, J. H. (2004). College knowledge: Addressing information barriers to college. Boston,
MA: College Access Services: The Education Resources Institute (TERI). Retrieved from
http://docplayer.net/2502569-College-knowledge-addressing-information-barriers-to-
college-joel-h-vargas-ed-d-published-by-the-education-resources-institute-teri.html
Villalpando, O., & Solorzano, D. G. (2005). The role of culture in college preparation programs:
A review of the research literature. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin & J. E. Colyar (Eds.),
Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 13-28). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using
expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM
fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304-340.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 180

Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and
postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-
1121.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students‘ success in STEM
education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 1-140.
Ware, N. C., & Lee, V. E. (1988). Sex differences in choice of college science majors. American
Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 593-614.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis
of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–
398.
Werkema, R. D., & Case, R. (2005). Calculus as a catalyst: The transformation of an inner-city
high school in Boston. Urban Education, 40(5), 497-520.
Wikipedia. (2017). Mathematics, engineering, science achievement. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics,_Engineering,_Science_Achievement
Williams, A., & Katz, L. (2001). The use of focus group methodology in education: Some
theoretical and practical considerations. IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 5(3).
Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1),
331-357.
Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 181

Xu, Y. J., & Martin, C. L. (2011). Gender differences in STEM disciplines: From the aspects of
informal professional networking and faculty career development. Gender Issues, 28(3),
134-154.
Yun, J. T., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). College access, K-12 concentrated disadvantage, and the next
25 years of education research. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 12-19.
Zarate, M. E., & Pachon, H. P. (2006). Gaining or losing ground? Equity in offering advanced
placement courses in California high Schools 1997-2003. Los Angeles, CA: Tomas
Rivera Policy Institute.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 182

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

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

THE EFFECTIVIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND
ACHIEVEMENT (MESA) FOR INCREASING THE PERSISTENCE OF
UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING,
AND MATHEMATICS (STEM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 183

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator:
Dr. Pedro Garcia via email at pegarcia@usc.edu or phone at
Co-Investigators:
Rhonda Haramis via email at haramis@usc.edu
Jacab Jung via email at jacobjun@usc.edu
Nisha Parmar via email at npparmar@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

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 184

Appendix B: Recruitment Letter

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

Thank you for your participation,

Jacob Jung
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 185

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

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

You are being asked to participate in a research study. A research study is how scientists (doctors, nurses
and other professionals) try to understand how things work and gain new knowledge. A research study
can be about how the body works, what causes disease, how to treat diseases, or what people think and
feel about certain things. Before you decide whether you will participate in this research study, the
investigator must tell you about:
(i) the purposes of the research study, the activities that will take place - these are called
procedures, and how long the research will last;
(ii) any procedures that are experimental (being tested);
(iii) any likely risks, discomforts, and benefits of the research;
(iv) any other potentially helpful procedures or treatment; and
(v) how your privacy will be maintained.

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Participant Date

_____________________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Legally Authorized Representative Date

_________________________/____________________ ______________________
Printed Name/Signature of the Witness Date

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 186

Appendix D: MESA Survey Questionnaire

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 187

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 188

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 189

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 190

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 191

Appendix E: Data Collection: Interview Protocol
for MESA Teachers in K-12
Introduction
Thank you for indicating a willingness to participate in this study. I greatly appreciate
you taking the time to answer some of my questions. I anticipate this interview will take about an
hour. Will this time frame work with your schedule today? Before we get started, I would like to
give you a general overview of my study and give you the chance to ask any questions you might
have about participating in this study.
I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California (USC). As part of the dissertation process, I will be conducting interviews related to
my line of inquiry. The topic of my study will focus on understanding how teachers of the
MESA Program feel the outreach program benefits the underrepresented populations.
Specifically, I am interested in investigating how teachers view participation in MESA has
influenced their students’ persistence in STEM at the secondary education level. In order for me
to conduct a thorough research study, I will be talking to teachers who are affiliated with the
MESA Program to learn more about their perspectives.
During the interview process, my role is strictly limited to being the researcher. This
means that I will not be evaluating or judging the answers you provide today. For the purposes of
this study, you are the expert in the field, and I will be learning from you. Also, I would like to
reassure you that none of the data I collect will be shared with other teachers on campus or with
faculty/staff within the school district. Your answers will be kept confidential for the sake of this
study. At the end of the study, I would be happy to provide you with a copy of an executive
summary of the project if you are interested.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 192

