University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

(USC Thesis Other)

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: EXAMINING THE EXPERIENCES OF TRANSFER
STUDENTS
By
Lica Abu-Esba

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

December 2018

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 2
Acknowledgements

First, I would like to acknowledge with sincerest gratitude my friends, family and team
members for their support and encouragement throughout this process. Their dedication to my
success was a true example of selflessness and motivated me more than I can express. I would
especially like to thank Brenda Nicole Valdez. Her commitment to my dissertation and constant
support was one of the main reasons it came to fruition.
Next, I would like to thank my dissertation committee, chaired by Dr. Tracy Tambascia.
Dr. Tambascia, thank you for being a role model, sounding board and cheerleader! I admire your
leadership and commitment to education. Additionally, Dr. Jamie Hoffman and Dr. Anthony
Maddox, thank you for your time, insight and holding this study to a high standard. I am truly
appreciative of all of you.
Finally, thank you to the transfer students that shared their narrative with me. Without
your openness and honesty this study would not exist. I truly hope I have done your story justice.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 3
Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................4
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ..............................................................................................6
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................9
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................................10
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................................11
Definitions .................................................................................................................................12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................13
Transfer Student Experience ......................................................................................................14
STEM Identity ............................................................................................................................17
Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................................................21
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................31
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................32
Qualitative Inquiry .....................................................................................................................32
Site Selection ..............................................................................................................................33
Population and Sample ...............................................................................................................34
Instrumentation and Sources of Evidence ..................................................................................34
Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................36
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................36
Validity .......................................................................................................................................37
Role of Researcher .....................................................................................................................38
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................38
Chapter Four: Data and Findings ...................................................................................................39
Motivations in STEM .................................................................................................................41
Transfer-STEM Experience .......................................................................................................45
STEM Identity ............................................................................................................................49
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................58
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion .....................................................................................60
Discussion of the Data ................................................................................................................60
Examining Integration Theory and the Transfer Process ...........................................................61
Drawing on Cultural Wealth for Successful Transfer ................................................................69
Recommendations for Practice ...................................................................................................72
Future Research ..........................................................................................................................77
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................78
References ......................................................................................................................................81
Appendix A: Information Sheet .....................................................................................................91
Appendix B: Interview Questions ..................................................................................................93

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 4
List of Tables

Table 1: Participant Demographics ................................................................................................40
Table 2: How Participants Experienced a STEM Identity .............................................................53

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 5
Abstract

Approximately half of the undergraduates enrolled at a four-year college or university
began their postsecondary education at another two or four-year institution (Jackson et al., 2013).
Of the transfer students pursuing STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) majors,
69% change their majors to non-STEM fields prior to graduating. There is very little research on
how to support transfer students as they navigate challenges that are compounded when
considering the intersection of gender, race, age, financial needs and complexities of being a
transfer student in a STEM major. This study explores the development of STEM identity
through social and academic integration, self-efficacy, and the cultural wealth model.
Participants in this study were students in their senior year who transferred to a private, elite,
four-year institution, and completing a STEM major. Although the sense of STEM identity
oscillated drastically, this study found that STEM identity in transfer students develops through
academic integration, a high sense of self-efficacy and by relying of their navigational, familial
and aspirational capital. Recommendations for practice include making STEM and a
corresponding STEM identity more accessible to transfer students through directed research
programs, mentorships, and transfer specific programming.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study

As far back as Joseph can remember, he wanted to be a scientist. Although he did not
grasp the full concept of science as a child, he knew he wanted to “wear a lab coat and
understand how molecules work.” He excelled in math and science at his high school, despite
having an after-school job and family responsibilities. Science just “made sense” to him. While
at the local community college, he improved his writing skills and completed the majority of his
general education classes. His confidence in his abilities motivated him to apply to transfer to an
elite private institution, even though many of his peers were transferring to local public four-
year universities. Joseph was not only admitted to the elite institution as a chemistry major but
also awarded an academic scholarship. From an outside perspective, Joseph earned his right to
be there and proved his academic ability in the sciences. However, Joseph never felt fully
accepted, starting at orientation. Not only was his course plan packed with upper division
science classes but many of his classes did not transfer, resulting in an added year to his
academic plan. Limited course options and time conflicts resulted in a frustrating orientation
experience. Multiple semesters of feeling limited turned into feeling marginalized. He began to
question if he was a “pity admit.” Despite graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry
and 3.1 grade point average, he had no desire to continue his science journey. “I was always
playing catch up, I’m not as smart as everyone else. I just don’t think I’m meant for science.”
Unfortunately, variations of this story are too common amongst transfer students debating
a major or career in the sciences. Transfer student attrition in the natural sciences and
engineering not only has local implications, but also impacts the national economy. The United
States has been considered the leader in innovation related to science and technology. The fields
of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) are essential to the nation’s
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 7
economy. Recently, the United States has been facing competition from abroad in producing and
retaining STEM talent. The United States has one of the lowest ratios of STEM to non-STEM
bachelor’s degrees in the world (National Science Board, 2012). The rates at which U.S.
undergraduates select and complete STEM majors trails several key competitors (National
Science Board, 2012). Of the 4 million undergraduate degrees earned in STEM, students from
China composed 21%, followed by 19% from the European Union and 11% from the United
States (National Science Board, 2012). While the exact reasons for the decline in STEM majors
in the US is unknown, there is a much more diverse group of students pursuing STEM. However,
the practice of teaching STEM in the U.S has not adjusted to meet the needs of this diverse group
(Chen, 2013; National Science Board, 2012).
The rising concerns about the competitiveness of the U.S. has led to national efforts to
increase the number of domestic students pursuing STEM majors leading to STEM careers. The
Obama administration launched an “Educate to Innovate” campaign in 2009. This called for
improved participation and performance of U.S. students in STEM (Chen, 2013). In 2010, 13
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, and the
Department of Energy, administered 209 STEM education programs to increase knowledge of
STEM fields and increase attainment of STEM degrees (GAO, 2014). In 2012, the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology urged post-secondary institutions to produce
more STEM graduates in order to remain globally competitive (Chen, 2013). Additionally, the
President’s 2014 budget called for the restructuring of all federal STEM education programs, so
that the departments of education at the state level could focus on funding their most effective
programs (GAO, 2014). The U.S. Department of Commerce projected that STEM employment
will grow 8% faster than non-STEM employment (Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, & Doms,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 8
2011). If the U.S. is to retain its dominance and remain competitive in STEM, it will need one
million more professionals trained in science and technology professions over the next decade
(Chen, 2013).
STEM and the Labor Market
The role of postsecondary education is critical to building a strong STEM workforce.
Unfortunately, national data reveals that many STEM majors do not complete their degree in that
field (Higher Education Research Institute, 2010) and more than half of STEM bachelor’s degree
holders switched to non-STEM fields when pursuing graduate studies or once in the labor market
(National Science Board, 2012). Students’ experiences as STEM majors, their perceptions of the
workplace climate and perceived discrimination based on sex, race or ethnicity in the STEM
workforce, are all factors thought to influence STEM attrition (Chen, 2013). In an effort to build
a strong STEM workforce, the Obama Administration and federal agencies focused on
increasing STEM retention through funding of higher education programming, arguing it is a
more cost-effective way to contribute substantially to the supply of STEM workers (PCAST,
2012).
Concerns over U.S. global competitiveness has also led to a call to increase the diversity
of students pursuing STEM degrees (Chen, 2013). The aging workforce, changing demographics
and global competitiveness necessitate increasing the number of racial and ethnic minority
groups and women in STEM fields (Lane, 2016). In 2015, the National Science Foundation
reported that only 13% of the STEM workforce was comprised of underrepresented groups,
compared to 71% of Whites. This gap illustrates the importance of increasing STEM
undergraduate retention and degree attainment (Lane, 2016).

