FEBRUARY 2012
Executive Oce of the President
President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION
ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES WITH
DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
FEBRUARY 2012
Executive Oce of the President
President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION
ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES WITH
DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
About the President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the
nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and tech-
nology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other
Federal agencies. PCAST is consulted about and often makes policy recommendations concerning the
full range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation
bear potentially on the policy choices before the President.
For more information about PCAST, see www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.
Co-Chairs
John P. Holdren
Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology
Director, Oce of Science and Technology Policy
Eric Lander
President
Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT
e President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
Vice Chairs
William Press
Raymer Professor in Computer Science and
Integrative Biology
University of Texas at Austin
Maxine Savitz
Vice President
National Academy of Engineering
Members
Rosina Bierbaum
Professor of Natural Resources and
Environmental Policy
School of Natural Resources and Environment
and School of Public Health
University of Michigan
Christine Cassel
President and CEO
American Board of Internal Medicine
Christopher Chyba
Professor, Astrophysical Sciences and
International Aairs
Director, Program on Science and Global Security
Princeton University
S. James Gates, Jr.
John S. Toll Professor of Physics
Director, Center for String and Particle Theory
University of Maryland, College Park
Mark Gorenberg
Managing Director
Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
Shirley Ann Jackson
President
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Richard C. Levin
President
Yale University
Chad Mirkin
Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials
Science and Engineering, Chemical and
Biological Engineering and Medicine
Director, International Institute for
Nanotechnology
Northwestern University
Mario Molina
Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California, San Diego
Professor, Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Director, Mario Molina Center for Energy and
Environment, Mexico City
Ernest J. Moniz
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and
Engineering Systems
Director, MIT’s Energy Initiative
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Craig Mundie
Chief Research and Strategy Ocer
Microsoft Corporation
Ed Penhoet
Director, Alta Partners
Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public
Health
University of California, Berkeley
Barbara Schaal
Mary-Dell Chilton Distinguished Professor of
Biology
Washington University, St. Louis
Vice President, National Academy of Sciences
Eric Schmidt
Executive Chairman
Google, Inc.
Daniel Schrag
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor, Environmental Science and
Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the
Environment
Harvard University
David E. Shaw
Chief Scientist, D.E. Shaw Research
Senior Research Fellow, Center for
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Columbia University
Ahmed Zewail
Linus Pauling Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Director, Physical Biology Center
California Institute of Technology
Sta
Deborah Stine
Executive Director
Danielle Evers
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow
Amber Hartman Scholz
Assistant Executive Director
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20502
Dear Mr. President,
We are pleased to present you with this report, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College
Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, prepared for you by the
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). This report provides a strategy for
improving STEM education during the rst two years of college that we believe is responsive to both the
challenges and the opportunities that this crucial stage in the STEM education pathway presents.
In preparing this report, PCAST assembled a Working Group of experts in postsecondary STEM teaching,
learning-science research, curriculum development, higher-education administration, faculty training,
educational technology, and successful interaction between industry and higher education. The report
was strengthened by input from additional experts in postsecondary STEM education, STEM practitioners,
professional societies, private companies, educators, and Federal education ocials.
PCAST found that economic forecasts point to a need for producing, over the next decade, approximately
1 million more college graduates in STEM elds than expected under current assumptions. Fewer than
40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM eld complete a STEM degree. Merely
increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would generate three-quarters of the targeted
1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade.
PCAST identied ve overarching recommendations that it believes can achieve this goal: (1) catalyze
widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices; (2) advocate and provide support
for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses; (3) launch a national
experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics-preparation gap;
(4) encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers; and (5) create a
Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to
provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.
Implementing these recommendations will help you achieve one of the key STEM goals you stated in
your address to the National Academy of Sciences in April 2009: “American students will move from the
middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade. For we know that the nation
that out-educates us today—will out-compete us tomorrow.” The members of PCAST are grateful for the
opportunity to provide our input on an issue of such critical importance to the Nation’s future.
Sincerely,
John P. Holdren
PCAST Co-Chair
Eric Lander
PCAST Co-Chair
i
★ ★
Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional
College Graduates with Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Executive Report
Economic projections point to a need for approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S.
will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence
in science and technology. To meet this goal, the United States will need to increase the number of
students who receive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates.
Currently the United States graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM elds
annually. Fewer than 40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM eld complete a
STEM degree. Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would, alone, generate three-
quarters of the targeted 1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade. Many of those who
abandon STEM majors perform well in their introductory courses and would make valuable additions
to the STEM workforce. Retaining more students in STEM majors is the lowest-cost, fastest policy option
to providing the STEM professionals that the nation needs for economic and societal well-being, and
will not require expanding the number or size of introductory courses, which are constrained by space
and resources at many colleges and universities.
The reasons students give for abandoning STEM majors point to the retention strategies that are
needed. For example, high-performing students frequently cite uninspiring introductory courses as a
factor in their choice to switch majors. And low-performing students with a high interest and aptitude
in STEM careers often have diculty with the math required in introductory STEM courses with little
help provided by their universities. Moreover, many students, and particularly members of groups
underrepresented in STEM elds, cite an unwelcoming atmosphere from faculty in STEM courses as a
reason for their departure.
Better teaching methods are needed by university faculty to make courses more inspiring, provide
more help to students facing mathematical challenges, and to create an atmosphere of a community
of STEM learners. Traditional teaching methods have trained many STEM professionals, including
most of the current STEM workforce. But a large and growing body of research indicates that STEM
education can be substantially improved through a diversication of teaching methods. These data
show that evidence-based teaching methods are more eective in reaching all students—especially
the “underrepresented majority”—the women and members of minority groups who now constitute
approximately 70% of college students while being underrepresented among students who receive
undergraduate STEM degrees (approximately 45%). This underrepresented majority is a large potential
source of STEM professionals.
ii
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
The Need for an Improved STEM Student Recruitment and Retention
Strategy for the First Two Years of Postsecondary Education
The rst two years of college are the most critical to the retention and recruitment of STEM majors. These
two years are also a shared feature of all types of 2- and 4-year colleges and universities—community
colleges, comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, research universities, and minority-serving
institutions. In addition, STEM courses during the rst two years of college have an enormous eect on
the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of future K-12 teachers. For these reasons, this report focuses on
actions that will inuence the quality of STEM education in the rst two years of college.
Based on extensive research about students’ choices, learning processes, and preparation, three impera-
tives underpin this report:
• Improve the rst two years of STEM education in college.
• Provide all students with the tools to excel.
• Diversify pathways to STEM degrees.
Our recommendations, described below, detail how to convert these imperatives into action.
The title of this report, “Engage to Excel,” applies to students, faculty, and leaders in academia, industry,
and government. Students must be engaged to excel in STEM elds. To excel as teachers, faculty must
engage in methods of teaching grounded in research about why students excel and persist in college.
Moreover, success depends on the engagement by great leadership. Leaders, including the President of
the United States; college, university and business leadership; and others, must encourage and support
the creation of well-aligned incentives for transforming and sustaining STEM learning. They also must
encourage and support the establishment of broad-based reliable metrics to measure outcomes in an
ongoing cycle of improvement.
Transforming STEM education in U.S. colleges and universities is a daunting challenge. The key barriers
involve faculty awareness and performance, reward and incentive systems, and traditions in higher edu-
cation. The recommendations in this report address the most signicant barriers and use both tangible
resources and persuasion to inspire and catalyze change. Attacking the issue from numerous angles and
with various tools is aimed at reaching a point at which the movement will take on a momentum of its
own and produce sweeping change that is sustainable without further Federal intervention.
Recommendations
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) proposes ve overarching
recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high
school to college and during the rst two years of undergraduate STEM education:
1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-
based research courses.
EXECUTIVE REPORT
iii
★ ★
3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the
math preparation gap.
4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.
5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and
business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable
change in STEM undergraduate education.
Each of these recommendations will be explained in more detail below.