Finally, in order to ensure I accurately capture what you share with me, I have brought a
digital recorder for this interview. May I have your permission to record our conversation? Do
you have any questions about the interview process before we get started? If you don’t have any
(more) questions, may I have your permission to begin the interview?
Setting the Stage
To start off with, I was hoping to learn a little more about you.
How did you learn about MESA?
When did you first become affiliated with MESA at your school district?
What course(s) and grade level(s) do you teach as part of the MESA Program?
Interview Questions (Follow up questions are listed in italics)
1. Could you please explain why you chose to partner with MESA as a teacher within your
school district?
2. Could you please describe your personal experiences of being a MESA teacher?
a. What are the expectations of being a MESA teacher?
b. Can you discuss any supplemental opportunities that are uniquely offered through
MESA?
3. How well-supported do you feel by the MESA organization with regard to instructional
strategies/professional development?
a. How often do you meet for professional development through MESA?
b. In what ways could MESA have supported you more as a classroom teacher?
4. Based on your personal knowledge, could you please describe the types of support
services that are available to students through the MESA Outreach Program?
a. In your opinion, how does MESA work?
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 193

b. How does MESA support students to learn STEM?
5. What challenges do you believe underrepresented students face in STEM?
a. How do you feel participating in MESA equips students to deal with such
challenges?
b. Have you observed any differences between students who have participated in
MESA as compared to those who have not?
6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the MESA Program?
7. Do you feel MESA contributes to the persistence of underrepresented students’ in
STEM?
a. If interviewee responds “yes”, ask: Can you discuss the nature of which MESA
support programs/workshops are particularly beneficial?
b. If interviewee responds “no”, ask: Can you elaborate on how/why you feel
MESA didn’t adequately prepare students for STEM success?
8. In your opinion, how do underrepresented students in MESA view themselves in STEM?
9. In your ideal world, what types of academic/social/emotional supports would be included
in a successful STEM outreach program geared toward supporting underrepresented
populations?
10. Some people would argue that underrepresented are less likely to graduate from STEM
majors. What are your thoughts on the issue? Do you think MESA can help keep
underrepresented students in STEM fields?
Closing and Gratitude
Do you feel there is any additional information that you would like to add to our
conversation today that I may not have covered?
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MESA OUTREACH PROGRAM 194

The information you shared with me today will be very helpful for my research study. I
would like to thank you for participating in this interview process. I appreciate your time and
willingness to share your experiences with me. If I have a follow-up question, would I be able to
contact you by email? Thank you again for participating in my study.
Special Considerations and Probing
Transitions. I would like to transition from ______ and ask about…. (Is there anything
else you would like to add before we transition?)
We have spent some time taking about ______, now I would like to shift to talk about _____
We are going to shift gears a bit…
Probing Statements/Questions. You mentioned ______ , can you tell me more about
that…
Then what happened…
Can you give me an example…
How did that make you feel…
Can you elaborate on that…
Do you have anything else to add?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

Plugging the leaky pipeline: how academic deans support the persistence of underrepresented minority students in science and mathematics

PDF

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

PDF

The manifestation of social capital within the mathematics, engineering, and science achievement (MESA) program

PDF

The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The role of globalization, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project‐based learning, and the national science and technology fair mandate in creating 21st‐century-ready students i...

PDF

The underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) leadership positions

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Jung, Jacob H. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2017

Defense Date 02/21/2017

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

Tag education,educationally disadvantaged populations,effectiveness of STEM,High School,Latino students,Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement,Mesa,OAI-PMH Harvest,science technology engineering mathematics,STEM,STEM outreach programs,STEM support programs,underrepresented minorities,USC MESA

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email jacobjun@usc.edu,jjung02@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-367325

Unique identifier UC11258215

Identifier etd-JungJacobH-5289.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-367325 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JungJacobH-5289.pdf

Dmrecord 367325

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Jung, Jacob H.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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