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 9
Transfer Students
Nearly half of U.S. undergraduates begin their education at a different institution than
their degree receiving institution (Nunez & Yoshimi, 2016). Additionally, a large proportion of
transfer students identify as underrepresented, underprivileged, first generation college or non-
traditional (Jackson, Starobin & Laanan, 2013). The National Science Board (2012) reported that
69% of transfer students switched from STEM majors to non-STEM majors after matriculating
to a four-year campus. While many other fields experienced similar attrition rates, transfer
students from the humanities and social sciences did not switch into STEM majors at similar
rates (Chen, 2013). Studies report a multitude of factors that can lead to STEM attrition in
traditional students, the strongest being negative experiences in gatekeeper courses, specifically
math, and limited exposure to STEM courses in comparison to the humanities or social sciences
(Chen, 2013). The NCES (2014) states that the type of first institution enrolled can impact
STEM attrition. However, existing literature on this topic generally does not focus on the unique
challenges in academic integration, social integration and self-efficacy to provide the strongest
indicators of attrition in STEM transfer students.
Statement of the Problem
About half of the undergraduates enrolled at a four-year college or university began their
postsecondary education at another two or four-year institution (Jackson et al., 2013). Of the
transfer students pursuing STEM majors, 69% change their majors to non-STEM fields prior to
graduating. Higher education practitioners need to understand the challenges faced by transfer
students in STEM because of the increasing number of non-traditional transfer students who
pursue these majors. The policies and frameworks developed for students do not take into
account the challenges that are compounded when considering the intersection of gender, race,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 10
age, financial needs and complexities of being a transfer student in STEM. There is very little
research suggesting how to develop suitable programming and academic advising catered to the
unique needs of transfer students in STEM. Factors such as identifying as a STEM major,
motivation and belief in one’s capacity to learn as it relates to transfer students need to be
properly studied.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to better understand the development of STEM identity
through social and academic integration, self-efficacy, and the cultural wealth model. This study
focuses on students in their senior year who transferred to a private, elite, four-year institution,
and are in the process of completing a STEM major. This study aims to advance the knowledge
of transfer students majoring in STEM fields. The research question is:
• What are the experiences that foster a STEM identity in transfer students that promote
science degree completion at a selective private research institution?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because the experiences of these students adds to the literature on
the unique needs of transfer students in STEM. As the national economy continues to be a
concern and the need for diverse skilled STEM workers is projected to increase, the success of
transfer students in STEM is vital. Very little research has been published about the multifaceted
and complex needs of transfer students in STEM in various academic settings (Tobolowsky &
Cox, 2012). Research suggests that university administrators have a limited understanding of the
multifaceted needs of transfer students leading to institutional neglect and STEM attrition
(Nunez& Yoshimi, 2016; Townsend & Wilson, 2008-2009). Additionally, practitioners will be
informed of how to better support transfer students in STEM. Ideally, the narratives in this study
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 11
will encourage university administrators to develop programming that can increase a transfer
student’s sense of self-efficacy and belonging to the STEM community and university as a
whole. Faculty and academic advisors can design academic experiences that are better tailored to
the educational needs of these students. A better understanding of the challenges of transfer
students at elite receiving institutions can also inform the practitioners at the transfer institution
how to better advise and prepare students prior to their departure such that they can successfully
complete their degree and contribute to the demands of the science and technology workforce.
Limitations and Delimitations
There is limited research regarding the specific needs of transfer students in STEM. As a
result, much of the literature review examines published work regarding transfer students in
general or the experiences of all STEM students, even those who did not transfer. This study
seeks the perspectives of senior level transfer students in STEM with any grade point average at
the receiving institution.
This study includes STEM majors with an interdisciplinary component in the curriculum
with core courses in the humanities and social sciences, such as environmental studies. In order
to gain a complete picture of the experiences of transfer students in STEM, it is worthwhile to
observe any variable that can potentially support or prevent the development of a STEM identity.
Transfer students only minoring in STEM are excluded because students typically identify with
their major rather than their minor. Also, minors typically only require 16-24 units, which is
much less than STEM majors, averaging at 64 units. Furthermore, students who have recently
transferred are not included because they have yet to fully navigate the resources and experience
the curriculum of the receiving institution.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 12
Definitions
This study utilizes a few terms that are used throughout this dissertation. The term native
student references students that enter an institution as first-year freshman and do not change
institutions throughout the course of their undergraduate career. The term receiving institution
refers to the four-year institution to which a student transfers to and complete his/her degree.
When the term transfer institution is utilized it refers to the institution a student originally
attended. Finally, the term transfer student refers to a student who began his/her undergraduate
degree at one institution and completed his/her degree at another.
Conclusion
This study focuses on the ways in which transfer students navigate the intricacies and
challenges of a selective private research institution as STEM majors. The academic and social
engagement that foster a STEM identity are investigated. Chapter Two introduces the transfer
student experience and provides a review of the current literature published regarding STEM
identity, integration, self-efficacy and impact of the cultural wealth model.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Transfer students are a significant population at West University, a pseudonym. Each
year, 30% of the incoming class are students transferring from other four-year institutions or
community colleges. As the cost of education continues to rise, more students are seeking
affordable options for the first part of their college experience, then completing their degrees at
four-year institutions, such as West University (Lester, Brown Leonard & Mathias, 2013; Mullin
& Phillippe, 2009).
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2014), there is an increase of
students in science, technology, engineering and math fields (STEM); however, retention rates
are at a decline. Over half of the students entering science, technology, engineering and math
fields will not earn a STEM degree or any degree at all (Sutton & Sankar, 2011). While the exact
reasons why STEM attrition occurs are not clearly reported, the academic performance in STEM
courses is the most critical factor for students leaving STEM or dropping out of college (NSB,
2016). The retention rate of STEM students is significant because it costs less to retain a STEM
student than it does to recruit a new STEM student (Haag, Hubele, Garcia, & McBeath, 2007).
Additionally, the retention of STEM students impacts the national economy, as the lack of
skilled STEM workers in the United States could lead to a decline in the nation’s global
competitiveness (Chen, 2013).
This study focuses on students in their senior year who transferred to West University
and are in progress to complete a STEM major. This qualitative study aims to advance the
knowledge of transfer students majoring in STEM fields. The following is the research question
framing the study:
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 14
• What are the experiences that foster a STEM identity in transfer students that promote
science degree completion at a selective private research institution?
This chapter examines the transfer student experience and the concept of STEM identity
as it relates to the transfer experience. The theoretical frameworks covered in this literature
review are integration theory, the theory of self-efficacy and cultural wealth model, examining
development and persistence experiences of transfer students in STEM.
Transfer Student Experience
Almost half of all STEM students start their education at a community college, which is
consistent with the trend for all undergraduate students (Nunez & Yoshimi, 2016). STEM
students choose to begin their postsecondary experience at a community college for multiple
reasons. The most prevalent reasons are financial (13%), to increase the chance of acceptance to
a four-year institution (12%), to complete an associate degree (8%), and to facilitate change in
their academic or occupational fields (7%) (NSB, 2016). Although there are many practical
reasons and benefits to attending community college, many students experience similar
challenges upon transferring to the receiving institution (Nunez & Yoshimi, 2016). Transfer
students have a lower degree completion rate than their peers and tend to complete their degrees
over a longer period of time (Long & Kurlaender, 2009; Melguizo, Kienzl, & Alfonso, 2011).
Faculty, staff and university administrators at the receiving institution may be unaware of the
unique needs of transfer students, leading them to feel marginalized (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012).
In order to better understand the needs of transfer students and inform best practice, it is
important to understand the demographics of transfer students and the impact of transfer shock
which may influence their experience at the receiving institution.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 15
Transfer Student Demographics
A large proportion of transfer students from community colleges are underrepresented,
underprivileged, first generation or non-traditional students. This is partly because community
colleges provide non-traditional students with the opportunity to obtain the skills necessary to
successfully transfer and pursue a STEM field (Jackson et al., 2013). Transfer students tend to be
older and have family obligations that influence their decisions regarding enrollment and
residential status. Older transfer students have challenges relating to their younger peers
therefore do not partake in community building or social activities. Depending on the type of
family obligation, transfer students may need to live at home or schedule their courses and study
time around their obligations. Transfer students are more likely than their native student peers to
work, full- or part-time, often limiting their enrollment status. Many transfer students are also
commuter students, never experiencing the on-campus housing community-building aspect of
higher education and limiting their time on-campus outside the classroom.
Transfer student experiences differ drastically depending on their socioeconomic status.
For example, one study found that students from a lower socioeconomic status required more
academic remediation courses, spent more time at the public transfer institution and their
decisions were more influenced by financial aid (Dowd, Cheslock, & Melguizo, 2008; Niu &
Tienda, 2013). Given all of these factors, even if a transfer student wanted to be engaged socially
and fully immersed in the “college experience,” due to competing priorities such as familial
obligations, work schedule or commuting, they may not have the time or means to do so.
Transfer Shock
Although a proportion of students successfully transfer, they may face challenges at the
receiving institution. Studies report transfer students are not sufficiently academically prepared
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 16
(Dowd et al., 2008; Melguizo et al., 2011), unable to navigate the administrative systems at the
receiving institutions (Townsend & Wilson, 2006), have limited access to information and may
not connect with other students and faculty (Townsend & Wilson, 2006). These experiences
result in transfer students expressing feelings of exclusion and invisibility (Nunez & Yoshimi,
2016). Coined in 1965 by Hill, transfer students may experience “transfer shock,” which is a
decline in grade point average experienced in the first semester at the receiving institution
(Ishitani, 2008). This is due to moving from one institutional culture to another and adjusting to
the academic demands of the receiving institution (Townsend & Wilson, 2006). Transfer
students usually recover from transfer shock within an academic year (Ishitani, 2008).
Depending on the major, students may not be as likely to recover from transfer shock
(Whitfield, 2005). Transfer students majoring in STEM experience declines in GPA during their
first semester at the receiving institution, but grades do not always improve in subsequent
semesters; this is called “transfer coma.” Transfer students in science majors consistently
received lower exam averages than their native peers. The difference increased depending on the
time of transfer and the upper division science course in which they were enrolled. Transfer
students often enter the receiving institution after the one or two years at the community college
and will often enroll in organic chemistry, a second-year science course or biochemistry, a third-
year science course. When transfer students entered the receiving institution after two years at
the community college and enrolled in biochemistry, transfer student performance was
pronouncedly lower than their peers. The difference, while still present, was not as significant
when transfer students enrolled in organic chemistry at the receiving institution after one year at
the community college (Whitfield, 2005). Although transfer student performance varied
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 17
depending on the amount of time at the community college and curriculum at the receiving
institution, the transfer achievement gap often increased (Whitfield, 2005).
STEM Identity
In the realm of academia, the sciences are considered an exclusive guild and one that can
only be joined if the person possesses the natural ability to understand and correctly apply
scientific concepts (Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, & Espinosa, 2009; McGee, 2016). This
belief suggests that attrition in the sciences is inevitable and warranted, holding only the student
accountable for leaving science, rather than the institutional agents and resources that may have
aided in creating an environment of exclusivity (Hurtado et al., 2009; Jackson et al., 2013). An
extension of this belief is that there is a specific type of student who pursues science (McGee,
2016). The typical STEM student is identified as a traditional student, middle-class, White or
Asian American and “naturally smart” (Hurtado et al., 2009; McGee, 2016). This leads transfer,
underrepresented and underprivileged students to believe that they are naturally underqualified
and incapable of a STEM intellect (Martin, 2009). Transfer students are aware of the exclusive
and unwelcoming culture of the STEM field and choose to sacrifice their social and cultural
identity in an effort to integrate and persist as a science major (Flowers & Banda, 2016; Hurtado
et al., Jackson et al., 2013; McGee, 2016). This is especially significant regarding transfer
student success in STEM as they are often navigating the dynamics of multiple racial, cultural
and social identities in addition to the rigors and challenges more pronounced in STEM fields of
study.
STEM Culture
STEM college departments are competitive environments, and often members of
underrepresented and underprivileged groups are not considered an integral part of this
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 18
community (Fabert, Cabay, Rivers, Smith, & Bernstein, 2011; McGee, 2016; Wyer, Schneider,
Nassar-McMillan, & Oliver-Hoyo, 2010). Transfer students may be forced to respond to
negative assumptions, stereotypes and microaggressions about their intellectual aptitude and
STEM identity (Hurtado, et al. 2009; McGee, 2016). This often leaves these students exhausted
and rethinking their place in STEM (McGee, 2016). This science culture is experienced in
minority serving institutions as well as predominantly White institutions (Hurtado et al., 2009;
McGee 2016). This competition is exacerbated by the gatekeeper STEM classes taken in the first
two years of college that are usually graded on a curve (Hurtado et al., 2009). When students do
find STEM faculty with whom they identify, these faculty members may be overburdened with
serving all underrepresented and underserved students (McGee, 2016). Even when
underrepresented and underprivileged students speak out regarding the STEM culture to their
mentors, there is very little validation of their difficulties and little acknowledgment of the
structural obstacles they face. Students are encouraged to adopt an unhealthy level of racial and
mental toughness in order to pursue traditional forms of STEM educational advancement
(McGee, 2016).
Defining STEM Identity
Science identity is the process by which students engage in the science community
through their capabilities and career trajectory within the field (Brickhouse & Potter, 2001).
Carlone and Johnson (2007) determined the three components contributing to a strong science
identity as performance, recognition and competence. Performance is the ability to conduct
pertinent scientific practices such as the application of scientific tools in a laboratory setting or
the ability to engage in and contribute to scientific conversations. Recognition refers to being
acknowledged by meaningful others, scholars in the field, and oneself as a “science person.”
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 19
Competence, the third component, is one’s ability to demonstrate knowledge and understanding
of science content (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Finally, Carlone and Johnson’s (2007) model of
science identity asserts that gender, racial and ethnic identities influences one’s science identity.
Therefore, it is important to account for these social constructs and interrelated dimensions.
Building STEM Identity
Building a strong sense of STEM identity is significant because it develops confidence
within the domain and a commitment to persist and complete the degree (Conklin, Dahling &
Garcia, 2013). When challenges and obstacles present themselves, students with a strong science
identity will commit to overcoming the obstacles (Jackson et al., 2013). Task and performance
goals are positively affected by the growth of a science identity (Hernandez, Schultz, Estrada,
Woodcock, & Chance, 2013). In addition to improving a student’s performance and increasing
their recognition and competence, fostering a STEM identity involves social factors (Hurtado et
al., 2009). Building social relationships is critical to developing one’s science identity (Lane,
2016). Students lacking personal and professional networks in STEM disciplines are more apt to
leave these fields during their undergraduate experience or even after earning their degrees. This
is especially seen with underrepresented and underprivileged students, as they do not typically
have access to mentors, role models or family members in STEM to connect them to successful
alumni or professionals in the field (Merolla & Serpe, 2013).
The Role of Research
There are numerous reports to the positive impact of undergraduate research on the
retention of science majors (Hurtado et al. 2009; Kinkead 2003; Lopatto 2003; McGee, 2016).
The benefits of undergraduate research include a deeper understanding of science concepts and
processes, development of problem-solving skills, presentation skills, and technical proficiencies
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 20
(Kardash, 2000; Kinkead, 2003; Lopatto 2003). Through research, students experience the
collaborative and empowering culture of science whereby a student invests in and gains
ownership of a project (Hurtado et al., 2009). Studies show that this is especially true for
underrepresented and underprivileged students, helping them feeling more connected to the field,
identifying more strongly as scientists and witnessing different levels of expertise contribute to a
group (Hurtado et al., 2009; Merolla & Serpe, 2013). This is significant for underrepresented and
underprivileged students because they are exposed to a unique academic environment and build
professional networks they would not have access to otherwise (Carlone & Johnson, 2007;
Merolla & Serpe, 2013). The research findings suggest postsecondary institutions should ensure
equitable representation of underrepresented students (Hurtado et al., 2009; Lane, 2016) and
transfer students (Jackson et al., 2013) in undergraduate research programs.
The Role of Faculty
A byproduct of participating in undergraduate research is interacting and collaborating
with faculty. Transfer students have reported feeling intimidated, unwelcomed and unsupported
by STEM faculty (Hurtado et al., 2009; Jackson et al. 2013; McGee, 2016). These feelings can
be a result of the way a faculty member introduces a concept using phrases like “as you know,”
“you should have already learned,” or “we all know that” in a lecture or in response to a
student’s question. In one study, transfer students who shared their concerns with STEM faculty
reported they were encouraged to “stay strong” and “be resilient” without any acknowledgement
of the student’s challenges (McGee, 2016). This prevents them from seeking additional
assistance, guidance or mentorship from these meaningful institutional agents. If transfer
students are unable to find support from STEM faculty as they navigate and cope with the
intersectionalities of their identities, like being a science and non-traditional student, then
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 21
developing a positive STEM identity is unlikely (Flowers & Banda, 2016). When students
positively interact with faculty in STEM, they are seen by relevant others as a “science person”
and therefore feel more like a “science person,” sustaining their interest and persistence (Hurtado
et al., 2009). Interactions with faculty during the research process promotes a sense of
mentorship they would not have experienced purely from classroom interactions. Students
reported this relationship allowed and encouraged them to experiment with scientific methods
and “fail” in a safe space truly experiencing the up-and-coming scientist experience (Hurtado et
al., 2009).
Of particular importance is the science identity cultivated by faculty that visibly or
experientially share race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic, or academic backgrounds with
transfer students. Faculty mentors with shared interests and identities can motivate, inspire,
advise and act as role models for students (Flowers & Banda, 2016). Students of color reported
feeling more secure with their STEM identity and ability by interacting with STEM faculty of
color (Palmer & Gasman, 2008; Jackson et al., 2013). While the “transfer identity” is not visible,
STEM faculty from diverse racial, ethnic or gender backgrounds suggests inclusivity in the
department. Furthermore, these faculty members serve as visual representations of what transfer
students with diverse identities can one day become (Flowers & Banda, 2016).
Theoretical Framework
This study utilizes integration theory, self-efficacy theory, and the cultural wealth model.
Using these frameworks, this study seeks to better understand how transfer students transition
into the STEM community, the resources that facilitated their transition and how self-efficacy
impacts the navigation of an elite university. Because STEM majors are academically rigorous
and exclusive in nature, understanding the integration process and how to improve the self-
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 22
efficacy of a transfer student in STEM will inform practitioners regarding curriculum
developments and adequate resources to aid in the success of this population.
Integration Theory
Student growth, development and retention are strongly impacted by the college
environment. Providing opportunities to challenge and support students, encourage involvement,
and increase validation are vital in creating a positive inclusive environment. Sanford (1966)
suggested that student development is a function of the person-environment interaction through
the conditions of readiness, challenge and support. Readiness results from an internal process of
maturation or beneficial environmental factors. Development can be encouraged by determining
the appropriate amount of challenge a student can successfully overcome. The amount of
challenge tolerated by a student is dependent on the amount and quality of support available
(Sanford, 1966).
Rather than focusing on the environment, Astin (1984) suggested that student
development is highly dependent on the student’s level of involvement. Astin (1984) defined
involvement as the energy, physical or psychosocial, a student commits to a particular
experience. He argued that student development and growth occur when students actively engage
in their environment. As a result, opportunities need to be created for involvement in and out of
the classroom (Astin, 1984). Tinto (1987) furthered the notion of student development and
suggested that the process of social and intellectual development is the basis for learning and
student persistence. When considering the elements that promote transfer student success, it is
appropriate to investigate the practice of integration among transfer students.
Defining integration. Student involvement is a critical part of student development,
persistence, and retention (Astin, 1984; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh & Whitt, 2005; Pascarella &
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 23
Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1987). Rather than focusing on the motivation or academic preparation
students bring to college, involvement focuses on how students behave once they have
matriculated. The theory of student departure, also known as the student integration model,
suggests that retention and success can be understood in terms of student integration (Tinto,
1993). Integration is defined as a longitudinal process by which the student incorporates the
values and norms of the college into their own value system (Tinto, 1987). As the student
connects with the academic and social domains of the college, the student is more committed to
the institution and likely to persist (Tinto, 1987, 1993). Persistence occurs when the student
integrates with the formal and informal academic and social systems and is therefore inclined to
complete her or his education. However, student departure may still occur when the student is
only connected to one of the domains, not feeling fully committed to the institution (Tinto, 1993)
There has been much criticism of Tinto’s (1987) integration theory as it is limited to the
traditional student and traditional four-year institutional setting (Braxton & Lien, 2000;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Townsend & Wilson, 2006). In using the term integration, it is
implied that a dominant culture prevails, and conformity is necessary for success (Tierney,
1992). This suggests that underrepresented students must completely assimilate to the dominant
college culture, disconnecting underrepresented students from their cultural identity (Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Tierney, 1992). Findings suggested that underrepresented students “integrate” by
developing a subjective sense of belonging through their interactions with the academic and
social domains of the institution (Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
Transfer Student Integration Experiences
Studies suggest that academic and social integration of traditional students lead to
increased persistence at traditional four-year institutions (Tinto, 1993). When considering the
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 24
non-traditional student at the two-year institution, results are inconsistent. In a study of one
institution, no link was found between academic and social integration and persistence (Borglum
& Kubala, 2000). More recent studies of community colleges reported persistence was more
associated with transfer students that were integrated socially rather than academically (Deil-
Amen, 2011; Karp, Hughes, & O’Gara, 2010). Less is known about the impact of social and
academic integration on the success of transfer students in STEM at the four-year institution.
Academic Integration. Transfer students consider academic integration to be a primary
goal upon matriculating to the receiving institution (Lester, Brown Leonard, & Mathias, 2013).
Academic integration includes meaningful connections with faculty members, academic
challenge and learning. Although this may be a primary goal for transfer students, these students
reported feeling less integrated than their native student peers (Ishitani & McKitrick, 2010).
Studies suggest that transfer students experience difficulty integrating academically at the
receiving institution (Ishitani & McKitrick, 2010; Roberts & McNeese, 2010; Townsend &
Wilson, 2006). Upon matriculation, transfer students often experienced a dip in their grade point
average, and struggled to make connections with faculty members (Townsend & Wilson, 2006).
Although 66% of transfer students reported meeting with a faculty member outside of class
within the first six weeks of matriculation, this did not help them feel more academically
connected to their new institution (D’Amico, Dika, Elling, Algozzine, & Ginn, 2014).
Transfer students often take lower division and general education courses at their initial
institution and upper division and major related course work at the receiving institution. Thus,
transfer students reported expecting academic challenge upon matriculation (Lester et al., 2013;
Zhang & Allen, 2015). When looking specifically at engineering students who transferred from
community colleges, students reported encountering challenges during the enrollment and
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 25
registration process and finding academic balance as they were limited to taking only upper
division engineering courses (Zhang & Allen, 2015). The limited meaningful interaction with
faculty, limited course selection, and heightened academic challenge led transfer students to feel
stigmatized and less integrated academically (Laanan, Starobin, & Eggleston, 2010).
Academic integration was increased when transfer students experienced and overcame
academic challenge, found predominantly in students majoring outside of the sciences (Lester et
al., 2013). D’Amico et al. (2014) also found increased transfer student integration and success
when students reported meaningful interactions with academic advisors, which positively
influenced future course selection and increased institutional knowledge (D’Amico et al., 2014).
Although many transfer students found it difficult to create meaningful faculty interactions,
transfer students who persisted reported a slow integration process resulting in a strong sense of
belonging due to strong ties with faculty through research and attending office hours (D’Amico
et al., 2014; Townsend & Wilson, 2008-2009).
Social Integration. Social integration for transfer students often refers to participating in
academic activities of a social orientation (Borglum & Kubala, 2000; Deil-Amen, 2011; Lester et
al., 2013; Townsend & Wilson, 2006). In one study, Borglum and Kubala (2000) found that
transfer students were not interested in on-campus social activities and expressed challenges
making friends. Other studies noted that transfer students were on campus to attend class and did
not participate in activities outside of the classroom. Joining clubs and organizations on campus
was not a priority for transfer students, and often seen as a distraction from academics (Lester et
al., 2013). However, these transfer students still felt socially and academically integrated because
they studied with peers and socialized with them during class time (Deil-Amen, 2011; Karp et
al., 2010). To better facilitate social integration in a way that is meaningful to transfer students,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 26
another study suggested the receiving institutions create learning communities specifically for
this population. As a result, “socio-academic integration” is deemed more appropriate to describe
the social integration stemming from academic activities that is sought by transfer students (Deil-
Amen, 2011).
Self-Efficacy Theory
Student success is defined as academic achievement, engagement, persistence, and post
college performance (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges & Hayek, 2006). Traditionally, cognitive
skills have been used to predict and determine student success, mainly because it is readily
available and easily measurable (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Kuh et al., 2006). As national college
completion rates continue to be low, studies have focused on factors that contribute to student
academic success and persistence such as self-efficacy (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010;
Elliott, 2016). While several studies have been published regarding self-efficacy as it relates to
student success (Kahn & Nauta, 2001; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012; Robbins et al.,
2004), very few studies focus on self-efficacy as it relates to transfer students majoring in STEM.
This is significant because unlike other majors, the STEM experience is academically rigorous
and demanding, forcing transfer students to overcome academic disparities, and integrate into a
new STEM/student community in a very limited amount of time (McGee, 2016; Jackson et al.,
2013). Additionally, transfer students majoring in STEM are also balancing the intricacies of
their diverse identities, such as identifying as underrepresented, non-traditional, low-
socioeconomic status, commuter and/or full-time working students.
Defining Self Efficacy. In the 1970’s, Albert Bandura suggested Self-Efficacy Theory as
the underlying mechanism explaining human behavior as the interaction between personal,
behavioral and environmental factors (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is a theoretical framework
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 27
and a construct of social cognitive theory. It is the belief that one can successfully accomplish
something and generally one would only attempt what they cannot fail (Bandura, 1994). Students
with a high sense of self-efficacy believe they can master challenges and accomplish difficult
tasks. In the face of failure their efforts increase, and threatening situations are approached with
confidence. Bandura (1994) reports that an outlook with a high sense of self-efficacy reduces
stress and lowers the risk of depression. However, students with a low sense of self-efficacy
would see the challenge as a threat to be avoided. They would doubt their own abilities to
accomplish the task and the focus would be on their personal weaknesses preventing them from
being successful, increasing stress and the risk of depression (Bandura, 1994).
The theory of self-efficacy suggests that perception of ability is influenced by four
factors: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and somatic and emotional
state. Bandura (1994) considers theses four concepts to be the sources of self-efficacy. The most
effective way to develop a strong sense of self-efficacy is through mastery experiences. Students
need to experience success through perseverant effort and overcoming obstacles. Students only
experiencing success easily will expect quick results and are easily discouraged by failure.
Failure, setbacks, or difficulties are necessary to teach students that success requires sustained
effort in the face of adversity. Learning this will prompt a student to rebound from a setback and
overcome obstacles (Bandura, 1994).
Another way to create a strong sense of ability is through the modeling of vicarious
experiences practiced by peers and mentors. This is strongly impacted by the perceived
relatability of the models. When students witness others similar to themselves succeed through
sustained effort, then they too believe they possess the ability to master analogous activities.
Unfortunately, observing a model fail despite high effort will lower the student’s sense self-
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 28
efficacy. However, a model perceived to be very different from the student does not have the
same kind of impact on the student’s behavior (Bandura, 1994).
Bandura (1994) referred to social persuasion as the third way to increase a student’s sense
of self-efficacy. Verbal communication of one’s capabilities to master a given activity will
increase a student’s effort to accomplish a task. As a result, this will promote the development of
skills and a sense of personal efficacy (Bandura, 1994). In practicing social persuasion, Bandura
(1994) cautioned practitioners to provide realistic boosts of efficacy to prevent students from
being disappointed should they fail despite their efforts. While efficacy boosts have positive
effects, students experiencing verbal communication of their deficiencies tend to avoid
challenges and quickly quit in the face of adversity. Unfortunately, this lack of belief in one’s
abilities can create its own negative behavioral validation.
Self-efficacy is often measured through somatic and emotional states (Bandura, 1994). In
other words, students interpret feeling stressed in a difficult situation as a sign of vulnerability to
poor performance. Moods also alter one’s sense of self-efficacy. When in a positive mood,
perceived self-efficacy is enhanced, conversely a despondent mood diminishes self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1994). To modify a student’s sense of self-efficacy, stress reactions and negative
emotional tendencies need to be reduced and altered. This can be done by reinterpreting
heightening reactions to indicate progress.
Impact of Self Efficacy on Student Success. In an effort to better understand the
transfer student experience following matriculation to a four-year institution, the literature
explores self-efficacy as a function of social capital and STEM identity. Moser (2012)
investigated the impact of transfer student capital on the success of 364 community college
transfer students. This study defined transfer student capital as experiences with financial
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 29
knowledge, social support, staff and faculty validation, active and social coping styles, faculty
mentoring and self-efficacy. These constructs were selected based on, an extensive literature
review and expand upon the Laanan-Transfer Student Questionnaire (L-TSQ) (Laanan, Starobin,
& Eggleston, 2011). The results of the study validated the importance of transfer student capital
on success at the university. Transfer students with a higher level of perceived self-efficacy were
significantly more likely to succeed at the university level, as measured by grade point averages
(Moser, 2012). Self-efficacy was determined to be one of the strongest correlates of GPA
(Richardson et al., 2012). Transfer students exhibited a 27% variance in GPA based on their
level of perceived self-efficacy. This is almost twice the 14% variance reported when studying
the impact of self-efficacy on students starting at four-year institutions. Upon matriculation to the
four-year institution, transfer students reported they were more motivated and proactive
regarding their academics. Additionally, students with a higher level of self-efficacy also had
formal and informal interactions with their faculty at the community college level (Moser, 2012).
Not only can self-efficacy predict the GPA success of transfer students, the role of self-
efficacy can be evaluated as a function of STEM identity (Robnett, Chemers, & Zurbriggen,
2015). A longitudinal study of 251 underrepresented students majoring in the sciences was
conducted by Robnett, Chemers, and Zurbiggen in 2015. The population tested is significant
because it is reported that underrepresented students often face barriers identifying with the
science community (London, Rosenthal, Levy & Lobel, 2011; Syed, 2010). Robnett, Chemers,
and Zurbiggen (2015) determined that students with a high sense of self-efficacy participated in
meaningful research increasing their identity as a scientist leading to positive academic
outcomes. This study also found that there is a feedback loop where self-efficacy promotes
positive academic choices thereby strengthening the student’s sense of self-efficacy (Robnett,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 30
Chemers, & Zurbriggen, 2015). While this study does not mention if any of the participants were
transfer students, 51% of the transfer student population identifies as underrepresented (Ma &
Baum, 2016). Although very few studies have connected self-efficacy and the overall success of
the transfer student majoring in STEM, studies demonstrate that self-efficacy can be promoted
through the appropriate programming resulting in STEM student success.
Cultural Wealth Model
Much of the current research about the college student experience is based on the
traditional student, and therefore not completely applicable to non-traditional transfer students.
The cultural wealth model challenges the interpretations of researchers by accounting for
knowledge, abilities, skills and contacts that underrepresented groups use to survive and thrive in
the face of macro- and micro-aggressions and oppressive learning environments. In the cultural
wealth model, Yosso (2005) outlined the cultural knowledge, abilities, network and skills
utilized by underrepresented groups to navigate an educational system built to serve the
traditional student. The six types of capital are aspirational, linguistic, familial, social,
navigational, and resistance. Aspirational capital is defined as the hopes and dreams of a student
and his/her family, despite persistent educational inequalities and barriers. Linguistic capital is
the intellectual and social skills learned through communication experiences in more than one
language such as memorization, attention to detail, dramatic pauses, comedic timing, facial
affect, and vocal tone. Familial capital is the knowledge a student brings from their family and
community networks, motivating a commitment to “community well-being” and influencing a
student’s behavior towards community in college. Social capital is the networks of people that
help a student navigate the higher education system. Navigational capital refers to the student’s
personal skill and abilities to navigate social space and the educational institution. Finally,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 31
resistance capital is the set of skills a student possesses through observing the behavior of their
parents and community members as they challenge inequality and engage in social justice
(Yosso, 2005).
While Yosso’s (2005) work is based on the experience of Latina/o students in education,
it has been applied to understand a wide range of educational experiences, from underrepresented
students in STEM (Malcom & Feder, 2016) to understanding the learning needs of Deaf students
(Braun, Gormally & Clark, 2017). In this dissertation, the cultural wealth model is used to
understand the impact of both university and non-university-based influences on the experiences
of transfer students in STEM at an elite institution.
Conclusion
This chapter introduced the transfer student experience and concept of a STEM identity
as it relates to the overall success of a transfer student. The literature review has demonstrated
that more research is needed to further the understanding of transfer student experiences at
various types of receiving institutions (Nunez& Yoshimi, 2016; Townsend & Wilson, 2008-
2009). Additionally, research suggests university administrators have a limited understanding of
transfer student experiences and needs resulting in institutional neglect (Tobolowsky & Cox,
2012). The goal of this study is to increase understanding of the needs of transfer students
majoring in STEM at elite research institutions. Chapter Three discusses this study’s
methodology, sample, and methods of data collection and analysis.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 32
Chapter Three: Methodology
In the previous chapter, integration theory, self-efficacy theory and the cultural wealth
model were examined as they related to transfer students or STEM students. Since most of the
published literature focused on one or the other, this study examined these theories as they relate
directly to transfer students in STEM majors. Additionally, this study further developed the
understanding of transfer student experiences at various types of receiving institutions (Nunez &
Yoshimi, 2016; Townsend & Wilson, 2008-2009). The literature also suggested that university
administrators have a limited understanding of transfer student experiences and needs resulting
in institutional neglect (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012). This study investigated the ways in which
social and academic engagement foster a STEM identity in transfer students to broaden the
understanding of university administrators and inform best practices. The following research
question was investigated:
• What are the experiences that foster a STEM identity in transfer students that promote
science degree completion at a selective private research institution?
Qualitative Inquiry
Because this study sought a deeper understanding of how a phenomenon occurs as a part
of particular context, qualitative inquiry was employed as the method of study (Patton, 2002).
Transfer students were asked to describe how they make meaning of their identity as a STEM
major in an elite research institution. Through interviews, I have gained rich descriptions that
uncovered the understandings and experiences of the participants such that I can effectively
communicate their perspective to interested practitioners.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 33
Site Selection
West University (WU), a pseudonym, is a private, top tier research institution. The
central mission of WU is to develop human beings through the cultivation and enrichment of the
mind and spirit. WU is an elite, competitive institution with an acceptance rate of 18%. The
undergraduate population at WU is about 20,000 students, with one third of each incoming class
composed of transfer students. Over half of the transfer students at WU are from local
community colleges. WU has a six-year graduation rate of 96% for transfer students and 91% for
first time freshmen (IPEDS). Of the graduating class, 20% of the degrees conferred are for
STEM majors (NCES). Unfortunately, many natural science students graduate without the
ability to further a career related to their degree due to low grade point averages, lack of research
experience, and minimal extracurricular participation. Similar to national trends, about half of
the natural science students change their majors within the first year at WU due do the rigor, lack
of preparation and unexpected demands of the major.
While WU has many academic resources and extracurricular opportunities, there are not
any resources developed specifically for STEM transfer students or transfer students of any
major. This, in combination with the rigor of the major and elite nature of the university,
suggests that transfer students graduating with a STEM major have been able to navigate the
intricacies of the institution despite a lack of structured support and targeted programming.
Understanding how these students identified as STEM majors and successfully completed their
degree at an elite institution adds to the literature regarding the development of a STEM identity
and the needs of transfer students at different types of institutions. This also informs practitioners
about how to create and improve the support systems in place for STEM transfer students.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 34
Population and Sample
The purpose of this study is to understand how academic and social engagement foster a
STEM identity in transfer students. Since the goal is to understand what occurs and the
implications of what occurs, a purposeful sample was sought (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Purposive sampling is utilized when the research seeks to discover or understand a specific issue
as it relates to a specific population; therefore, the sampling that can provide the most insight of
central importance was applied. Purposeful sampling in qualitative studies is effective due to the
emphasis on an in-depth understanding of information rich cases (Patton, 2002). The attributes of
the population that provided the information rich interviews were senior transfer students close
to graduating with STEM majors.
The STEM majors considered were biological sciences, biochemistry, chemistry, math,
physics, and engineering. Other STEM majors, like neuroscience or human biology, were also
considered, although they included interdisciplinary components in the social sciences and
humanities as core requirements. This added a variable that is not present in other STEM majors
thereby potentially leading to the development of a STEM identity in a different way.
I reached out to STEM academic advisors and requested that they email their transfer
students that are seniors requesting their participation in the study. Based on the low number of
respondents and an initial screening of the demographics, I determined I would not be sampling
participants based on characteristics such as gender, age, or ethnicity.
Instrumentation and Sources of Evidence
This study utilized interviews and attempted to use focus groups as the primary sources
of data collection. In qualitative studies, interviews allow the researcher to understand things that
cannot be directly observed such as a person’s perspective or identity (Patton, 2002).
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 35
Additionally, interviews were necessary to learn how students interpret the world around them
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As this study sought to understand how STEM identity is developed
from the perspective of senior graduating students, interviews were the best method to collect
that information. These interviews were person-to-person with transfer students majoring in
STEM. The interview protocol developed was semi-structured, with a mix of structured
interview questions and open-ended questions. A semi-structured format was most suitable
because it allowed specific information to be collected from all the participants but also gave
them the flexibility to express their development of STEM identity in a way that was unique to
them (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This also gave me the flexibility to adjust the interview based
on the rapport created with the students and expand on any unique developments. The questions
that guided the interview were based on the literature defined elements of STEM identity
development through academic and social engagement, self-efficacy and integration theory.
Focus groups composed with purposive sampling were also attempted. Ideally 1-2 focus
groups with 6-8 different participants were to be conducted allowing a different type of data to
be collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This is unique because focus groups generate data
through the interactive discussion between the participants that cannot be generated through
individual interviews. Participants would have shared personal views, heard the views of others
and possibly refined their contribution to the discussion based on the comments of others in the
group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), focus groups work
best for topics people could discuss with one another but often do not, which appears to be the
case for STEM identity development. Unfortunately, all students opted out of the focus group
option.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 36
Data Collection
I drafted a participant request email and sent it to the STEM academic advisors for
distribution to all the senior transfer students in the majors listed previously. Interviews were
conducted with transfer students majoring in STEM. They were conducted on campus in a quiet
and private setting of their choosing allowing participants to feel more secure in answering
honestly and openly. The interviews were recorded with an audio recording device, with my
personal cell phone as a back-up recording device. Participants were made aware of the
recording device and consulted prior to the start of the recording.
Participant identities were anonymous and identified with pseudonyms. A participant’s
real name was never utilized at any point in the study, data collection, analysis or my personal
notes. Unique identifying details were not shared even at the expense of the study. At the
beginning of an interview, the participant received and reviewed an information sheet. This
informed the participant of the purpose of the study and how the data was protected. The
participant was advised that she or he may end the interview at any time to put them at ease. All
recordings and notes were saved on a password protected device and were not be saved online in
any capacity. Compensation was offered to the participants in the form of a $5 Amazon.com gift
card.
Data Analysis
The primary form of data collection was through recorded interviews. Each interview
was recorded and transcribed, verbatim. The data was simultaneously collected and analyzed.
This allowed the data and data collection to be focused, parsimonious and illuminating (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2015). The goal in analyzing the data was to make sense of the information by
consolidating, reducing and interpreting the interview responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 37
process involved identifying segments of data that were heuristic and interpretable in the absence
of any additional information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As each interview was transcribed and
analyzed, regularities in the data emerged. The initial phase of data analysis was expansive such
that I was able to identify any segment of data that was useful. This method of data analysis is
considered a form of coding known as open coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). After codes
emerge from the collected data, tentative categories were derived. In devising categories that are
systematic and informed by the study’s purpose, a priori categories were utilized. In the previous
chapter, the literature provided a definition of STEM identity that includes different forms of
social and academic engagement. This provided the initial collection of categories, as did
additional emerging pieces unique to this study.
Validity
Validity and reliability were approached through attention to a study’s conceptualization,
data collections, analysis and careful attention to the way in which the findings were presented.
In this study, I ensured validity and reliability through triangulation, member checking and
adequate engagement in the data collections. I interviewed multiple participants with different
perspectives. This process increased validity and reliability by countering the concerns that the
study is a result of a single source of information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Validity was also
ensured through member checks. I determined respondent validity by soliciting feedback
regarding my preliminary findings from the participants interviewed. This prevented me from
misinterpreting the meaning of the participants’ responses. This process also identified my own
biases and misunderstandings and better captured the perspectives of the students interviewed
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In order to get as close as possible to a participant’s understanding
of a phenomenon, I interviewed as many participants as I could until data saturation occurred,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 38
and no new information emerged from the collected data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I also
looked for variation in the data supporting alternative explanations. According to Patton (2002),
a purposeful search of data to support alternative explanations increased credibility. Failure to
find strong supporting evidence of alternative explanations increased confidence in the findings
and explanations presented. Finally, I explained my biases and dispositions regarding this
research. This allows the reader to understand how I have interpreted the data and my particular
values that have influenced the conclusions of this study (Maxwell, 2013).
Role of Researcher
In a qualitative study, the researcher’s perceptual lens influences the conduct and
conclusions of a study (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, it is especially imperative that qualitative
researchers disclose their biases and dispositions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I come from a
STEM educational background, majoring in Biochemistry. Throughout my experience, I found it
very difficult to identify as a science major and did not understand my role in the field during my
undergraduate and graduate studies. This experience has motivated my career decisions to work
in student services in STEM. In my professional experience, I find that many students find the
sciences to be especially challenging. In my experience working with transfer students in the
natural sciences, sense of belonging and identity seem to infiltrate most conversations. This
study was inspired by my personal experience advising transfer students majoring in the natural
sciences.
Conclusion
Chapter Three has outlined this dissertation’s methodology, transfer student sample, and
methods of data collection and analysis. The following chapter, Chapter Four, focuses on the
presentation of the qualitative data collected from the interviews and focus groups.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 39
Chapter Four: Data and Findings