Recommendation 1.
Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
Learning theory, empirical evidence about how people learn, and assessment of outcomes in STEM class-
rooms all point to a need to improve teaching methods to enhance learning and student persistence.
Classroom approaches that engage students in “active learning” improve retention of information and
critical thinking skills, compared with a sole reliance on lecturing, and increase persistence of students
in STEM majors. STEM faculty need to adopt teaching methods supported by evidence derived from
experimental learning research as well as from learning assessment in STEM courses. Evidence-based
teaching methods have proven eective with a wide range of class sizes and increase learning outcomes
even as enhancements of traditional lectures.
A signicant barrier to broad implementation of evidence-based teaching approaches is that most
faculty lack experience using these methods and are unfamiliar with the vast body of research indicating
their impact on learning. The Federal Government could have a major impact by providing substantial
support for programs that provide training for current and future faculty in evidence-based teaching
methods and provide materials to support the application of such methods. Established programs
run by the National Academies and the American Association of Physics Teachers/American Physical
Society/American Astronomical Society have trained many faculty, and evaluations of these programs
have demonstrated that they change the participants’ teaching methods and have positive eects on
student achievement and engagement. These programs provide successful models for replication and
expansion.
Although evidence-based teaching methods do not necessarily require more resources than traditional
lectures, the transition requires time and eort that can be costly for colleges and universities. Given the
Federal Government’s interest in maintaining a strong STEM workforce, Federal support, in partnership
with private and academic institutional investment, will be needed to initiate these changes, after which
they can be sustained over the long term without external assistance.
Ongoing change toward the goal described here requires the ability to measure progress. Metrics for
excellence in undergraduate STEM education would provide tools for institutions, departments, funding
agencies, external evaluators, accreditation agencies, students choosing where to study STEM subjects,
and those designing innovative programs. Flexible criteria are needed to account for the wide range of
institutions and disciplines that will use these tools to direct change.
iv
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Actions to achieve Recommendation 1.
1-1 Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal research agencies, academic
institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations to train current and future faculty in
evidence-based teaching practices.
Successful programs should be expanded to reach 10% to 20% of the nation’s 230,000 STEM
faculty over the next ve years. The expansion should make training available to faculty from
diverse backgrounds to provide role models for all students and from all disciplines and types
of institutions. Based on data from existing teaching training programs, it is reasonable to
expect trained faculty to inuence the teaching of 10 colleagues, making it possible to reach
a substantial proportion of the STEM faculty through programs targeted at a subset of faculty.
Moreover, approximately 10% of the STEM faculty teach the introductory courses to rst- and
second-year college students. Therefore, the goal of reaching 10% to 20% of the STEM faculty
directly could result in training most of those who teach in the rst two years of college.
A total of $10-15 million per year over 5 years will be required for the training of 23,000 to 46,000
STEM faculty. Funds for this training should be derived from a combination of Federal programs
academic institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations. To train future faculty, Federal
research agencies should require all graduate students and postdoctoral fellows supported by
federal training grants to receive instruction in modern teaching methods. A combination of
training grant and institutional funds should be dedicated to this training eort.
1-2 Create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program at NSF.
A competitive grants program should be designed to provide incentives for and facilitate
teaching innovations at 2- and 4-year institutions. Grants should support model programs and
electronic dissemination of successful practices. The grants program should have funding of
$20 million per year, to support approximately 100 multi-year projects with average total sup-
port of $1 million over a 5-year period. Funding could come from enactment of NSF’s proposed
Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms (WIDER) program
at the Presidents’ Fiscal Year 2012 requested level of $20 million annually.
1-3 Request that the National Academies develop metrics to evaluate STEM education.
To evaluate progress toward the goals presented in this report, campuses, funders, students,
and accreditation agencies need a meaningful set of criteria by which to measure excellence
in STEM education. NSF and the U.S. Department of Education should request The National
Academies to lead an eort to develop metrics supported by empirical evidence that encourage
and assess faculty practices and student learning.
Recommendation 2.
Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based
research courses.
Traditional introductory laboratory courses generally do not capture the creativity of STEM disciplines.
They often involve repeating classical experiments to reproduce known results, rather than engaging
EXECUTIVE REPORT
v
★ ★
students in experiments with the possibility of true discovery. Students may infer from such courses
that STEM elds involve repeating what is known to have worked in the past rather than exploring
the unknown. Engineering curricula in the rst two years have long made use of design courses that
engage student creativity. Recently, research courses in STEM subjects have been implemented at
diverse institutions, including universities with large introductory course enrollments. These courses
make individual ownership of projects and discovery feasible in a classroom setting, engaging students
in authentic STEM experiences and enhancing learning and, therefore, they provide models for what
should be more widely implemented.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 2.
2-1 Expand the use of scientic research and engineering design courses in the rst two years
through an NSF program.
The National Science Foundation should provide initial funding to replicate and scale-up
model research or design courses, possibly through the existing Transforming Undergraduate
Education in STEM (TUES) program or the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Talent Expansion Program(STEP). On the order of 30% of the existing programs across STEM
disciplines could be focused on funding implemention of research courses at postsecondary
academic institutions at an annual cost of approximately $12.5 million dollars (based on Fiscal
Year 2010 funding levels). Based on the range of funding for Type 3 TUES grants and Type 1
STEP grants, about 10 proposals per year at an average level of $1.2 million could be awarded,
in order to impact 100 campuses over the next 10 years.
Colleges and universities should seek to match NSF funding with private and philan-
thropic sources. Research courses should be an encouraged element of STEM Institutional
Transformation Awards. Because research courses will replace expensive introductory laboratory
courses, they should not require ongoing external support once the transition is accomplished.
2-2 Expand opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories by
reducing restrictions on Federal research funds and redening a Department of Education
program.
Independent research on faculty projects is a direct way for students to experience real discovery
and innovation and to be inspired by STEM subjects. All relevant Federal agencies should exam-
ine their programs which support undergraduate research and where there exists prohibitions,
either in policy or practice, which would interfere with the recommendations of this report to
support early engagement of students in research, these should be changed. Federal agencies
should encourage projects that establish collaborations between research universities and
community colleges or other institutions that do not have research programs. Cross-institutional
research opportunities could be funded through redenition of the Department of Education’s
$1 billion Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program and by sharpening the focus
of Federal investments in minority institutions.
vi
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Recommendation 3.
Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the
mathematics-preparation gap.
College-level skills in mathematics and, increasingly, computation are a gateway to other STEM elds.
Today many students entering college lack these skills and need to learn them if they are to pursue
STEM majors. In addition, employers in the private sector, government, and military frequently cite that
they cannot nd enough employees with needed levels of mathematics skills. This lack of preparation
imposes a large burden on higher education and employers. Higher education alone spends at least $2
billion per year on developmental education to compensate for deciencies. Also, introductory math-
ematics courses often leave students with the impression that all STEM elds are dull and unimagina-
tive, which has particularly harmful eects for students who later become K-12 teachers. Reducing or
eliminating the mathematics-preparation gap is one of the most urgent challenges—and promising
opportunities—in preparing the workforce of the 21st century.
Closing this gap will require coordinated action on many fronts starting in the earliest grades. PCAST’s
earlier report on K-12 STEM education, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future, contains several recommendations that involve
colleges and universities in this eort. In particular, it calls for the Federal Government to establish the
objective of recruiting, preparing, and providing induction support for at least 100,000 new STEM middle
and high school teachers who have majors in STEM elds and strong content-specic pedagogical
preparation. This Administration has embraced this goal, and production of 1 million additional STEM
graduates over the next decade could contribute substantially to meeting it.
The Federal Government has a critical role in supporting the development of a knowledge base to
close the mathematics-preparation gap. For example, research into the best ways to teach math to
older students so they can pursue STEM subjects in the rst two years of college is badly needed. Some
developmental mathematics courses have demonstrated eectiveness in increasing math prociency
among those not ready for college-level math and even in encouraging students intending to major
in STEM subjects to persist to graduation and a STEM degree. Mathematics education research should
explore the attributes of these successful classes and ways to disseminate best practices.
In the Prepare and Inspire report, PCAST also called for the creation of a mission-driven, Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-Ed) that would propel and support (1) the development
of innovative technologies and technology platforms for learning, teaching, and assessment across all
subjects and ages, and (2) the development of eective, integrated, whole-course materials for STEM
education. Many of these advances would benet not only K-12 education but also the developmental
courses that many students need to pursue STEM elds during the rst two years of college.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 3.
3-1 Support a national experiment in mathematics undergraduate education at NSF, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.
The National Science Foundation and the Departments of Labor and Education should support
a multi-campus 5-year initiative aimed at developing new approaches to remove or reduce the
mathematics bottleneck that is currently keeping many students from pursuing STEM majors.
EXECUTIVE REPORT
vii
★ ★
This national experiment should fund a variety of approaches, including (1) summer and other
bridge programs for high school students entering college; (2) remedial courses for students
in college, including approaches that rely on computer technology; (3) college mathematics
teaching and curricula developed and taught by faculty from mathematics-intensive disciplines
other than mathematics, including physics, engineering, and computer science; and (4) a new
pipeline for producing K-12 mathematics teachers from undergraduate and graduate programs
in mathematics-intensive elds other than mathematics. Diverse institutions should be included
in the experiment to assess the impact of the intervention on various types of students and
schools. Outcome evaluations should be designed as a collective eort by the participating
campuses and funding agencies.
Approximately 200 experiments at an average level of $500,000 should be funded at institutions
across the county, at an annual cost of $20 million per year for 5 years. As mathematics prepara-
tion issues vary across the postsecondary spectrum, a variety of sources will be needed to fund
experiments at diverse institution types. Funds for these experiments could be derived from a
combination of the Department of Education’s proposed First in the World Initiative, possibly
the Department of Labor’s Career Pathways Innovation Fund or Trade Adjustment Assistance
Community College and Career Training initiative, and a strategic focus on mathematics of
NSF’s Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) program or Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program(STEP) for the next 5 years.
Recommendation 4.
Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.
To take advantage of the breadth of available talent, non-traditional students should receive special
attention. Adult and working students and those from backgrounds atypical of traditional STEM stu-
dents may need alternative pathways to be successful in STEM disciplines. The concept of a “pipeline”
to STEM competency and accomplishment needs to be superseded by the image of multiple
pathways to these goals. All colleges and universities, including 2- and 4-year institutions, need
better connections among themselves and with other institutions to provide more entry points
and pathways to STEM degrees.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 4.
Establishing and supporting pathways will require a coordinated eort among diverse institutions. The
Federal Government can lead this eort and encourage the necessary partnerships through strategic
planning, reallocation of funds, and leadership.
4-1 Sponsor at the Department of Education summer STEM learning programs for high school
students.
The Department of Education should roll-out the summer learning programs authorized in
the 2007 America Competes Act (in an amendment introduced by then-Senator Obama) to
provide mathematics instruction and hands-on STEM experiences for rising high school juniors
and seniors. The programs should be funded by partnerships among the Federal Government,
states, local entities, and private industry. Based on the size of National Science Foundation’s
viii
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
former Young Scholars Program for summer institutes, we recommend an investment of $10
million to fund approximately 100 projects reaching on the order of 5000 students, annually,
with signicant cost sharing with academic institutions and private investors.
4-2 Encourage pathways from 2- to 4-year institutions through an NSF program and expanded
denition of a Department of Labor Program.
The mission of the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and
Career Training initiative should be expanded beyond development of important partnerships
between community and technical colleges and employers in the private sector to encour-
age scientic research and engineering design exchanges across two- and four-year institu-
tions.Alternatively, these activities could be funded through a strategic focus of the Department
of Labor’s Career Pathways Innovation Fund on research partnerships. NSF’s Advancing Technical
Education program could also be focused on cross institutional collaborations. The bridges
described here should provide authentic STEM experiences for community college students
on the four-year campus and allow students to develop relations with faculty and the college or
university community to ease the potential transition from a 2- to 4-year institution or to provide
advanced experiences for students who do not pursue a four year degree.
4-3 Establish public-private partnerships to support successful STEM programs.
To enhance students’ STEM readiness, the Federal Government should engage private industry
and foundations to support successful programs that create bridges between high schools and
colleges and between 2- and 4-year institutions and ensure that programs incorporate learning
standards and content consistent with industry-recognized skills.
4-4 Improve data provided by the Department of Education and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
to STEM students, parents, and the greater community on STEM disciplines and the labor
market.
To promote pathways to STEM careers for non-traditional students, the Federal Government
should provide current and comprehensive data on STEM jobs. Today, public and private
employers of STEM professionals lack data about the skills, choices, and availability of STEM
workers. To produce needed information, the 1988 cohort and the High School and Beyond cohort
should be resurveyed; the Department of Education should devote more resources to tracking
students from high school into their careers; and the Bureau of Labor Statistics should redene
employment categories to include in “STEM” the breadth of jobs that require STEM skills, such
as medical careers and advanced manufacturing professions.
Recommendation 5.
Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and busi-
ness communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in
STEM undergraduate education.
The leadership of higher education and STEM-enabled businesses needs to be inspired to generate
sweeping changes in higher education to produce the workforce America needs. Toward this end, we
recommend that the President, via Executive Order, form a Presidential Council on STEM Education to
EXECUTIVE REPORT
ix
★ ★
provide advice and leadership on postsecondary STEM education. The council should include members
that represent the breadth of academic institutions, professional societies, businesses, and private foun-
dations involved in the development and use of human capital in STEM elds. Based on the guidance
provided in this report, the council should make recommendations that advance the quality of postsec-
ondary STEM education through all mechanisms available to the President. The council could provide a
forum for leaders in the public and private sectors to weigh in on the development and deployment of
metrics to evaluate STEM departments (Recommendation 1) and to design collaborative coalitions to
support initiatives in STEM education (Recommendation 4), including expanding internship programs in
industry and connecting industrial research agendas with research courses (Recommendation 2). In addi-
tion, it could provide advice and review for the National Experiment in Math Undergraduate Education
(Recommendation 3) and could conduct further study of the math education issue, if necessary.
x
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
OVERVIEW OF PCAST RECOMMENDATIONS
TO ENGAGE AND EXCEL IN UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS STEM EDUCATION
Recommendation 1: Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching
practices.
1-1 Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal research agencies, academic institu-
tions, disciplinary societies, and foundations to train current and future faculty in evidence-
based teaching practices.
1-2 Create the “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program at NSF.
1-3 Request that the National Academies develop metrics to evaluate STEM education.
Recommendation 2: Advocate and provide support for replacing standard labora-
tory courses with discovery-based research courses.
2-1 Expand the use of scientic research and engineering design courses in the rst two years of
postsecondary education through an NSF program.
2-2 Expand opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories by reducing
restrictions on Federal research funds and redening a Department of Education program.
Recommendation 3: Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics
education to address the mathematics-preparation gap.
3-1 Support a national experiment in mathematics undergraduate education at NSF, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.
Recommendation 4: Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify path-
ways to STEM careers.
4-1 Sponsor at the Department of Education summer STEM learning programs for high school
students.
4-2 Expand the scope of a Department of Labor Program and focus an NSF program to
encourage pathways from 2-to 4-year institutions.
4-3 Establish public-private partnerships to support successful STEM programs.
4-4 Improve data provided by the Department of Education and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
STEM students, parents, and the greater community on STEM disciplines and the labor market.