The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences and factors that
support transfer students in their pursuit of a STEM major at an elite, private institution. This
study examined this understanding through the lens of social and academic integration, self-
efficacy, and the cultural wealth model. The research question driving this study is “What are the
experiences that foster a STEM identity in transfer students at a selective private research
institution that promote science degree completion?”
This chapter presents the findings of 14 interviews conducted with transfer students in
their final year of a STEM major. Many of the participants were either graduating in the semester
in which they were interviewed, while others only had one more semester of course work
remaining. Students were invited to participate in interviews and focus groups to share their
experiences. It should be noted that all participants opted out of the focus group option and were
only interested in participating in interviews. Their reasoning for this preference was not
explicitly expressed but participants did state having very limited availability and the desire for
anonymity.
In these interviews, students of different STEM majors shared their personal narratives,
experiences and motivations at West University. Participants discussed their interactions with
peers, university administrators, and faculty. The interview also delved into their relationship
with their STEM major, how they navigated the rigors and intricacies of their field of study and
where they found support. All interviews were conducted in a private administrative office.
Participants did not appear to be uncomfortable answering questions as demonstrated by their
body language and willingness to share personal information. Table 1 provides an overview of
the participants’ demographics and key factors that influenced their educational experience. The
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 40
participant’s major, prior institution and grade point average was collected to better contextualize
his/her responses and experiences. Of the 14 students interviewed, no two students were identical
in background or experience. It should be noted that participants were not explicitly asked about
key factors that influenced their time at West University. Rather, participants communicated the
significance of these elements by framing their answers with phrases like “as a veteran” or “since
I commute” or “because I have children” multiple times during the interview.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Name Major
Prior
Institution(s)
GPA Gender/Ethnicity Key Factors
Ann
Environmental
Studies
Private, 4-year 3.3 Female/Caucasian Out of state
Briana Biology Public, 4-year 3.4 Female/Caucasian Local to area
Catherine
Environmental
Studies
Public, 4-year 3.5 Female/Asian Local to area
Derrick Mathematics
Public 4-year
then local CC
3.3 Male/Black
Veteran, older,
1
st
generation
college student,
local to area
Elaine Biochemistry Public 4-year 3.2
Female/South
East Asian
In-state, father
attended West
U.
Francis Biochemistry
International,
then local CC
2.8
Female/Eastern
European
Commuter,
lives with
family, works
part-time, from
Eastern Europe
George Chemistry Local CC 2.8 Male/Latino
Older,
commuter,
married with
children, works
in family
business, from
local area
Hilary Mathematics
International,
then Local CC
3.3
Female/South
East Asian
Older,
commuter
married with
children, from
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 41
South East
Asia
Irene
Computational
Math
International 2.7
Female,
Caucasian
In-state works
part-time
John
Computational
Math
Public 4-year 2.9 Male/Latino
1
st
generation
college student,
from local area,
works part-
time
Luke Physics Local CC 3.6 Male/Latino
1st generation
college student,
from local area,
commuter,
lives with
family
Marcos
Physics/Computer
Science
Public 4-year,
then CC
2.1
Male/South East
Asian
In-state,
finances are
not an issue,
lives near
campus
Nathan
Math/Computer
Science
Public 4-year 3.6
Male/South East
Asian
In-state,
finances are
not an issue,
lives near
campus
Olivia Mathematics Local CC 3.2 Female/Asian
1
st
generation
college student,
from local area,
lives near
campus