Recommendation 5: Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leader-
ship from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for
transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.
e President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
Engage to Excel: Producing One Million
Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Working Group Report
xiii
★ ★
PCAST STEM Undergraduate
Education Working Group
Co-Chairs
S. James Gates, Jr.*
John S. Toll Professor of Physics
Director, Center for String and Particle Theory
University of Maryland, College Park
Jo Handelsman
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor and
Frederick Phineas Rose Professor, Molecular,
Cellular and Developmental Biology
Yale University
G. Peter Lepage
Professor of Physics
Harold Tanner Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Cornell University
Chad Mirkin*
Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials
Science and Engineering, Chemical and
Biological Engineering and Medicine
Director, International Institute for
Nanotechnology
Northwestern University
Working Group Members
Joseph G. Altonji
Thomas DeWitt Cuyler Professor of Economics
Yale University
Peter Bruns
Vice President for Grants and Special Programs
(Retired)
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
Carol Christ
President
Smith College
Isaac Crumbly
Associate Vice President for Career and
Collaborative Programs
Founder, Cooperative Development Energy
Program
Fort Valley State University
Emily DeRocco
President
The Manufacturing Institute
Senior Vice President
National Association of Manufacturers
Brian K. Fitzgerald
Chief Executive Ocer
Business Higher Education Forum
Mark Gorenberg*
Managing Director
Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
Shirley Ann Jackson*
President
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Neal Lane
Senior Fellow in Science and Technology Policy
James Baker Institute for Public Policy
Rice University
Tom Luce
Chief Executive Ocer
National Math and Science Initiative
Judy Miner
President
Foothill College
xiv
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Suzanne Ortega
Senior Vice President for Academic Aairs
University of North Carolina
Ed Penhoet*
Director, Alta Partners
Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public
Health
University of California, Berkeley
Calvin Phelps
National Chair
National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE)
Daniel Schrag*
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor, Environmental Science and
Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for
Environment
Harvard University
Dan Schwartz
Professor
Stanford University School of Education
Candace Thille
Director of the Open Learning Initiative Carnegie
Mellon University
Writers
Steve Olson
Science Writer
Donna Gerardi Riordan
Science Writer and Policy Analyst
Sta
Danielle Evers
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow
Deborah Stine
Executive Director
* PCAST member
★ ★
xv
Table of Contents
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Strategies: The First Two Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
III. Barriers and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IV. A Multi-Faceted Approach: Reaching A Tipping Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recommendations:
1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices . . . . . 16
2. Advocate and provide support for replacing traditional lab courses with
discovery-based research courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to
address the mathematics-preparation gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers 30
5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic
and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and
sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
V. Engage to Excel: Summary of Recommendations, Actions, and Estimated Costs. . . . . 37
Appendix A: Experts Providing Input to PCAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix B: Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data . . . . 47
Appendix D: Economic Analysis of STEM Workforce Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix E: Evidence of the Mathematics-Preparation Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix F: Ecacy of Various Classroom Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix G: Review of Evidence that Research Experiences have Impacts on Retention . . . 87
Appendix H: Eective Practices to Improve STEM Undergraduate Education . . . . . . . 89
Appendix I : References for Tables 2, 3, 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
1
★ ★
I. Introduction
Importance of STEM
Throughout the 20th century, science, technology, and higher education were drivers of innovation
in the U.S. economy. The rapid expansion of the research and development enterprise after World
War II—which was enabled by the growth of higher education and corresponding increases in the
number of college graduates with expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM)—led to strong economic performance, good jobs, and thriving new industries driven by new
technologies.
The United States is now putting its future at risk by forfeiting its historical strengths in STEM education.
The proportion of STEM degrees among all college graduates has been falling for the past decade.
Without action, it is likely that this proportion will continue to drop as groups that have historically
earned fewer STEM degrees on average than white men become a larger majority of college students.
As has occurred previously —with the 1862 Federal support for the establishment of land grant colleges,
for example, and almost a century later with the response to the launch of Sputnik—the Nation has
reached a decision point. The United States could renew its commitment to education—and especially
STEM education—or it could risk creating a permanent economic gap among American workers at a
time of dramatic demographic transition and enhanced global economic competition.
The need for STEM knowledge extends to all Americans. The products of science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics play a substantial and growing role in the lives of all Americans. A democratic
society in which large numbers of people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with scientic and technologi-
cal advances faces a great economic disadvantage in globalized competition. Achieving scientic and
technological literacy among our citizenry is a complex topic that diers in important ways from the
challenge of training STEM professionals and is beyond the scope of this report; we hope that this topic
will become the focus of future study. Nevertheless, the actions we recommend, though not speci-
cally targeted at achieving broad STEM literacy, will aect STEM literacy among the college-educated
citizenry.
One million additional college graduates with STEM degrees
Several analyses point to the need to add to the American workforce over the next decade approximately
1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S. will produce at current rates.
,
,
The exact projections
vary somewhat depending on the job denitions and assumptions embodied in the models, but the
1. See Appendix C.
2. See Appendix D.
3. Lacey, T. A. and B. Wright. (2009). “Occupational employment projections to 2018.” Monthly Labor Review
132(11):82-123.
4. See Appendix D.
5. Langdon, D., G. McKittrick, D. Beede, B. Khan, and M. Doms. (2011). “STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future.”
ESA Issue Brief #03-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
2
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
studies produce results on the same order of magnitude. For example, one analysis by the Center on
Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University shows that between 2008 and 2018, STEM
occupations will increase from 5.0% of the jobs in the U.S to 5.3%, an increase that is equivalent to
1 million jobs and that 92% of STEM jobs by 2018 will require at least some postsecondary education
and training. This projection also aligns with the President’s goal of the United States regaining its lead
in the world in the number of young people graduating from college. If the STEM elds are going to take
part in this growth of college-educated Americans, the number of STEM degrees earned must increase
by about 1 million over the next decade.
In the past, the United States has relied on foreign-born STEM professionals to satisfy unmet work-
force demands, and these employees have made important contributions to the U.S. economy. But
the U.S. is not guaranteed a continuing future supply of international workers in STEM elds because
education and employment opportunities are increasing in numbers elsewhere. Reliance on foreign
nationals makes our security and economy vulnerable as their home countries become more attractive
and their STEM-trained workers return from the U.S. to serve the needs of their homelands. Moreover,
STEM-related jobs are among the best our economy oers, as evidenced by their high wages and lower
unemployment rates than in other sectors.
,
,
The increased supply of jobs in these elds will oer an
opportunity to reduce income inequality in the United States.
,
This opportunity can be captured
only by increasing the number of U.S.-born college graduates with training in STEM elds from all
demographic sectors of U.S. society.
The U.S. currently graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM elds annually;
thus, between 2012 and 2022, the U.S. can be expected to produce approximately 3 million STEM
degrees. To meet the goal of an additional 1 million STEM college graduates in the next decade, we would
need to graduate an additional 100,000 per year, representing an approximately 33% increase over
current production rates. This goal is justied and will be feasible with strategic actions. (See Appendix
D for a more extensive analysis of the need for 1 million additional STEM workers.)
6. Carnevale, A.P., N.Smith, and J. Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements
through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
7. Carnevale, A.P, N. Smith, and M. Melton. (2011). STEM. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on
Education and the Workforce.
8. U.S. General Accounting Oce. (2005). Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. Washington, DC.
9. Langdon, et al. (2011), op. cit.
10. Scott, J. and A. Balakrishnan. “STEM Workforce Trends, Projections, and Skills Assessments.” Unpublished
analysis for PCAST Working Group on Postsecondary STEM Education, May 9, 2011. Washington, DC: IDA Science and
Technology Policy Institute.
11. Carnevale, A. P., and S. J. Rose. (2011). The Undereducated American. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce.
12. Goldin, C., and L.F. Katz. (2008). The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
13. Radford, A.W., L. Berkner, S.D. Wheeless, and B. Shepherd. (2010). “Persistence and Attainment of 2003– 04
Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years (NCES 2011-151).” U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics. Accessible at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
I. INTRODUCTION
3
★ ★
Beyond STEM professionals
In this report, STEM professionals are dened as those with degrees in STEM areas who are trained
and work as STEM practitioners. In addition to the need for more STEM professionals, there is also a
national need for more workers with some STEM training. These “STEM-capable” workers are able to
use knowledge and skills from STEM elds but work in areas that are traditionally considered non-STEM
elds. The ranks of the STEM-capable workforce are expanding as this skill set comes to represent an
increasingly valued commodity in many elds. For example, physicians, nurses, and other health work-
ers and advanced manufacturing professionals generally are not categorized as “STEM professionals,”
yet many of these jobs draw heavily on STEM knowledge and skills, and represent some of the most
rapidly growing or wealth producing sectors of the U.S. economy. Another group that is not counted in
economic projections as STEM professionals are K-12 teachers with strong STEM skills, whose shortage
has become a national crisis. (See Appendix D for further description of STEM skills categories).
Since none of these substantial groups is counted among the needed STEM professionals in the eco-
nomic projections we cite here, the size of the future workforce needing STEM training may substantially
exceed the addition of the estimated 1 million STEM professionals. The recommendations we present
should aect the college-educated population generally by increasing interest in and knowledge of
STEM subjects among graduates of diverse elds, thereby broadening the impact of the recommended
actions beyond STEM professionals.
Engage to Excel
The themes guiding this report have broad application to leaders, faculty, and students in academia,
industry, and government.
The title of this report, “Engage to Excel,” applies to individuals across these groups. Students must be
engaged to excel in STEM elds. To excel as teachers, faculty must engage in methods of teaching
grounded in research about why students excel and persist in college. Moreover, success depends on the
engagement by great leadership. Leaders, including the President of the United States, college, university
and business leadership, and others, must encourage and support the creation of well-aligned incentives
for transforming and sustaining STEM learning. They also must encourage and support the establishment
of broad-based reliable metrics to measure outcomes in an ongoing cycle of improvement.
5
★ ★
II. Strategies: e First Two Years
How to ll the need?
In the United States, fewer than 40% of the students who enter college with the intention of majoring
in a STEM eld complete a STEM degree. Most of the students who leave STEM elds switch to non-
STEM majors after taking introductory science, math, and engineering courses. Many of the students
who leave STEM majors are capable of the work, making the retention of students who express initial
interest in STEM subjects an excellent group from which to draw some of the additional one million
STEM graduates. Research on the exodus from STEM disciplines shows that many students who transfer
out of STEM majors perform well, but they describe the teaching methods and atmosphere in intro-
ductory STEM classes as ineective and uninspiring.
,
Others do not perform well despite interest
and aptitude and would benet from alternative teaching methods, tutoring, or other experiences
demonstrated to improve performance in STEM subjects. Merely increasing retention from 40% to 50%
would translate to an additional 72,500 STEM degrees per year, comprising almost three-quarters of the
1 million additional STEM graduates needed over the next decade.
Although women and members of minority groups now constitute approximately 70% of college stu-
dents, they are underrepresented among students receiving undergraduate degrees in STEM subjects
(approximately 45 percent). These students are an “underrepresented majority” that must be part of the
route to excellence. Members of this group leave STEM majors at higher rates than others and oer
an expanding pool of untapped talent. Some campuses have shown that dierences in performance
and retention between traditional STEM majors and members of the underrepresented majority can be
reduced substantially by several simple changes in campus or classroom practices (e.g., see Appendices
F and G).
,
,
,
The underrepresented majority is a large underutilized source of potential STEM profes-
sionals and deserves special attention.
The current system of STEM education has eectively trained many STEM workers, including most of
the current STEM workforce. However, its longevity is not evidence that it cannot be improved or that
this system will be successful with today’s student body. Indeed, extensive evidence points to a need to
14. See Appendix C.
15. Seymour, E. and N. M. Hewitt. (1997). Talking about leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
16. Brainard, S. and L. Carlin. (1998). “A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and
science.” Journal of Engineering Education 87(4):), 369-375.
17. The concept of the “underrepresented majority” has particularly been championed by Shirley Jackson,
president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. For example: Jackson, Shirley. (2004). “The Perfect Storm: A Weather
Forecast.” Address to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, WA.
18. Felder, R. M., G.N. Felder, and E.J. Dietz. (1998). “A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and
retention v. comparisons with traditionally-taught students.” Journal of Engineering Education 87(4): 469-480.
19. Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen. (2011). “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health
Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331(6023): 1447-1451.
20. Nagda, B. A., S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty
research partnerships aect student retention.” The Review of Higher Education 22: 55-72.
21. Ohland, M. W., C.E. Brawner, M.M. Camacho, R.A. Layton, R.A. Long, S.M. Lord, and M.H. Wasburn. (2011). “Race,
gender, and measures of success in engineering education.” Journal of Engineering Education 100: 225-252.
6
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
do better. STEM disciplines have substantially lower rates of retention than do the social sciences and
humanities.
,
,
Furthermore, many of those who leave STEM majors express dissatisfaction with the
teaching of STEM classes.
,
This should be seen as a national crisis of STEM teaching, yet many STEM
faculty members believe that this “weeding out” process is in the best interest of their disciplines and
the larger national interest. If many of those who leave performed well in introductory STEM courses,
and many others could be helped to succeed, then it is unreasonable to conclude that this attrition
represents an eective selection process that is maximally benecial to STEM elds.
The rst two years of college are the most critical to retention and recruitment of STEM majors. The
STEM courses in these years are also a shared feature of all types of 2- and 4-year colleges and universi-
ties—community colleges, comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, research universities, and
minority-serving institutions. In addition, STEM courses in the rst two years are all the STEM courses
that most future K-12 teachers are going to experience in college. The amount they learn, the models
of STEM teaching, and their attitudes towards STEM disciplines will have an enormous impact on their
future teaching. For all these reasons, a focus on improving STEM courses taken early in college oers
potentially enormous benets to STEM elds. Therefore, this report focuses on actions that will inuence
the quality of STEM education in the rst two years of college.
Persistence of students in STEM majors
Research indicates that student persistence in a STEM degree is associated primarily with three aspects
of their experience. The rst concerns intellectual engagement and achievement. Compared with students
in traditional lectures, students who play an active role in the pursuit of scientic knowledge learn more
and develop more condence in their abilities, thereby increasing their persistence in STEM majors. This
engagement can be accomplished in both the classroom and research lab. Many types of classroom
instruction that engage students in thinking or problem-solving increase learning and enhance attitudes
toward STEM elds. These gains translate into better retention of students in STEM majors. For example,
students in traditional lecture courses were twice as likely to leave engineering and three times as likely
to drop out of college entirely compared with students taught using techniques that engaged them
actively in class. In a randomized trial at the University of Michigan, students who engaged in sopho-
more research with a professor were much less likely to leave STEM majors than those who did not. The
eects were observed among all groups, including white, African American, and Hispanic students.
22. The National Academies (2010). Expanding Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the
Crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. See Appendix C.
24. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re Not Dumb, They’re Dierent: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
25. Seymour and Hewitt. (1997). op. cit.
26. Tobias. (1990). op. cit.
27. Sevo, R. (2009). “The Talent Crisis in Science and Engineering.” In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Applying Research to
Practice (ARP) Resources. Accessible at http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPResources.aspx.
28. Felder, R. M., G.N. Felder, and E.J. Dietz. (1998). “A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and
retention v. comparisons with traditionally-taught students.” Journal of Engineering Education 87(4): 469-480.
29. Nagda, B. A., S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty
research partnerships aect student retention.” The Review of Higher Education 22: 55-72.
II. STRATEGIES: THE FIRST TWO YEARS
7
★ ★
The second aspect of a student’s experience that aects persistence is motivation. Motivation is partially
intrinsic but also is modulated by the college environment. A key in maintaining student motivation is
having role models. The majority of U.S. STEM faculty are white, male, able-bodied, and middle class and
have had many role models with whom to identify. Role models who are women and ethnic minorities
increase the performance and retention of students in those same groups.