Motivations in STEM
The overall goal of this study was to understand what experiences foster a STEM identity
in transfer students and promote science degree completion at an elite private institution. In order
to better understand their motivations and experiences as transfer students in STEM, the
participants were asked to share their motivations in choosing a STEM major and what
influenced their decision to continue in STEM rather than change to another major.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 42
Several findings emerged from the data. The following section summarizes some of those
findings and organized around the questions posed to participants in the interview.
The Joy of STEM
The majority of the participants pursued science due to the joy and delight they find in
the subject matter. This typically stemmed from a previous positive experience, like exposure in
primary or secondary school. These students were high achieving in science and math classes as
adolescents, developing an academic confidence, "I think science was the only thing that I felt
that I was really confident in, even as I was younger." This confidence in STEM turned into a
love for the field.
I think it's a really elegant field. I think it's really powerful the way you can use math to
predict things, and that's what really attracts me to STEM in general but physics in
particular. (Luke)
These early experiences and passion for STEM often motivated them to seek a career in STEM,
in which a degree in the sciences is necessary. Of these students, only Nathan was exposed to
science through a close family member, his father, and is following in his footsteps by pursuing
engineering. However, Nathan made it clear that his parent is not the reason for choosing to
further his studies in STEM. Two outliers chose STEM majors for very different reasons. While
many of the participants indicated that a science major is “needed” for their professional goal in
some capacity, only one participant chose science solely because of the desire to pursue a career
in the healthcare industry. It is important to note that a STEM major is not required for a career
in healthcare, but for this participant, it was the most strategic and effective way to complete a
college degree and the pre-health pre-requisites at the same time allowing her to pursue the
professional field of interest. The other outlier, George, chose to pursue science as an act of
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 43
defiance. Due to his background as a low-income, first-generation immigrant, and Latino male,
high school counselors and teachers inferred that his path would be in manual labor, as it was for
so many others with similar backgrounds. His pursuit of a STEM major was more of a personal
decision to rise above the expectations of society.
I think there was just this stereotype in high school and stereotype in life that you have to
go this particular path. You have to be a worker, you know? It's just something that, not
being allowed the opportunity motivated me more, I think, maybe. Subconsciously, it
probably made me fight for it more, saying, "How dare they think I can't do it?" But I
think that's only one of the main reasons I decided to do science, and specifically
chemistry, because I've always been fascinated with small, little molecules. That's always
got my attention. (George)
The STEM Commitment
While the participants had very similar reasons for pursuing a STEM major, the
motivations to persist in the major varied. However, one similarity these participants shared was
this intrinsic sense of commitment they felt “forced” them to complete a STEM degree no matter
the challenges or difficulties that ensued. For three of the participants, this commitment was
connected to their desire to make their parents, spouses, and children proud.
That's going to be the thing for me, is my family, my wife, my kids. I think that they're a
majority of the driving force for me. When I'm struggling a little bit, I always look back
to where I've been, what I've accomplished, and I look back at all the classes I've taken,
and I give myself, you can still do this. Look how much you've gotten so far. It's just a
couple more steps. (George)
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 44
For 75% of the respondents, the motivation to continue in the pursuit of a science degree comes
from the personal joy they feel when their curiosity is satisfied through learning more about
mathematical, chemical, biological and physical concepts in their respective fields. Participants
also persisted in STEM because of the positive impact it will have on current world problems.
Catherine proudly proclaimed, “My major is literally helping the world.”
Prior to transferring to West University, each of these students had decided to pursue a
career field that required a STEM degree. Although, some no longer wanted that same career in
STEM, the desire to be equipped with the tools necessary to be qualified for those jobs motivated
their commitment to a STEM major.
My dream to be a veterinarian got me through up until last year and then, I kind of started
losing the passion for vet school. I think it was a combination of how insanely hard the
bio major was and it was also people would ask me, "Oh, what are you gonna do after
you graduate?" I'd say vet school and I almost felt like I was lying…I had so much
passion for it, so my parents think that the reason why I changed my mind is because of
how hard being a bio major was that I'm subconsciously turning off any ability of taking
any more hard classes in my life. They think that if I get some space, a few years of not
taking classes like genetics, that I will find the passion for it again and be recharged
again. In order to keep that option open, I'm taking my last two prerequisites now, to
make sure. If I do end up changing my mind, I don't want to look back and be like, "Oh
well, I didn't take all the prerequisites so now I'm out of luck with that. The career path is
basically, what kept me motivated. (Briana)
Another factor in about 50% of the responses was the time to degree completion. Many
of these students did not want to change majors to a field outside of STEM mainly because they
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 45
did not want to risk delaying their graduation date. Although they believed their academic
performance would be stronger and grade point average would be higher in the humanities or
social sciences, they had already taken so many classes towards a STEM degree and did not want
those “classes to go to waste.” Therefore, although the major was difficult, and many participants
felt their grades did not accurately represent their understanding and ability, they were
committed to completing their STEM major and graduating as quickly as possible.
Transfer-STEM Experience
Competition and Community
To gain more insight about the participant’s overall experience at West University as a
STEM major, participants shared their most and least enjoyable part of their major and
experience at the university. When speaking about their majors, about sixty percent of
participants enjoyed the curriculum that allowed the major to be applicable to current events,
classroom labs and/or personal research. Thirty percent of the respondents most appreciated the
access to academic and professional networks provided by STEM faculty. Both participants
majoring in environmental studies described the sense of community established by the major
due to the approachability of the professors and small classroom sizes. They also indicated that
the environmental studies major did not have a negative competitive student culture, unlike that
of other science majors.
The competitive nature of some science departments was corroborated by participants in
majors such as biology and biochemistry. Not only was the competitive environment of the
department the part they disliked the most, but it also increased their sense of isolation.
Participants described their peers as “cut-throat” and “self-centered,” stating, “I've asked students
for help and they've denied me cause the curve is such a big deal here.” The majority of the
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 46
remaining responses regarding the least enjoyable part of their major was academically oriented.
Participants cited a core course where he/she experienced difficulty understanding and applying
the material leading to “sleepless nights,” “always feeling behind,” “scared to ask for help,”
and/or “questioning if I am cut out for this.”
Faculty and Teaching Assistants
Where faculty interactions were praised previously, teaching assistants contributed to
dissatisfaction with the major. TA support is extremely important as this is usually the only
source of assistance available to students in upper division STEM courses. Two participants in
different majors in the physical sciences expressed that the discussion sections, led by teaching
assistants (TAs), did not provide the supplemental support promised. The role of the TA is to be
“knowledgeable and helpful.” However, they experienced many TAs that were unapproachable
and did not have strong teaching skills.
Here, I've had mean, overly harsh TA’s, just because it was hard when [they were] an
undergrad and it's just a really hard, cutthroat environment. It's not like that in any other
majors, which was frustrating for me cause I had friends who just couldn't relate, at all.
It's just frustrating how hard it is. (Catherine)
This discouraged them from seeking assistance from TAs and the participants accepted that they
will “just struggle in that class.” For some participants, their whole identity revolved around
being a doctor or a scientist, so when they were unable to understand material on their own and
were uncomfortable seeking assistance from peers or TA’s, they felt isolated and began to
question their academic identity, which for some, was also tied to their personal identity.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 47
Varied Experiences at the Receiving Institution
Participants most enjoyed the access to social, professional or academic networks they
were not privy to in their previous institution. A third of participants enjoyed social experiences,
like attending university social and athletic events, and meeting others with similar backgrounds,
like other student-veterans. This was especially true for Derrick, “I think the veteran's
community actually has gotten me. If it wasn't for them, I would literally leave West University
without a friend.” Participants also valued the exposure to a diverse racial and ethnic student
population, which then exposed them to a diversity of thoughts and beliefs they had not
encountered previously. Ann shared with appreciation, “I've just met the coolest people which
have expanded my horizons and taught me a lot about life.” This led some participants to
question their personal beliefs, while others learned to respect peers who believe differently. The
other third of participants appreciated the professional networks accessed through faculty,
student organization and alumni connections. The final third of participants most enjoyed the
academic opportunities granted to them at West University, such as learning advanced
mathematical theories and research experiences. Briana said, “I think it’s being a research
university, especially for people in the natural sciences, is really cool, because we actually get to
have a hands-on experience with that.” Multiple students felt privileged for the opportunity to
participate in advanced research opportunities at local natural reserves or on the same campus,
“it's just so cool that I can walk out of class and in five minutes, be in my lab.” It should be noted
that one participant expressed there was not anything specific she enjoyed at West University.
Her priorities were to complete her degree and help her family. That prevented her from
immersing herself in the college experience.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 48
Challenging Transitions. In thinking about the least enjoyable experience at West
University, 50% of the participants thought back to their first semester at West. For these
students, the orientation experience was not as welcoming as it was intended to be. Participants
found the registration process to be overwhelming because many courses were at capacity and
therefore not available to them. Course selection was based on what was required and what was
available rather than what was best for them in their first semester at an elite institution.
Additionally, each group was separated by major at orientation, so participants did not easily
meet other science majors, “It was only me and the advisor for advisory, so I didn’t know there
are so many [STEM transfers].”
Since a community was not established during orientation and the university does not
have a transfer center, many sought a sense of community through student organizations. Four
participants felt marginalized during this process because their student status was questioned by
the organization. Participants also felt the student organizations emphasized “who you know”
and the privilege you brought as deciding factors for club admission. While participants
personally enjoyed the diversity of the campus, there was a sense that “diversity is not very
celebrated” campus-wide nor in their major department; Derrick stated he was known as “the
black kid” in the math major.
Of the students living in student housing, half of the participants sought but did not find a
sense community with their roommates. Housing placements were made based on availability
and affordability, so roommates were randomly selected. None of the participants felt unsafe in
their housing but were sometimes uncomfortable because their roommates were not inclusive or
inviting. Elaine expressed in sadness, “I was just having a tough time adjusting, so it was very
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 49
hard for me to sit in my room and just watch TV every day, even though I love TV, but it was
very lonely.”
Finally, in one participant’s first two months at West University, her drink was tampered
with at a fraternity party. Because she was with a trusted friend, she safely made it to her
apartment and awoke seven hours later, unharmed. Due to that experience, she secluded herself
socially and did not attend large events for an extended period of time.
The other 40% of responses were related to dissatisfaction with general university issues
and administration. For example, one participant strongly disliked the bureaucracy of a large
institution, where it felt as though policies are more “one size fits all,” this resulted in an inability
to pursue a major/minor combination despite his strong academic performance. Two participants
least enjoyed the high cost of tuition, even though finances were not a hindrance for one of
respondents. While one participant previously indicated she did not enjoy any part of West
University, another participant did not dislike anything about West.
STEM Identity
Traits of STEM People
To understand what experiences at West University fostered STEM identity in transfer
students, it was necessary to establish the characteristics and qualities the participants identified
with a STEM person. The goal was to prompt participants to think about STEM as an identity,
then verbalize the traits associated with that identity. It was vital that participants first created a
baseline for the traits of a STEM person in others because many of the participants down-played
their belonging and accomplishments in STEM. Although unprompted, participants often began
by identifying the stereotypical traits of a science person or referenced a popular culture
character, like “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” then the traits of actual STEM person they know.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 50
Very intense, all they do is talk about science, and they're always in their lab inventing or
whatever and that was how I grew up thinking of professors. I think in a lot of TV shows
they're portrayed as these very quirky guys with gray hair standing up and they don't really
have social skills, they don't know how to talk, and they're very alone and very scary and
intense. So that's literally what I thought professors were going to be like. (Elaine)
Two math participants, one who self-identified as Asian, experienced a racial component to the
stereotypical mathematician, due to the underlying implication that Asian students will be math
majors and will be academically advanced.
Once participants moved beyond the stereotypical characteristics, participants described a
STEM person as someone who is passionate about the field of science, who is “able to think
abstractly and apply abstract concepts to the real world,” one who is “inquisitive,” “logical,”
“analytical,” “hard-working,” “research-oriented,” and “talks about it in their social circles.”
None of the participants provided gendered responses and specified they were describing their
professors, teaching assistants or very advanced peers. Half of the participants included the
social inclinations, or lack thereof, when describing a STEM person, “They sacrifice a little bit of
the social aspect for that intellect aspect.” The participants majoring in the biological sciences
differentiated between a STEM person and a person majoring in STEM to pursue medicine or
other health care fields. To the participants, pre-health STEM majors are not “real scientists”
because pre-health students are grade motivated rather than understanding motivated, “they just
want the A.”
Personal STEM Identity
In thinking about the characteristics of a STEM person, participants were asked to reflect
on their own qualities and characteristics that foster their STEM identity. The participants
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 51
described their STEM identity in its current form and only referenced their time at West
University. All the participants answered the question similarly, describing a combination of
enthusiasm towards science and a mentality that identifies them as a STEM person.
The most important thing, I think curiosity to know more, I think that's the best trait a
scientist can ever have. You being curious and you scratching at the surface will get you
some results, whether it's progression or it's start all over, you're going to get somewhere.
That, I think, is the fundamental drive that any scientist needs, is they need to just be
curious and scratch beyond the surface. You have to keep going. I feel like that's what I
have. Even in my classes, I go beyond. I try to figure out what's the next step? What's the
previous? Where did I go wrong? Even after my pre-labs are done, I try to get them back
and I try to go over it again and rework whatever I messed up on. (George)
Participants described a love of their respective STEM field that motivates them to learn about
theories and concepts beyond course requirements, then connecting this information to material
from other subjects. Participants were constantly thinking about the field, going as far as trying
to apply these advanced concepts to their day-to-day activities and routines. About half of the
participants were not just passionate about learning science, but through their understanding and
research, wanted to contribute to the advancement of STEM fields. According to 60% of the
participants, their science identity is tied to their mentality. Concepts are analyzed in a “logical,”
“formulaic” and “structured” method. Answers are data driven, “precise” and “detail oriented.”
Elaine commented, “I just really like observing things and learning about them and learning the
science behind it, why does this happen or why is it like this?” For these participants, their
STEM identity drives them to question and delve deeper into the information rather than accept
facts at face value.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 52
While all participants identified as a science person in some way, their sense of STEM
identity oscillated. Elaine shared her doubts, “Sometimes I think I'm not meant for the field, but
sometimes I do think I am.” Over half of the participants described a personality trait or activity
outside of science that diminished their STEM identity.
I grew up thinking like science people are very focused only on science, there's nothing
else to them, so that's why I also thought, "Oh, I'm not a science person because I love
doing other things, too, like going outside.” (Elaine)
Thirty five percent of participants stated personality characteristics like “being social,” “laid
back,” not as “disciplined and driven,” not as “organized,” and “out-spoken.” Three participants
only wanted to learn what was being taught in the classroom and had no intention of learning
STEM to develop new concepts or technologies to further the field. Two other participants felt
that by strongly disliking or “hating” aspects of the STEM field they identified less as a STEM
person. Only one participant indicated his race as the reason he identifies less as a STEM person.
You know, definitely a different color. Now, I don't want to make it like an issue or a
topic, but as a minority, the moment you step in, you look around, you already know.
And what's interesting about, it's like, "I know I'm smart, but I walk in and I'm the only
Black kid," you know? So. I think that's what makes me a little bit different. (Derrick)
For Derrick, the lack of Black males as professors or peers in his major department made him
feel like an outsider in STEM despite his passion and science-oriented mentality. Finally, two
participants responded that they fully identified as STEM persons.
Despite the many ways a student may identify as a STEM person, participants felt less
like a STEM person because they did not think they are as smart as their science peers.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 53
I think grades determine how smart somebody is. But also how I feel about myself
around the other students. Sometimes they ask certain questions, I have no clue ...
sometimes I gotta ask, "What class are we in?" What are they seeing that I'm not seeing,
okay? So I definitely know, even on certain types of questions, professors will be like,
"Oh that's a good question," I don't even understand the question for me to understand the
answer. So, I know I'm not the smartest. (Derrick)
This sentiment was echoed by other participants when they did not understand concepts during a
lecture and felt their peers grasped the material more easily.
A lot of things don't come easily to me. I feel like a lot of my classmates, they'll see it
once and they got it. And then I'll be up at night like, "Oh, finally. It finally clicked." And
it takes a lot more effort for me to internalize some of the information than it does for
some of my peers. (Luke)
Experiences fostering a STEM Identity
Building a strong STEM identity builds confidence and commitment to the STEM field
(Conklin, Dahling & Garcia, 2013). This is especially significant when students experience an
academically rigorous semester and their grades are not representative of their diligence. Table 2
summarizes the three components of a strong STEM identity and the specific practices and/or
people that strengthened STEM identity for participants of this study.
Table 2
How Participants Experienced a STEM Identity
Performance Competence Recognition
Practicing Science Demonstrating Knowledge
Acknowledged by Meaningful
Others
Hands-on lab work
Wearing a lab coat
Presenting at a conference
Faculty
Primary Investigators
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 54
Understanding STEM
language
Solving complex problems
Talking to professors about
STEM