,
,
Financial concerns, lack
of encouragement from family members, and a decit of peers from similar backgrounds can erode
self-condence and the will to remain in STEM majors.
A student’s belief about barriers or pathways to success in an academic eld also inuences motiva-
tion. For example, students who believe that hard work is the key element in success are more likely to
interpret negative feedback as guidance for improvement, whereas students who believe that intrinsic
ability determines a person’s success are more likely to take negative feedback as a negative assessment
of their ability to perform. Courses that have very low average grades on exams can dierentially
discourage the latter group of students from continuing in STEM majors.
Some simple experiences have been shown to have large eects on performance and persistence. In
one study, female subjects instructed to focus on the similarities between men and women performed
better on a math exam and expressed less preference for typically feminine careers than students who
received instructions that were not directed at gender. A dramatic eect was achieved in performance
on physics exams by having students write for 15 minutes about their values. This exercise only aected
the women, thereby closing a rather substantial achievement gap between men and women in the
class. A recent paper reported a study of students who experienced a one-time intervention in which
they were asked to read a short article about adversity in college and then write an essay and speak
about it. Over a 3-year period, the African American students who experienced the intervention had
grade point averages a full grade higher than those who did not experience the session, had fewer
health problems, and had a greater sense of well-being than African American students in the control
30. Marx, D. M. and J. S. Roman. (2002). “Female Role Models: Protecting Women’s Math Test Performance.”
Personality and Social Pychology Bulletin 28: 1183-1193.
31. Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same-gender role models?”
Psychology of Women Quarterly 30(1): 36-46.
32. Cheryan, S., J.O. Siy, M. Vichayapai, B.J. Drury and S. Kim. (2011). “Do Female and Male Role Models Who
Embody STEM Stereotypes Hinder Women’s Anticipated Success in STEM?” Social Psychological and Personality Science 2:
656-664.
33. The National Academies. (2010). op. cit.
34. Sy, S. R. and J. Romero. (2008). “Family Responsibilities Among Latina College Students From Immigrant
Families.” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 7(3): 212-227.
35. Ethier, K. A. and K. Deaux. (1994). “Negotiating Social Identity When Contexts Change—Maintaining
Identication And Responding To Threat.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 243-251.
36. Aronson, J. M. (Ed.) (2002). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors in education. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37. Byars-Winston, A., Y. Estrada, C. Howard, D. Davis, J. Zalapa. (2010). “Inuence of social cognitive and ethnic
variables on academic goals of underrepresented students in science and engineering: A multiple-groups analysis.”
Journal of Counseling Psychology 57: 205-218.
38. Rosenthal, H.E. and R.J. Crisp. (2006). “Reducing stereotype threat by blurring intergroup boundaries.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 501–511.
39. Kost-Smith, L. E., S.J. Pollock, N.S. Finkelstein, G.L. Cohen, T.A. Ito, and A. Miyake. (2011). “Replicating a Self-
Armation Intervention to Address Gender Dierences: Successes and Challenges.” Research paper. Boulder, CO: Physics
Education Research @ Colorado.
8
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
group. In addition, many studies show that participation in research improves motivation and active
participation in subsequent courses for all students.
The third aspect of a student’s experience that aects persistence is identication with a STEM eld. Recent
work suggests that identication with a group or community of STEM professionals may overshadow
many other factors in determining persistence.
,
,
Developing meaningful relationships with peers and
instructors, involvement in study groups, and participation in a research laboratory all are associated with
reduced departures from STEM elds.
45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54
Interventions to enhance minority students’
identication with a eld equalize retention between minority and majority students, indicating the
need for more focused programs that emphasize student engagement as part of a STEM community.
Strategies to achieve engagement and excellence in STEM learning
All three of the aspects of student experience discussed above must be addressed to increase retention
among STEM students. The key strategies that we propose in this report fall into three broad categories:
1. Adopt STEM teaching strategies that emphasize student engagement. The lecture has
been a mainstay of higher education since the word “lecture” was created in the 14
th
century,
and today most introductory STEM courses are taught largely through lectures. Extensive
40. Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen (2011). “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health
Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331(6023): 1447-1451.
41. Lopatto, D. (2007). “Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning.”
CBE Life Sciences Education 6: 297-306.
42. Bartlett, K. (2003). “Towards a true community of scholars: undergraduate research in the modern university.”
Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 666-667: 707-711.
43. Espinosa, L. L. (2011). “Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM Majors and the College
Experiences That Contribute to Persistence.” Harvard Educational Review 81(2): 209-240.
44. Estrada, M., A. Woodcock, P.R. Hernandez, and P. Schultz, and P.W. Schultz. (2011). “Toward a model of social
inuence that explains minority student integration into the scientic community.” Journal of Educational Psychology
103(1): 206-222.
45. Anaya, G. (2001). “Correlates of performance on the MCAT: an examination of the inuence of college
environments and experiences on student learning.” Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory and Practice 6: 179-191.
46. Gregerman, S. R. (1999). “Improving the Academic Success of Diverse Students Through Undergraduate
Research.” Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly.
47. Hathaway, R., B.A. Nagda, and S. Gregerman. (2002). “The relationship of undergraduate research participation
to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study.” Journal of College Student Development 43(5): 614-
631.
48. Bartlett. (2003). op. cit.
49. Kight, S.L., J.J. Gaynor, and S.D. Adams. (2006). “Undergraduate Research Communities: A Powerful Approach to
Research Training.” Journal of College Science Teaching July/August, 34-39.
50. Kinkel, D. H. and S. E. Henke (2006). “Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance, educational
planning, and career development.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 35: 194-201.
51. Hunter, A-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. (2007). “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in
students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.” Science Education 91: 36-74.
52. Russell, S. H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. (2007 ). “The pipeline: Benets of undergraduate research
experiences.” Science 316: 548-549.
53. Junge, B., C. Quiñones, J. Kakietek, D. Teodorescu, and P. Marsteller. (2010). “Promoting Undergraduate
Interest, Preparedness, and Professional Pursuit in the Sciences: An Outcomes Evaluation of the SURE Program at Emory
University.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 9(2): 119-132.
54. Espinosa. (2011). op. cit.
55. The National Academies. (2010). op. cit.
II. STRATEGIES: THE FIRST TWO YEARS
9
★ ★
research on how the human brain learns indicates that diversifying teaching methods enhances
critical thinking skills, long-term retention of information, and student retention in STEM
majors.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Moreover, these active learning techniques benet all students and can
close the achievement gap between ethnic groups and men and women. We therefore recom-
mend that STEM faculty learn how to use and incorporate highly eective teaching methods
into their introductory STEM courses, including the opportunity to generate knowledge through
research. These methods should include research courses, other forms of active student engage-
ment, and learning assessment as part of a continued cycle of improvement in STEM education.
2. Provide all students with the tools to excel. Many students arrive in college without sucient
study skills, math prociency, or identication as a scientist, engineer, or mathematician. These
three contributors to success in STEM disciplines also are distributed dierentially among ethnic
and socioeconomic groups as well as between men and women. These are key foci for change
that will reduce the achievement gap and increase retention of students in STEM courses.
We therefore recommend high school to college bridge programs and other mechanisms to
improve study skills, identication with STEM elds, and particularly math preparation. The
POSSE foundation provides a model from which key features can be used as a gold standard
for bridge programs:
− A rigorous selection process for students with academic excellence, leadership potential,
and interest in STEM elds.
− Enrichment programs and cohort events to build community and a support network for
students
− Academic programs during the summer after high school to enable college readiness
− Mentoring, advising, and tutoring at college, including assistance finding a research
laboratory
3. Diversify pathways to STEM degrees. There was a time when most people who attended
college were single white men, had high school diplomas, started college at age 18, graduated
56. Conway, M. A. and S. J. Anderson. (1994). “The formation of ashbulb memories.” Memory & Cognition 22: 326.
57. Weigel, R. H. (1975). “The impact of cooperative learning experiences on cross-ethnic relations and attitudes.”
Journal of Social Issues 31: 219-244.