Explaining science to others
(peers/class) well
Volunteering to solve a
problem in class
Asking “good” questions

Post-Doctoral Researchers &
Graduate Students

STEM Performance When exploring the specific activities these students participated in
that supported their place in STEM, all of the participants identify as a STEM person when they
are actively engaging in STEM-based activities. However, the activity varied based on the
participant’s major. For example, all of the participants majoring in biological and physical
sciences performed science by conducting laboratory work. That can mean mixing chemicals to
synthesize a compound for a lab course, reading scientific journals to compare best methods
when using a spectroscopy machine, or testing water quality in an off- campus research facility.
Participants not only stated they were conducting research but were very specific about how,
where and even what they were wearing.
Definitely labs and the hands-on experiences. Testing water quality…wearing a lab coat
makes me feel super science-y, to be honest. Following procedures, obviously, you have
to be super careful or meticulous when it comes to experimenting. (Catherine)
Participants in mathematics and engineering majors performed STEM activities by solving
complex math problems, building applications and assisting their peers with similar projects. For
this group of students, understanding the “language” of science, then translating it to a peer, not
only proved that they can and are performing science, but also, they can perform an advanced
concept that is not easily understood by everyone. For two participants, active participation in
STEM organizations contributed to their STEM identity. Finally, one participant’s, Derrick,
STEM identity was first established when he found himself conversing about STEM with his
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 55
professors. Once professors began to recognize him and greet him on campus, his STEM identity
was solidified: “Professors recognize you. So anytime they see you, they say hi, so they actually
recognize you as a STEM student.”
Similar to their personal STEM identity, some participants felt the need to frame their
STEM performance with self-deprecating phrases.
I'm definitely one of the dumber math majors, because everyone's just so smart…I kinda
know what I'm doing. Especially with the lower classes, I know what I'm doing, and I
know how to study for math, and people ... I've not just helped people with math, but I've
become close with people over trying to help them learn math. (Irene)
Competence in STEM A layer of STEM identity development is competence, the ability
to demonstrate the knowledge and understanding of science (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). To
determine how this impacted the transfer students’ development of STEM identity at West
University, participants were asked how knowledge in STEM was demonstrated, then how they
demonstrated that knowledge. For the majority of the participants, STEM knowledge is
demonstrated in a public forum, in front of other students in the same field or other researchers.
For example, presenting research at a conference or, at a more local level, answering a question
posed by the professor during a lecture. Knowledge can also be demonstrated by asking
questions during a lecture. For multiple participants, asking a question did not indicate lack of
understanding; rather it was an ability to process the presentation conceptually and inquire about
or make advanced connections. Similarly, participants reported science knowledge can be
demonstrated by explaining scientific concepts and theories articulately. Participants who
worked with complex models and broke down data in an organized and detailed manner felt that
this not only demonstrates science knowledge, but it also promotes science ability in others,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 56
encouraging participants to further their own STEM identity. Many participants referenced
specific professors at West University who modeled this behavior.
He invites you to make a mistake. It might sound kind of dumb, but he's telling you, "Do
what you can and what you can, and I'll guide you through it." I feel like that's the only
class that I've felt that confident that I'm willing to go in front of the class and expose
myself, you know? At first, it was scary because it's a trust. You're like, "Oh, if I go up
there, is he going to butcher me?" But then once you cross that line, you realize, "I put
my trust in good hands." I'm free to do it, and now I volunteer like it's nothing. He breaks
it down so calmly and detailed and gives you confidence in the process and lets you build
on it…it's the way he looks at you and the way he tells you good job, move there. You
feel confident and you feel like he's supportive. He's a good guy. (George)
As we delved into their personal demonstration of knowledge in science, participants said
they demonstrate knowledge by asking “good questions” in class, indicating to their peers that
they are actively engaged in the material. Also, volunteering to solve a problem in front of the
classroom demonstrated so much science knowledge that they have the confidence to make a
mistake in front of others. Conversely, when a student is called upon by the professor to answer
a question or explain a concept, and is able to do so clearly and concisely, that student
demonstrated knowledge in science. One participant added to that, being called upon by your
first name has even larger implications of science knowledge. If the professor knows a student by
name, then other students assume that student has demonstrated knowledge in science in the past
and is “trusted” by the professor to demonstrate knowledge in class without any preparation.
Nathan described a time in a computer science class where he emailed the TA of the class an
article with a novel algorithm.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 57
I forgot exactly what the problem was. But I remember I emailed his TA saying like, "Oh
look, this just came out like 20 minutes ago. Obviously, you wanna read about it because
it's in your field." And then the next day I went to class, and the professor asked me to
come up and tell everyone what it was and describe it and why it was so interesting and
groundbreaking. So, I guess in that way I involuntarily had to demonstrate knowledge.
(Nathan)
Participants also described reading academic journals, understanding novel research and being
called upon by their peers to answer questions in a way that results in an informed conversation
as ways they demonstrated science knowledge. Participants also demonstrated STEM knowledge
in internships and at job interview by applying the terminology learned in the classroom to real-
world examples.
When describing their personal STEM identity and STEM performance, participants used
self-deprecating language. However, that language was absent when describing their competence
in STEM. According to these students, competence in STEM was demonstrated publicly and
often accompanied by acknowledgment from the professor suggesting that the public validation
of competence was internalized.
Faculty Recognition STEM faculty influences were mentioned constantly throughout
the interviews, even when unprompted. For many participants, faculty serve as the model
“science person.” As a result, participants who were able to join a research group on campus
expressed a stronger connection to science than those who did not participate in on-campus
research. Participants described the process of securing research opportunities as “hard” and
“intimidating,” as students are required to reach out to these professors directly and request to
meet. For these transfer students this process is generally intimidating as they are have not
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 58
enrolled in enough science classes to know the professors and demonstrate ability and
competence through coursework. Additionally, due to transfer shock or transfer coma, many
participants expressed not having a strong enough GPA at the receiving institution to warrant
them a place in a research group. However, once a research group was secured, every transfer
student interviewed participating in research expressed a positive and professional relationship
with the research lead, the Primary Investigator (PI). The PI provided support during the research
process, trusted the participant to be a member of the research team, served as a recommender
for graduate programs and expanded the participant’s professional network upon request. The PI
and other lab members, like doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers, not only mentored
the participants but they validated their presence in science by seeking the participant’s opinion.
I think it's so cool we work on different things…And so like that makes me feel much
more like a science person than sometimes my classes. But, yeah, I love it... And they're
letting me be a part of their research and they ask my input and ask what I think we
should go from there, like if something's not working, they're like, "What do you think?"
And I just love the trouble shooting part of it, too, where something goes wrong, "Let's
figure it out." (Elaine)
Conclusion
This chapter presents the findings of 14 interviews with transfer students in STEM at an
elite research institution. Participants shared their narratives navigating the intricacies of a STEM
major. These students primarily developed their STEM identity through active engagement in
STEM activities such as research, demonstrating STEM competence, and recognition as a STEM
person by peers in the major or faculty. Chapter Five examines the data through integration
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 59
theory, the theory of self-efficacy and the cultural wealth model. Chapter Five also offers
recommendations for practice and the needs for future research.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 60