58. Schwartz, D. L. and J.D. Bransford (1998). “A time for telling.” Cognition & Instruction 16: 475-522.
59. Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan. (1999). “Eects of small-group learning on undergraduates in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.
60. Rivard, L. P. and S. B. Straw. (2000). “The eect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.”
Science Education 84: 566-593.
61. Callender, A. A. and M. A. McDaniel. (2007). “The Benets of Embedded Question Adjuncts for Low and High
Structure Builders.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 339-348.
62. Chen, J. Y. (2011). “Problem-based learning: Developing resilience in nursing students.” Kaohsiung Journal of
Medical Sciences 27(6): 230-233.
63. Morgan, R. L., J. E. Whorton, and C. Gunsalas. (2000). “A comparison of short term and long term retention:
lecture combined with discussion versus cooperative learning.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 27: 53-58.
64. National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
65. See The Posse Foundation: http://www.possefoundation.org/.
10
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
in 4 years, had all the academic preparation needed to succeed, and had few family responsibili-
ties. In the 21
st
century, this is not true. Today, students come from diverse backgrounds, have
widely divergent levels of preparation, may be returning to college after years in the workforce
or serving in the U.S. military, and often are employed while in college to support themselves
and families. Higher education needs to acknowledge these dierences among students and
work to accommodate them by creating more entry points and pathways to STEM degrees. At
the beginning of the 21
st
Century, the concept of a “pipeline” to STEM competency and accom-
plishment needs to be replaced by a system of multiple pathways to these goals.
11
★ ★
III. Barriers and Challenges
Institutional and individual barriers demand a multifaceted approach to
catalyzing change
The strategies introduced in the previous section have the potential to transform undergraduate STEM
education, but change in academia is slow and hard. The status quo is favored for many reasons, such as
existing incentive structures and traditional practices. In this chapter of the report, we describe the most
signicant barriers to implementing the three strategies to achieve excellence and engagement. The
next chapter presents a multifaceted set of actions that the Federal Government can take to encourage
change and reduce or circumvent the barriers.
Faculty lack knowledge of evidence-based teaching
Despite what is a now vast body of research about how people learn and which teaching methods
are most eective at transmitting knowledge and building critical thinking skills, most STEM faculty
members have neither the time nor the incentives to nd, read, and evaluate the literature or the teaching
methods derived from it. Most teach using methods by which they were taught. Access to and implemen-
tation of modern assessment of learning is similarly distant from and inaccessible to the typical faculty
member. Few opportunities for formal training in STEM teaching and assessment exist, and those that
do are hard to nd.
Lack of facilitation and rewards for good teaching
Instituting more eective institutional approaches than lecturing will require convincing a large segment
of those teaching STEM courses that they can teach more eectively while still meeting all of their
professional obligations (including teaching multiple courses, conducting research, and serving their
institutions and disciplines). Today, faculty members still face several major obstacles to changing their
teaching practices:
• Insucient time to acquire the latest information on the most eective evidence-based teach-
ing practices,
• lack of individual rewards for teaching, even at liberal arts colleges, where salaries and advance-
ment more closely correlate with publication rate than teaching quality,
• lack of departmental rewards and expectations for good teaching.
The current incentive system for most STEM faculty is focused on research and not teaching. It therefore
discourages the expenditures of time and eort required to surmount the obstacles cited above. As things
stand, it seems untenable to expect faculty to become procient practitioners of a research eld as well
as experts on the literature on eective evidence-based teaching practices. They need to be provided
with tools and information that they can readily use in their teaching.
12
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
To increase recognition of the importance of teaching in research institutions, it will be critical to
have leadership from presidents and provosts to galvanize faculty through resources and rewards.
Department chairs are critical to that eort because they have the most direct impact on teaching in
STEM departments. Some of the changes are easy and inexpensive. For example, a department’s web-
page might simply provide a set of learning goals for students in their major; the process of agreeing
on these learning goals would immediately elevate the visibility and importance of teaching and likely
improve it as well. A department’s website might also list faculty members who are outstanding teach-
ers and provide evidence for their excellence. Some changes will be harder. Adding a requirement for
teaching excellence to tenure guidelines has been accomplished at many research universities,
,
but
will be highly controversial at others. Some changes will require new resources. Revamping courses
and curricula is dicult and requires time that must be subsidized. Resources can be used to inuence
how faculty spend their time and will be essential to seed transformation and institutionalization of
improved STEM teaching.
Limited resources
Most universities have felt the economic realities of the last few years. Some struggle to provide the
most basic elements of their curricula, so the idea of putting time and resources into new teaching
approaches and programs may seem unrealistic. Leadership will need to address this issue through
reallocation of existing resources, strategic fundraising, and securing nancial assistance from private
funders and State and Federal grants. However, the strategies proposed here require little expansion of
the introductory courses. Increasing retention of students beyond the introductory courses will generate
most of the new STEM majors.
Grading and workload across majors
Some students avoid or abandon STEM majors because they believe that their GPAs are likely to be lower
in STEM courses than in humanities, business and management, or social sciences and that the workload
is greater. They are correct at most universities. However, faculty can make it known that they are avail-
able to help students learn to ensure that they do as well as possible in their courses. STEM faculty also
can make their courses so engaging that students will be inspired by STEM elds and persist in STEM
majors despite the workload. Most students who intend to major in a STEM eld have an intrinsic interest
in STEM subjects that can compensate for the dierences between STEM and other courses. Arbitrary
depression of grading scales in STEM courses should be discontinued. These practices articially reward
students for majoring in non-STEM disciplines, especially for students who feel pressure from nancial
aid, GPA requirements, or graduate school admissions.
66. Anderson W.A., U. Banerjee, C.L.Drennan, S.C. Elgin, I.R. Epstein, J. Handelsman, G.F. Hatfull, R. Losick, D.K.
O’Dowd, B.M. Olivera, S.A. Strobel, G.C. Walker, and I.M.Warner. (2011). “Science education. Changing the culture of
science education at research universities.” Science 331(6014):152-3.
67. See, for example, University of Wisconsin-Madison website for the Secretary of the Faculty:
http://www.secfac.wisc.edu.
III. BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
13
★ ★
Institutional isolation
Many two-year and non-research institutions do not have the programs or resources to oer students a
full suite of research opportunities. Addressing this will require collaborations among academic institu-
tions as well as between academia and industry to expand the opportunities for students beyond their
own institution.
Challenge of change
People are usually resistant to change. One reason that many faculty may maintain traditional teaching
practices is that they have been successful in their elds and therefore assume that the educational
approaches that taught them so eectively are appropriate for all students. But resistance to change
is human and has been confronted successfully in numerous other settings. The study of individual,
organizational, and cultural change is a sophisticated eld that can inform the design of transformation
strategies for STEM education in the rst two years of college.
The fact that lecturing remains the overwhelmingly predominant form of instruction at the post-
secondary level when there are hundreds of papers showing better ways to teach indicates that more
than inertia is at work. The incentives for both the academic department and the individual faculty
member at research universities are focused on maximizing research success, and this system has worked
extremely well to maintain a powerful research engine in higher education. However, there are few, if
any, counter-balancing incentives linked to desired educational outcomes, and there are often disincen-
tives. One that exerts an overwhelming inuence on junior faculty is the current tenure decision system.
Though increased attention is now being paid to teaching eectiveness, tenure decision processes still
push mainly in the opposite direction. Even if junior faculty come to an institution with the passion and
determination to achieve teaching excellence, they can easily feel, and are often advised by their more
senior colleagues, that teaching innovations should wait until after they have achieved tenure.
Eective incentives require good metrics for measuring accomplishment—metrics by which depart-
ments and individual faculty members can be compared and held accountable. Although research will
always be the hallmark of the research university and must be valued and rewarded, the ideal faculty
incentive system is based on both teaching and research accomplishments. For the incentive system
to be meaningful, metrics for teaching quality must be credible.