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion

The goal of this study was to advance knowledge of the needs of transfer students as they
navigate the multifaceted complexities of the student experience, intricacies of the STEM degree,
and the bureaucracies of an elite receiving institution. This study sought to better understand the
experiences that develop a strong sense of STEM identity in transfer students. The narratives
shared in Chapter Four examined the motivations and experiences of transfer STEM students at
an elite receiving institution. The transfer student experience is significant because about half of
enrolled undergraduates began their post-secondary institution at a different two- or four-year
institution. However, university administrators at receiving institutions have a limited
understanding of the needs of this group of students, often leading to institutional neglect and
STEM attrition (Nunez & Yoshimi; Townsend & Wilson, 2008-2009). This study employed a
qualitative method to gain a deeper understanding of how student experiences fostered a stronger
STEM identity, leading to degree completion. Interviews were conducted one-on-one in an office
on campus that allowed the participant the privacy and comfort to speak freely.
Chapter Five offers a summary of the findings in Chapter Four, and examines data
through integration theory, theory of self-efficacy and the cultural wealth model. Additionally,
this chapter includes recommendations for practice on how to better serve this group of students,
and suggests further research needed to aid in the development of educational models for transfer
students in STEM.
Discussion of the Data
The data from this study is based on the one-on-one interviews of 14 transfer students
majoring in STEM at an elite private institution. Each of the students interviewed were in their
senior year, graduating in the semester in which the interview was conducted or the following
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 61
semester. Since the interview every participant that was set to graduate that semester has since
successfully completed the STEM requirements and attained a college degree. The participants
with a later degree date are still on track to complete their STEM degree.
Examining Integration Theory and the Transfer Process
Integration theory suggests that retention and student success can be understood in
context of how deeply a student incorporates the values and norms of the college into their own
value system (Tinto, 1987). This infers that non-traditional students must conform to
successfully integrate and succeed at the institution. Underrepresented students “integrate” by
developing a sense of belonging through their interactions with academic and social domains of
the institution (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). To understand how this applies to transfer students as
they develop a STEM identity, participants were asked about their interactions with academic
and social domains such as advisement, peer interactions and participation in student
organizations.
Administrative Integration
Relationships with Academic Advisors. Transfer student integration and success
increases when students have meaningful interactions with academic advisors, which positively
influenced future course selection and increased institutional knowledge (D’Amico et al., 2014).
At West University, the academic advisor is the first university administrator who communicates
with students upon their matriculation, acknowledging that this student is now an official
member of the institution. Transfer students, like first-year students, first meet their academic
advisor during orientation. Students are required to communicate with their academic advisors
in-person or via email, at least once a semester, to discuss registration and degree progress. For
all of the STEM majors at West University, students are assigned an advisor based on their
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 62
major. Academic advisors change if the student changes majors or the advisor leaves the
advising department. Students with multiple majors or minors have multiple academic advisors
specializing in a respective major or minor. Although participants were asked about all of their
academic advisors, when they had multiple, they indicated that the advisor they communicate
most with is the STEM advisor because their “main focus” is the STEM major and one can “get
lost too quickly” in the curriculum and intricacies of the major.
Consistent with the literature (D’Amico et al., 2014), participants felt a stronger sense of
belonging to the institution and the major when they had meaningful interactions with their
academic advisor. Overall participants expressed a positive relationship with their academic
advisor, but the nature of the positive experience was different. Some participants indicated the
relationship was transactional, therefore not very meaningful, in that the advisor only quickly
responded to email answering questions and was helpful upon the participant’s request. About
half of the participants indicated that they were not interested in a different type of relationship.
The relationship, I guess would best be described as you walk into a Starbucks, you see a
barista and you ask for coffee. And then you get your coffee and you leave. It’s not like I
need something else from the barista at Starbucks, right. I just want my coffee. (Nathan)
For this group of students, although their relationship with academic advisors was positive, it
was not necessarily meaningful. Not addressed in the literature is that this did not seem to impact
the participant’s sense of belonging and integration because he/she was not seeking validation or
a sense of community from their academic advisors.
Other participants described a friendlier relationship, where the student felt they can trust
that their advisor has his/her best interest in mind when course planning and informing the
student of university policy.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 63
Actually, she is one of the best people I've met here. If there is anything like, oh, the first
thing I'm thinking, "Oh, let me tell this to [my advisor], let me hear her advice, what does
she have to say about this decision, or ... So, I'm thinking about whether master's or post-
bacc, I'm thinking about her opinion. She is really helpful. (Francis)
As reported in the literature, not only did participants with a strong and meaningful relationship
with their advisor increase their sense of belonging and integration to the institution but they also
felt a stronger connection to their major (D’Amico et al., 2014).
It should be noted three participants in three different STEM majors grouped their
academic advisors with university faculty, indicating they did not understand the difference
between faculty and staff. These participants also expected the academic advisors to have a
STEM background, which was not the case. When advisors could not assist students with STEM
career-oriented pieces or administrative items, even if the information did not fall under the
advisor’s purview, participants considered that a reflection of the advisor’s incompetence. This
resulted in feelings of frustration with the administration which, coupled with other challenges
they faced, made them feel stigmatized and marginalized (Lester et al., 2013; Zhang & Allen,
2015).
Faculty Interactions. D’Amico et al. (2014) found that increased transfer student
integration and success occurred when students reported meaningful interactions with faculty
members. Seventy eight percent of participants reported an overall positive relationship with all
of their faculty at West University, 14% said their relationship was non-existent and 8% reported
their relationship was neutral. Consistent with the literature, positive relationships with faculty at
West University meant the participant felt welcomed by the faculty member to ask questions in
person or via email, go to office hours, and ask for academic support when and if needed
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 64
(D’Amico et al., 2014; Townsend & Wilson, 2008-2009). Participants who felt neutral about
their faculty interactions indicated that they felt comfortable enough to ask questions about
course work when needed but did not have the desire to develop any other connection. The
participants who did not have relationships with faculty also expressed they did not seek those
relationships because they did not feel they were warranted. Similar to the experiences with
academic advisors, this did not impact a participant’s sense of belonging to the institution or their
sense of STEM identity because that relationship was not significant for that particular
participant.
A few themes emerged when transfer students participating in this study discussed their
interactions with non-STEM faculty. For some participants, any course taken outside of STEM
was a general education (GE) course requirement. These classes were typically large and only
taken because the course fit in the participant’s schedule, rather than out of the desire to learn a
different discipline. Any participant in that situation, about 30%, did not seek a relationship with
GE faculty because of class size and the lack of interest in the material. Participants felt that
some professors did not put effort into developing a sense of community because students were
“forced” to take their course. Participants who were interested in and took classes in different
disciplines, about 43%, found relationships with non-STEM professors to be more easily
developed and deeper in nature. Derrick shared, “I think that STEM faculty's just a little bit
harder to build a rapport with than other majors.” Students cited the non-STEM faculty member
would create a safe space in the classroom.
I would say, 140 or 120 students in a lecture room, but he was so close to everyone that
he knew everybody by name. He was friends with everybody, he was so helpful during
office hours, not only during lecture, and he would ask questions and the way of teaching,
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 65
I would say, would connect the entire class. And I myself felt that in that class, we were
all sisters and brothers, like all siblings sitting there. But in other classes, I feel that I'm
alone, if it's a new class, I feel like I'm alone and everybody else is like friends or
something. He would ask questions and then connect, for example, your answer with
mine and then have us talk to each other about that same question, how we're
contradiction each other or how we're helping each other to answer that one question. It
was interesting. (Francis)
Participants had mixed experiences with STEM faculty. A few STEM professors were described
as approachable and welcoming in the classroom, inviting students to try different methods to
solve the same problem, without risk of ridicule.
My genetics professor now is actually ... He's really good at connecting with the students.
He'll say, "Does anyone have questions?" And, always try and engage with everyone. If
no one raises their hand, he's like, "Are you guys awake? He's like, "Please email me if
you have questions over the weekend." I've had so many professors just not ever say that.
(Briana)
Participants also felt that difficulty in building rapport with STEM faculty was due the nature of
the STEM class, “systematic” and in a “lecture” format.
A lot of my math professors don't really try and get to know their students. It's more of
like, "I'll teach you, I'll be here for you," but that's about it, and so even the professor I
love this semester, he didn't know my name. I was kind of sad about that, but then I
understand. There's like 30 students, and some people show up, some people don't. Even
if they show up, you remember their face not their name. (Olivia)
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 66
Several participants were too shy or felt “not smart enough” to ask a question, fearing the
professor will judge them for not already knowing the answer. Many participants felt that
teaching is not a priority to most STEM faculty members, where non-STEM faculty are
primarily in higher education to teach and share their knowledge with others.
You totally feel that. Most of my professors have been like that where they're just
droning on through the lectures. They hate being there. They hate you. They don't care
whether you do well or not. (Irene)
Also, participants felt intimidated by the amount of knowledge STEM professors possess, but
this was diminished once the STEM faculty related to the students.
My organic chemistry professor, he was like, "I got a C in O Chem." And I'm like,
"What? You're an O Chem professor now, that's crazy." So, they tell you ... I love it, I
know not all students like it, but I love it when professors talk about their relationship to
science because then it makes me feel like I'm not crazy, but it just makes me feel like,
oh, you've been there. So that's how I relate to them and I love when they joke around.
(Elaine)
Consistent with the literature, transfer students at West participating in this study did not always
find it easy to interact with faculty, especially STEM faculty. However, when a comfortable
space was created in the classroom, the slow integration process strengthened the participant’s
sense of belonging to the institution and his/her major (D’Amico et al., 2014; Townsend &
Wilson, 2008-2009).
Social Integration. Integration theory suggests that students must not only connect with
the academic domain of the university, but also the social domain in order to increase the
likelihood of persistence (Tinto, 1987, 2993). For participants, connecting with peers in STEM is
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 67
an integral part of the transfer student’s integration at West University. Consistent with the
literature, participants defined integration with their peers as joining student organizations and
clubs of the academic or social nature (Borglum & Kubala, 2000; Deil-Amen, 2011; Lester et al.,
2013; Townsend & Wilson, 2006). Of the 14 students interviewed, four participants indicated
that they did not have any involvement with student organizations, because they were “too busy”
juggling their studies and other obligations, like family or jobs. Of the participants involved in
organizations, three participants were not very actively involved. Initially joining the
organizations for opportunities to connect with other students and/or the major but the time
commitment was more than they were willing to devote.
Because I didn't have as many friends my first year, I did try and join more social groups,
but I felt like they were too much of a commitment for me because, once again, my
motivation to coming here, I worked so hard to get here. I wasn't going to try and play
with my grades for social life, so I dabbled in social groups, but didn't. I just went to big
events, and then just left it out there, because they had like weekly meetings, and I didn't
want to do that. (Olivia)
Other participants were able to spend more time on campus and balance their academics with
other obligations. Seven participants were actively involved in student organizations, the
majority of which were social organizations because they were seeking an opportunity to meet
students and “take a break” from STEM. These participants also identified as athletes, dancers
and/or of a unique cultural background, therefore these social organizations provided them with
an outlet to develop that part of their identity and “just be myself.” The participants that cited
academic student organizations sought these groups to connect with other students in the major,
develop academic and professional networks, and increase their access to the university. No
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 68
matter what type of organization chosen, each of these students indicated that their involvement
was never a priority over their academic advancement.
Although many participants prioritized academics over actively participating in student
organizations, many still saw the value in interacting with their peers in the major. In fact, 80%
of the participants expressed feeling “lonely” and struggled with social integration. Many
participants felt “everyone already had their friend circle” or “study group” so other students
were not very open and inviting. When the major’s organization did not promote integration,
participants reported connecting with their peers in STEM through course interactions.
Participants felt more comfortable approaching other students they did not know by asking
questions about classwork, exams, or study strategies. Some participants reported offering help
to others as a way to begin a conversation with a peer. Because lecture halls were large, and/or
the class material did not warrant a group discussion, the opportunity to have this conversation
occurred in the few minutes before lecture started, once class was dismissed, or during
discussion sections. Unfortunately, over half of the transfer students participating in this study
had very little interaction with their peers in the major, which they have accepted as a reality of
their experience as a STEM major at West University. These findings are consistent with the
literature reporting transfer students choose academics over social interaction (Lester et al.,
2013). However, all but one of the transfer students interviewed at West University indicated that
they desired, sought and valued social interaction with peers, contradicting previous studies
finding transfer students not interested in on-campus socialization (Borglum & Kubala, 2000).

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 69
Drawing on Cultural Wealth for Successful Transfer
Support Agents
The cultural wealth model identified the following types of capital as the networks and
skills non-traditional students utilized to navigate a traditional educational system: aspirational,
linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistance (Yosso, 2005). Consistent with the
literature, transfer students in this study found building a community on campus and “actually
believing you can succeed” as the “hardest part” strongly diminishing their STEM identity. To
persist in STEM despite this difficulty, many participants drew upon their aspirational capital.
Their “hopes and dreams” to have a successful career and elevate their status for their families
motivated their persistence even during the challenges experienced at West University.
Academic Support. When navigating academic matters, transfer students participating in
this study relied most heavily on their navigational capital to maneuver situations. At West
University, navigational capital took the form of participants relying on their own skills to
navigate educational spaces that may be hostile or unsupportive (Yosso, 2005). Over 57% of
participants indicated that they begin by finding information on their own. “I always tried to keep
to myself and just think, "I'll figure this out. I have to figure this out." Participants utilized online
searches and forums when seeking course information and even professor recommendations.
These same students also felt like they should be resourceful when seeking academic assistance
by watching instructional videos online and academic lectures uploaded from other elite
institutions, with the hopes that seeing the concept explained in a different manner would be
more helpful for them. Even though participants did not always feel comfortable asking others
for assistance, their need to succeed outweighed their self-doubt and discomfort. Therefore,
participants sought academic support from professors, tutors, lab mates, or peers in the same
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 70
major if needed. While many students sought academic advisors to navigate university
administrative matters, these students did not think of them as a resource until asked specifically
about major related matters like course scheduling and university policy.
Social Support. The cultural wealth model accounts for the experiences of the non-
traditional student as they utilize the capital from their community to thrive in learning
environments established to support the traditional student and marginalizing others (Yosso,
2005). While the cultural wealth model predominantly addresses the experiences of students of
color, the experiences of transfer students in this study were similar. Participants very rarely
accessed institutional agents when navigating personal and social matters. Only one student
utilized university counseling services and did so because her friend, a strong mental wellness
advocate, walked her to counseling. One other student sought support about personal matters
from a non-STEM professor. For social and personal matters, participants relied mostly on their
familial capital, seeking support from friends, family and community networks to improve their
college experience (Yosso, 2005). Consistent with Yosso’s (2005) studies regarding students of
color, transfer students at West felt marginalized by the university and found more support from
the community they trusted.
Since it's such a big school, [transfer students] just get lost and they have to figure it out
on their own. I was lucky that I was from here so I knew people here already…If I was
from another state or something, I don't know if I would've lasted because how do I find
this class? How do I do this? I just didn't know anything. What's the website where all
this stuff is posted? No one tells you that stuff. I only knew that because of people I knew
who started here in the fall from my high school and from things I've known programs in
my life. (Olivia)
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 71
Participants felt so marginalized that they sought their family’s support even though their
families did not understand the intricacies of their degrees.
So the most my mom does, which is what she can do, is just moral support. Sometimes I
just need to talk about a professor or a research advisor who's pissing me off. And she
listens because it's just a human problem, but when it goes beyond that she can't help
even if she wanted. (Luke)
Self-Support. Self-efficacy is a theoretical framework founded on the general belief that
one would only attempt what they cannot fail (Bandura, 1994). However, students with a high
sense of self-efficacy believe they can master challenges and accomplish difficult tasks
(Bandura, 1994). At West University, the STEM curriculum presents an abundance of challenges
especially for transfer students. Initially, advisors develop course plans to be balanced taking into
consideration the rigors of the curriculum. Unfortunately, much of that is disregarded because
class space is limited and transfer students are of the last group of students to register during
orientation. Also, high tuition cost drives students to only take the minimum units required to
graduate in the shortest amount of time. As a result, transfer students often begin their first
semester at West University taking classes because they satisfy degree requirements and do not
conflict with one another. This often leads to taking multiple upper division courses that are
extremely challenging, and general education classes they have no interest in. This leaves little
room for schedule changes should a student do poorly, or to pursue an opportunity to explore
other interests. Participants that experienced academic challenges, often due to scheduling
limitations, responded through determination and perseverance. Many initially grieved for their
grades, then participants readjusted their mentality to methodically approach the situation.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 72
It's your job to try to make it work for you. I just didn't have the right tools. I didn't have
the right time. I didn't figure out the pattern. I just don't like to quit. (Elaine)
Several participants mentioned “dealing with the matter directly” by organizing their thoughts
and resetting their mentality.
Getting a bad grade actually really pumps me up, it doesn't bring me down. I'll be like,
"Okay, now I really need to do well, or else." I can't drop a class. I think the whole
concept of dropping a class and getting anything below a B is not acceptable in my terms.
I'm like, "Okay, I need to do this. I need to do this well. (Elaine)
Participants sought all the resources needed to succeed. This determination drove them to speak
with professors or advisors they may not have approached in the past, reach out to colleagues,
and/or seek online instructional videos. Every student mentioned in one way or another that
“quitting is not an option” even when they may have just failed an exam. These transfer students
strongly believed they can accomplish difficult tasks and overcome challenges due to their
personal pride, the pride of their family or the “need” to graduate.
I think what motivated me was just to prove to myself even if other people are smarter
than me, I have the drive, so I can put in more work than them, and eventually beat them
in some way. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't, but I think it was my own drive
that was like "nothing can stop me" kind of a thing. (Olivia)
Recommendations for Practice
This study focused on the experiences of transfer students in STEM at an elite research
institution. While all of these participants are on track to complete or have completed their
STEM degree that does not indicate that their overall experience was positive. Unfortunately,
many of the transfer students interviewed are not very motivated pursue a career in STEM.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 73
About half of the participants indicated a level of exhaustion from their challenging academics,
resulting in a need to “distance” themselves from STEM. Their experience at West University
can be summarized as a series of challenges they were able to overcome, often without a sense of
institutional support. To create opportunities for growth and development rather than challenge,
the following recommendations for practice are suggested:
1. STEM Academic Advisors, in partnership with Student Affairs should develop
programming to facilitate the first semester transition. Participants reported that their first
semester experience was lonely and confusing, starting with orientation, “I think that
from the beginning, from orientation on, it needs to change.” In week three of the
semester, academic advisors in STEM and student affairs administrators can host a
transfer welcome event. The event can include a reinforcement of the resources available
on campus, a clarification of the advisor role, a brief explanation of relevant West
University specific terminology and an opportunity for students to ask questions. This
will allow transfer students in STEM an opportunity to meet one another, better
understand university offerings and socialize with their academic support system. The
meaningful interactions the transfer students will have with peers and staff will facilitate
the integration process (Tinto, 1987, 1993) and increase their sense of belonging
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
2. The Office of Residence Life should form a residential community for transfer students
in STEM. For the participants that did not live with family members, finding the
appropriate roommates and university housing was particularly challenging as housing
options are limited and roommates are often assigned randomly. Participants felt alone in
the classroom and often uncomfortable in their living space. Living and learning
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 74
communities would offer students the opportunity to live with students based on a
common interest or goal. For transfer students in STEM, living with other STEM transfer
students allows them to engage with others experiencing the transfer transition and
facilitate their social and academic integration (Deil-Amen, 2011)
3. The university’s Center for Teaching should develop and cultivate a teaching program for
STEM faculty and teaching assistants. Where faculty serving as PI’s were praised by
participants for their involvement and support, STEM faculty interactions in the
classroom were disappointing. Instructor behavior denoted a lack of interest in teaching
and university culture implied a sole focus on advancing personal research. STEM
teaching culture and pedagogy should be reassessed to support a diverse student
population with diverse learning styles. Engaging students in the classroom and
supporting appropriate collaboration will encourage academic and socio-academic
integration and develop a stronger STEM community.
4. Participants reported feeling most like a STEM person when they conducted research on
campus or engaged in scientific communication. Each STEM department should develop
a program engaging transfer students in STEM research or a STEM seminar during their
first year at West University. The goal of the program would be to facilitate scientific
conversation and/or create a research partnership. This will allow transfer students in
STEM to connect with a faculty member in a smaller less intimidating setting. Ideally,
this would minimize the unworthiness transfer students feel approaching faculty for
research opportunities or asking questions.
5. The Office of Student Affairs in partnership with academic advisors in STEM should
create a mentorship program for transfer students in STEM. The mentorship program can
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 75
have several branches, academic, peer and professional connecting transfer students in
STEM to one another, peer tutors, and professionals in STEM. Participating in peer
tutoring will support transfer students as they try to overcome “transfer shock” (Ishitani,
2008) and prevent “transfer coma” (Whitfield, 2005) Peer and career mentorship
programs will allow students to integrate socially and academically. University systems
can be better understood and more easily navigated as transfer students may feel more
inclined to ask a peer mentor than an intimidating university official. Also, students will
have access to a professional in STEM expanding their network and providing support as
they pursue a career in STEM. These programs will also provide leadership opportunities
for the transfer students serving as mentors and tutors empowering them to be role
models for their peers.
6. The Office of Student Affairs should establish a university space specific for transfer
students. The space can be in the Student Union where other student resources and
cultural centers are housed. A transfer center can serve as a space on campus that
provides transfer specific resources for students and university officials. As suggested in
the literature, this will better facilitate social integration in a way that is meaningful to
transfer students (Deil-Amen, 2011). A centralized location allows transfer students to
know they are valued and supported by the university. Additionally, this office can
oversee mentorship and training programs for university administration informing them
of best practice when working with transfer students.
Often, budget and physical space dictate what resources are available to students.
Recommendations one through five offer solutions that can be put into practice with the current
systems in place at West University.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 76
Researcher Recommendations and Observations
Change begins at the local level, and I wanted to share how these findings are already
impacting my own work and practice. I have already begun collaborating with academic advisors
and natural science departments to facilitate some of these recommendations at West University.
I began by working with STEM department chairs to build a trusting relationship, focused
making STEM accessible to transfer students without sacrificing the integrity of the degree. This
was done strategically through reviving and updating courses, like research seminars to serve
transfer students in STEM majors and allowing for quick implementation.
Departments were typically very receptive to recommended changes but were limited by
the availability of faculty. These courses were typically one to two- credit courses, offered in a
seminar style, and invited university researchers to speak about their current work. Academic
advisors advertised these courses to transfer students during orientation and a week before the
semester began. These research seminars provided transfer students an opportunity to meet the
many researchers and faculty in the department in a welcoming environment to learn about their
work without any commitments, and to meet their peers in the major. These courses were usually
offered in the fall and spring, and some departments were using this as a platform to facilitate
discussions about research and internship opportunities for their students. After two semesters of
planning and implementation, transfer students were providing positive feedback and referring
the course to their peers; a waitlist was required one semester.
As advisors prepare for the new student orientation season, I am collaborating with the
natural science advisors to develop a welcome event for transfer students in STEM majors. The
goal of this event is to invite incoming transfers to learn about support services and
opportunities, meet their peers in STEM and participate in a question and answer session with a
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 77
panel of current transfer students in STEM majors. I am also collaborating with natural science
academic advisors to develop a mentorship program pairing interested transfer students with an
incoming transfer student.
As these recommendations, events and courses are evolving, one suggestion that has been
implemented with the advising team involved altering messaging. Transfer student outreach has
been more direct, purposeful and inviting. Advisor check-ins have become more frequent and
appointment times have been available based on transfer student preferences. Research has been
more accessible, allowing transfer students to participate without a GPA minimum. Academic
advisors have been creating course plans encouraging only one hard science in the first semester
to allow for a smoother transition. Overall, communication has been focused on understanding
learning outcomes, strengthening the STEM foundation, and empowering transfer students to
make the most out of their experience at West University.
Future Research
The purpose of this study was to better understand the development of a STEM identity
through social and academic integration, self-efficacy, and the cultural wealth model. While
these data provided great insight to the needs of this population at an elite private institution,
more research is needed to develop more appropriate theoretical frameworks specifically for
transfer students. Using theoretical frameworks based on the traditional student does not fully
serve the transfer student and may infer a deficit model of student achievement.
This study also brought to light the many intricacies and unique experiences a student has
depending on the kind of STEM major he/she pursues. As such, much more research is needed to
develop proper pedagogies and educational support systems taking into consideration a diverse
student body with diverse academic needs. To address all the STEM majors as one field does not
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 78
properly support the student, as reflected in the responses of the participants. Experiences and
needs differ drastically based on the different facets of STEM explored. For example, the
biological science student interested in medicine needs to make course planning decisions based
on medical school entrance exam dates and re-requisites, whereas, mathematics students
interested in theoretical research can conduct research remotely allowing more course planning
flexibility.
Conclusion
While all the students interviewed have completed or are on track to complete a STEM
degree from West University, the experiences that fostered a STEM identity and encouraged
degree completion varied for each participant. According to the literature, the STEM identity is
the process by which the student engages in the science community through performance,
recognition and competence (Brickhouse & Porter, 2001; Carlone & Johnson, 2007). For the
participants, this process varied by major but had similar themes. Participants reported the
strongest sense of STEM identity when conducting research under the guidance of a STEM
faculty member or when engaging in conversation with peers or professors in the major. I believe
these activities instilled the strongest sense of science identity because all three facets of STEM
identity were experienced in one activity. Participants in the biological sciences, chemistry, and
environmental sciences all described contributing to a faculty member’s research group. By
being invited to join a research group, participants are recognized by STEM faculty, post-
doctoral researchers and graduate students as scientists. This recognition is furthered when
participants felt that faculty trust them to contribute data, opinions, and solutions to a faculty
member’s research project. Participants are actively engaging in STEM when performing
experiments independently or under the supervision of significant member of the STEM
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 79
community. Finally, a sense of competence is established as participants learn how to use lab
instruments, troubleshoot to solve problems and provide data resulting in the progression of
novel research. Often a mentorship relationship between the PI and the participant developed.
Not only did this increase the participant’s sense of recognition and competence, but it integrates
the participant into the STEM community, further promoting STEM degree completion.
Participants majoring in mathematics, physics and computer science shared that the
strongest sense of STEM identity occurred when they answered a question posed by the
instructor or tutored their classmates in STEM. For these students, being called upon by a
professor or a peer to solve a complicated problem in STEM was a strong form of recognition as
significant others in the field were acknowledging them and their abilities. By engaging their
peers and professors in conversations about classroom content and problem-solving, these
participants felt they were allowed the opportunity to demonstrate their competence and
therefore “invited” to be a part of the STEM community at West. Because many participants felt
excluded at West, many found it difficult to integrate socially. However, participants felt more
socially connected through academic interactions like being asked to help a peer academically,
supporting the idea of socio-academic integration (Deil-Amen, 2011).
While these are the experiences that most fostered a STEM identity for this group of
transfer students, it is important to note that their STEM identity oscillated. All but one
participant mentioned knowing he/she is not the smartest person and had to spend more time
than his/her peers to learn the same concept. Low grades in their first semester, and sometimes,
lower grades in subsequent semesters led them to question "Is this the school for me? Do I
belong here?" When these participants found their STEM identity to be weak, their intrinsic
motivation and aspirational capital as the source of advancement for their family and community
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 80
drove them to persist. Furthermore, experiencing loneliness, isolation, and overwhelming
academic course loads in their first semester led these participants to quickly reassess their
priorities and make sacrifices to complete their degrees. For almost all these students the
following statement reins true, “I worked so hard to get here. I wasn’t going to try and play with
my grades for a social life.” The university experience was no longer about expanding their
horizons and the true “college experience”. Given their circumstances, these students reluctantly
accepted their university experience to be focused solely on completing a STEM degree in the
most efficient manner.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 81
References
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior. 4, 71-81. New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.],
Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998)
Braxton, J. M., & Lien, L. A. (2000). The viability of academic integration as a central construct
in Tinto’s interactionalist theory of college student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 11–28). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Borglum, K., & Kubala, T. (2000). Academic and social integration of community college
students: A case study. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24, 567–
576. doi:10.1080/10668920050139712.
Bound, J., Lovenheim, M., & Turner, S. (2010). Why have college completion rates declined?
An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. American
Economic Journal, Applied Economics, 2(3), 129–157.
Braun, D., Gormally, C., & Clark, M. (2017). The deaf mentoring survey: A community cultural
wealth framework for measuring mentoring effectives with underrepresented students.
CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), 1-14.
Brickhouse, N.W. & Potter, J.T. (2001), “Young women’s scientific identity formation in an
urban context”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(8), 965-980.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 82
Carlone, H.B. & Johnson, A. (2007), “Understanding the science experiences of successful
women of color: science identity as an analytic lens”, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching,44(8), 1187-1218.
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES
2014-001). Washington, DC.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conklin, A., Dahling, J., & Garcia, P. (2013). Linking affective commitment, career self-
efficacy, and outcome expectations: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of
Career Development, 40(1), 68–83.
D’Amico, M. M., Dika, S. L., Elling, T. W., Algozzine, B., & Ginn, D. J. (2014). Early
integration and other outcomes for community college transfer students. Research in
Higher Education, 55(4), 370-399. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9316-5
Deil-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social
integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. Journal of
Higher Education, 82, 54–91. doi:10.1353/jhe.2011.0006.
Dowd, A., Cheslock, J., & Melguizo, T. (2008). Transfer access from community colleges and
the distribution of elite higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 1–31.
Elliott, D. C. (2016). The impact of self-beliefs on post-secondary transitions: The moderating
effects of institutional selectivity. Higher Education, 71(3), 415-431.
Fabert, N., Cabay, M., Rivers, M., Smith, M. L., & Bernstein, B. L. (2011). Exaggerating the
typical and stereotyping the differences: Isolation experienced by women in STEM
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 83
doctoral programs. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference
Proceedings 2011-704. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Flowers III, A. M., & Banda, R. (2016). Cultivating science identity through sources of self-
efficacy. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 405-417. doi:10.1108/JME-01-2016-
0014
Haag, S., Hubele, N., Garcia, A., & McBeath, K. (2007). Engineering undergraduate attrition and
contributing factors. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(5), 929–940.
Hernandez, P.R., Schultz, P., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A. & Chance, R.C. (2013), Sustaining
optimal motivation: a longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden participation of
underrepresented students in STEM, Journal of Educational Psychology,105(1), 89.
Higher Education Research Institute. (2010). Degrees of Success: Bachelor’s Degree Completion
Rates Among Initial STEM Majors.
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N. L., Lin, M. H., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. L. (2009). Diversifying
science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research
in Higher Education, 50(2), 189-214. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9114-7
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324-345.
Ishitani, T. T. (2008). How do transfers survive after "transfer shock"? A longitudinal study of
transfer student departure at a four-year institution. Research in Higher Education, 49(5),
403-419. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9091-x
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 84
Ishitani, T. T., & McKitrick, S. A. (2010). After transfer: The engagement of community college
students at a four-year collegiate institution. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 34, 576–594. doi:10.1080/10668920701831522.
Jackson, D. L., Starobin, S. S., & Laanan, F. S. (2013). The shared experiences: Facilitating
successful transfer of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2013(162), 69-76. doi:10.1002/he.20058
Kahn, J., & Nauta, M. (2001). Social-cognitive predictors of first-year college persistence: The
importance of proximal assessment. Research in Higher Education, 42(6), 633-652.
Karp, M. M., Hughes, K. L., & O’Gara, L. (2010). An exploration of Tinto’s integration
framework for community college students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 12(1), 69–86.
Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of
undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
191–201.
Kinkead, J. (2003). Learning through inquiry: An overview of undergraduate research. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 93, 5–17.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). Commissioned
report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a
dialog on student success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education
Cooperative.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance
educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success (1st ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 85
Laanan, F. S., Starobin, S. S., & Eggleston, L. E. (2010–2011). Adjustment of community
college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital
for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice,
12(2), 175–209. doi:10.2190/CS.12.2.d.
Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a
STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented
students. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar39-ar39. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now
and for the future. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: Economics and
Statistics Administration.
Lester, J., Brown Leonard, J., & Mathias, D. (2013). Transfer student engagement: Blurring of
social and academic engagement. Community College Review, 41, 202–222.
London, B., Rosenthal, L., Levy, S. R., & Lobel, M. (2011). The influences of perceived identity
compatibility and support on women in nontraditional fields during the college transition.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 304–321. doi: 10.1177/0146167292183006
Long, B. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a
baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 30–53.
Lopatto, D. (2003). The essential features of undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate
Research Quarterly, 23, 139–142.
Ma, J. & Baum, S. (2016). Trends in community colleges: Enrollment, prices, student debt and
completion. New York, NY; The College Board.
Malcom, S. M., & Feder, M. A. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year stem
degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 86
Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Record,
111(2), 295–338.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McGee, E. O. (2016). Devalued Black and Latino racial identities: A by-product of STEM
college culture? American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1626-1662.
doi:10.3102/0002831216676572
McGonagle, A. K., Freake, H. C., Zinn, S., Bauerle, T., Winston, J., Lewicki, G., Philion, M.
(2014). Evaluation of STRONG-CT: A program supporting minority and first-generation
U.S. science students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 52.
Melguizo, T., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Baccalaureate success of transfers and rising four-year
college juniors. Teachers College Record, 111, 55–89.
Melguizo, T., Kienzl, G., & Alfonso, M. (2011). Comparing the educational attainment of
community college students and four-year college rising juniors using propensity score
matching methods. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 265–291.
Merolla, D. M., & Serpe, R. T. (2013). STEM enrichment programs and graduate school
matriculation: The role of science identity salience. Social Psychology of Education,
16(4), 575-597. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9233-7
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moser, K. M. (2012). Exploring the Impact of Transfer Capital on Community College Transfer
Students, Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 25(2), 53-75.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 87
Mullin, C.M., & Phillippe, K. (2009). Community college enrollment surge: An analysis of
estimated fall 2009 headcount enrollments at community colleges. American Association
of Community Colleges.
National Science Board (NSB). (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation.
Niu, S. & Tienda, M. (2013). Delayed enrollment and college plans: Is there a postponement
penalty? The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 1-27.
Doi:10.1080/00221546.2013.11777276
Nuñez, A., & Yoshimi, J. (2016). A phenomenology of transfer: Students’ experiences at a
receiving institution. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 173. doi:10.1007/s10755-016-
9374-7
Palmer, R.T. & Gasman, M.B. (2008), “It takes a village to raise a child: the role of social capital
in promoting academic success for African American men at a Black college”, Journal of
College Student Development, 49, 52-70.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, Third edition. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to excel:
Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 88
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university
students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.
Robbins, S.B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004).
Do psychosocial and study skills factors predict college outcomes? Psychological
Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
Roberts, J., & McNeese, M. N. (2010). Student involvement/engagement in higher education
based on student origin. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7.
Robnett, R. D., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2015). Longitudinal associations among
undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 52,847–867.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self & society: Social change and individual development (1st ed.). New
York: Atherton Press.
Sutton, K. L., & Sankar, C. (2011). Student satisfaction with information provided by academic
advisors. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(7/8), 71.
Syed, M. (2010). Developing an integrated self: Academic and ethnic identities among ethnically
diverse college students. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1590–1604. doi:
10.1037/a0020738
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 89
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tobolowsky, B. F., & Cox, B. E. (2012). Rationalizing neglect: An institutional response to
transfer students. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 389-410.
Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. B. (2006). ‘‘A hand hold for a little bit’’: Factors facilitating the
success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of
College Student Development, 47, 439–456. doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0052.
Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. B. (2008-2009). The academic and social integration of
persisting community college transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 10, 405–423.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability
Office; 2014. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Assessing
the relationship between education and the workforce. (GAO-14-374)
Whitfield, M. (2005). Transfer-student performance in upper-division chemistry courses:
Implications for curricular reform and alignment. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice,29(7), 531-545. doi:10.1080/10668920590953999
Wyer, M., Schneider, J., Nassar-McMillan, S., & Oliver-Hoyo, M. (2010). Capturing
stereotypes: Developing a scale to explore U.S. college students’ images of science
and scientists. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology,
2(3), 382–415.
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1), 69-91.
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 90
Zhang, Y., & Allen, T. O. (2015). Challenges and support: Transfer experiences of community
college engineering students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College,
22(1), 43.

STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 91
APPENDIX A
Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, Los Angeles, CA

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

STEM Identity Development: Examining the Experiences of Transfer Students

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Lica Abu-Esba under the
supervision of Dr. Tracy Tambascia. 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 is to better understand the academic and social elements that have
assisted you in developing a science identity at a private, elite university. You have been invited
to participate in this study because you are a transfer student majoring in the sciences and in your
senior year.

This study is being conducted for the purposes of a dissertation. The researcher hopes to gain
knowledge about the transfer student experience in the sciences at a private, elite university and
the resources that aided in your ability to complete the major.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an anonymous 60-minute
audio-recorded interview or focus group. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want
to; if you don’t want to be taped, handwritten notes will be taken. A follow-up interview may be
requested. Participation in the focus group and interview is completely voluntary and you may
request to end the interview at any time.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive $5 Amazon gift card after completion of the interview or the focus group. You
do not have to answer all the questions in order to receive the card. The card will be given to you
even if you end your participation early.

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

CONFIDENTIALITY
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 92
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential,
including the location of the study. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym)
and maintained separately. The audio-recording will be stored on a password protected thumb
drive and will be stored for three years after the study has been completed then destroyed.

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

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Lica Abu-Esba via email at abuesba@usc.edu or phone at (512) 507-8239
or Faculty Advisor Dr. Tracy Tambascia at tpoon@usc.edu or (213) 740-9747.

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
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 93
APPENDIX B

Interview Questions

Introduction to Interview
Thank you for meeting with me today. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to speak
with me about your experiences. This interview will be about 60 minutes. Will that time frame
work for you?
I wanted to share with you the purpose of this meeting and my overall study. I am currently a
doctoral student at USC conducting my dissertation on transfer student experiences in the
sciences at a private elite university. I am really interested in learning more about your
experiences and perspective so please feel free to be as open as possible.
I will be conducting interviews with transfer students in the sciences. The data collected from
the observations and the interviews will be saved on a password protected thumb drive. Any
distinct attributes that are directly related to you will not be identified. To further protect your
confidentiality, I will use a pseudonym when referencing you or the institution. Direct quotes
may be used in my dissertation but directly identifying information will be excluded. Do you
have any questions or concerns regarding the study or the data collection before we begin?
With your permission, I would like to record our interview. I am using a recorder in order
to accurately capture your responses and so that I do not unintentionally paraphrase something
you have said. These recordings will not be shared with anyone. May I record our conversation?

Interview Questions
1. What motivated you to choose a science major?
2. What motivates you to continue as a science major?
3. What has been the most enjoyable part of your major?
4. What has been the most enjoyable part of your experience at this university?
5. What has been the least enjoyable part of your major?
6. What has been the least enjoyable part of your experience at this university?
7. Can you describe someone you consider to be a science person?
8. In what ways do you consider yourself to be a science person?
9. In what ways to you consider yourself to be different from a science person?
10. What activities do you participate in that make you feel like a science person?
11. How does being a transfer student impact your experience as science major at this
university, if at all?
12. During your time at this university, how have you connected to your major?
13. During your time at this university, how have you connected to your peers in the major?
14. How is knowledge in science demonstrated at this university?
15. How do you demonstrate knowledge in science?
16. Describe your relationships with the science and non-science faculty.
17. Describe your relationships with your academic advisor at this university.
18. Describe your involvement in student organizations.
19. What resources, at or outside this university, do you rely on to navigate any major related
matters?
a. How did you discover these resources?
STEM IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 94
20. What resources, at or outside this university, do you rely on to navigate any social or
personal matters?
a. How did you discover these resources?
21. How do you overcome challenging major and non-major related issues?
22. What are your plans upon graduation?
23. Would you like to add anything else to our conversation?

Closing
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. I sincerely appreciate you
sharing your experiences and perspectives. This information is very valuable for my study.
Should I have any follow-up questions, would you mind if I contacted you again? If so, what
method of communication would you prefer? Thank you again for your time and participating in
my study!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Approximately half of the undergraduates enrolled at a four-year college or university began their post-secondary education at another two or four-year institution (Jackson et al., 2013). Of the transfer students pursuing STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) majors, 69% change their majors to non-STEM fields prior to graduating. There is very little research on how to support transfer students as they navigate challenges that are compounded when considering the intersection of gender, race, age, financial needs and complexities of being a transfer student in a STEM major. This study explores the development of STEM identity through social and academic integration, self-efficacy, and the cultural wealth model. Participants in this study were students in their senior year who transferred to a private, elite, four-year institution, and completing a STEM major. Although the sense of STEM identity oscillated drastically, this study found that STEM identity in transfer students develops through academic integration, a high sense of self-efficacy and by relying of their navigational, familial and aspirational capital. Recommendations for practice include making STEM and a corresponding STEM identity more accessible to transfer students through directed research programs, mentorships, and transfer specific programming.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of participation in STEM organizations and authentic learning experiences on women of color engineering students

PDF

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

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

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

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

Assessing the impact of the Puente Project on Latino males in California community colleges

PDF

Experiences of multiracial Asian American and Pacific Islander students at an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution

PDF

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Understanding science and math teacher retention in Hawai‘i public schools

PDF

The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM

PDF

Latinas’ self-efficacy in computer science and potential factors undergirding their perspective

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

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

PDF

A semester late: a phenomenological study examining the experiences of spring admits in higher education

PDF

Curriculum model to increase fourth grade STEM interests using sports analogies

PDF

Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development

Asset Metadata

Creator Abu-Esba, Lica (author)

Core Title STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/25/2018

Defense Date 06/14/2018

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

Tag cultural wealth model,identity development,OAI-PMH Harvest,private 4-year,self-efficacy,STEM,transfer students

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Hoffman, Jamie (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email ABUESBA@USC.EDU,LABUESBA@GMAIL.COM

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-96798

Unique identifier UC11675660

Identifier etd-AbuEsbaLic-6911.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-96798 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AbuEsbaLic-6911.pdf

Dmrecord 96798

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Abu-Esba, Lica

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