To achieve the goals presented in this report, colleges and universities need to change their institutional
and reward structures. In the last few decades, some extraordinary, sweeping changes have been delib-
erately instigated and studied in other societal areas. For example, the nearly universal familiarity in the
United States with the idea of a “designated driver,” previously unknown in our society, was achieved in
three years because of one person’s vision and action. Such campaigns provide guidance for designing
similarly transformative initiatives.
14
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table 1. Actions to induce cultural change
• Create a sense of urgency
• Identify credible guiding teams
• Create vision
• Communicate vision and progress
• Facilitate change/remove obstacles
• Generate belief in successful movement
• Reward change
• Ensure repeated exposure to message
• Provide checklists to measure progress
• Create community for transformation leaders
• Use diverse, concerted drivers to generate a
tipping point
Sources:
Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Dierence. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Co.;
Heath, C. and D. Heath (2010). Switch. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Shapiro, A. (2003). Creating Contagious Commitment: Applying the Tipping Point to Organizational Change. Hillsborough, NC: Strategy
Perspective.
Based on the theory and practice of cultural change, a number of steps must be accomplished to eect
lasting change for STEM education (Table 1). Key elements to be addressed include human tendencies
such as resistance to change, complacency, and cynicism; practical obstacles such as lack of resources
and know-how; communication challenges including lack of awareness of the problem or successful
solutions; and lack of reinforcements to foster change among individuals and institutions. The recom-
mendations we make in the next chapter are focused on addressing the challenges, generating an
environment, and establishing processes that will induce and sustain transformative change.
15
★ ★
IV. A Multi-Facted Approach:
Reaching the Tipping Point
No single strategy will generate 1 million additional undergraduate STEM degrees over the next decade,
because the challenge has many dimensions. It entwines facts and logic with academic culture, incen-
tives, and belief systems. Therefore the recommendations presented here address various stakeholders
and use both tangible resources and persuasion to inspire and catalyze change in undergraduate STEM
education. By attacking the issue from a number of angles with various tools, including public exhorta-
tion, faculty incentives, resources, information, and institutional connections, the concerted forces can
reach a point at which the movement takes on a momentum of its own and leads to sweeping change.
Barriers to change vary with institution type and context. Some institutions may respond to a desire to
be on the cutting edge of education, some to new resources, and others to the desire to maintain fund-
ing for and prestige of their graduate programs. Some faculty will be interested in change but will not
know how to accomplish it; others will be waiting to hear from their administrations that this change is
important and will be rewarded. Some students might benet most from engaging in research, while
others might be more in need of bolstering their math skills. Therefore, we propose promoting change
with actions that address diverse students, faculty, departments, institutional leadership, industrial
interests, and professional societies. Our recommendations aim to overcome many barriers, from lack
of faculty time for studying the education literature to the inability of students to re-enter college after
they take a break from their education.
A number of steps must be accomplished to eect lasting change. Needed elements include a combi-
nation of rational thinking, a sense of urgency, community facilitation, cooperative action among key
players, individual and group rewards, and visible success stories.
When the point is reached where ongoing change no longer depends on interventions by the Federal
Government, the importance of engagement and excellence in STEM education will be part of the
academic lexicon on every institution’s agenda, and will be widely accepted as benecial to students,
faculty, and society. When this point is reached, resources for the recommendations below will be
incorporated into the base budgets of many institutions, graduate students will not remember a time
when science was taught by lectures alone, and having metrics to evaluate excellence in STEM educa-
tion will be routine.
68. Kezar, A. J. and P. D. Eckel. (2002). ” The Eect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education:
Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts?” Journal of Higher Education 73(4): 435-460.
16
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Recommendations
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) proposes ve overarching
recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high
school to college, and during the rst two years of undergraduate STEM education:
1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-
based research courses.
3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the
mathematics preparation gap.
4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.
5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and
business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable
change in STEM undergraduate education.
Each of these recommendations will be explained in more detail below.
Recommendation I.
Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
Rationale for Recommendation 1.
Evidence-Based Teaching
Thinking like a STEM professional requires acquisition of information, habits of mind, skills, and an iden-
tity embedded in a STEM discipline. Such diverse attributes are unlikely to be learned most eectively
through one mode of teaching. Yet most introductory STEM courses taken in the rst two years of college
are dominated by lectures and multiple choice tests. A substantial empirical literature has demonstrated
that alternative models of instruction can achieve many important learning outcomes more eectively
than current practice (Table 2). (For a discussion of the learning literature, see Appendix F.) STEM educa-
tors can take a more scientic approach to teaching by basing classroom choices on research evidence
rather than habits and traditions.
“Evidence-based” teaching, also known as “scientic teaching”, has two features. First, it involves choos-
ing teaching methods based on research about how people learn and on proven teaching methods.
Second, it involves using assessment of learning to determine whether students are meeting stated
learning goals. Generally, approaches that most eectively transmit information and build critical
thinking skills require that students are actively engaged in the process of and receive feedback while
learning.
69. National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
70. J. Handelsman, et al.D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauer, J. Stewart,
S.Tilghman, W. Wood. (2004). “Scientic Teaching.” Science 304(5670), 521–522.
71. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
17
★ ★
Table 2. Types of active learning that have been demonstrated to enhance learning.
Types of active learning with feedback Examples of studies that demonstrate enhanced learning
Small group discussion and
peer instruction
Anderson et al. (2005); Armbruster et al. (2009); Armstrong et al. (2007);
Beichner et al. (1999); Born et al. (2002); Crouch and Mazur (2001); Fagen
(2002); Lasry et al. (2008); Lewis and Lewis (2005); McDaniel (2007a,
2007b); Rivard and Straw (2000); Tessier (2004 and 2007); Tien et al. (2002)
Testing Steele (2003)
One-minute papers Almer et al. (1998); Chizmar and Ostrosky (1998); Rivard and Straw (2000)
Clickers Smith et al. (2009, 2011)
Problem-based learning Capon and Kuhn (2004); Preszler et al. (2007)
Case Studies Preszler (2009)
Analytical challenge before lecture Schwartz and Bransford (1998)
Group tests Cortright et al. (2003); Klappa (2009)
Problem sets in groups Cortright et al. (2005)
Concept mapping Foncesca et al. (2004); Prezler (2004); Yarden et al. (2004)
Writing with peer review Pelaez (2002)
Computer simulations and games Harris et al. (2009); McDaniel et al. (2007); Traver et al. (2001)
Combination of active learning
methods
Freeman et al. (2007); O’Sullivan and Cooper (2003)
Note: All studies cited compare treatment and control groups. Full references are found in Appendix I.
Classroom approaches that engage students actively have been shown to increase retention of informa-
tion, build critical thinking skills, induce more positive attitudes toward STEM disciplines, and increase
retention of students in STEM majors.
,
Diverse methods that engage students in “active learning” have
been successfully implemented in a large range of classroom sizes and can be done with an increase,
not a decrease, in coverage of content. Most surprisingly to many instructors is the increase in retention
of information, deep understanding, and student attendance and enthusiasm in class that result from
a diversication of teaching approaches beyond lectures (see Table 2 for references).
Three types of research studies demonstrate the eects of evidence-based teaching methods on learn-
ing and retention in STEM degrees.
72. Peckham, J., P. Stephenson, J-Y Hervé, R. Hutt, and Miguel Encarnação. (2007). “Increasing student retention in
computer science through research programs for undergraduates.” SIGCSE ’07: Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education 39(1): 124–128.
73. McClanahan, E. B. and L. L. McClanahan. (2002). “Active Learning in a Non-Majors Biology Class.” College
Teaching 50: 92-96.
18
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
The eld of cognitive psychology has constructed a substantial literature of randomized trials with
carefully controlled variables in which dierent types of teaching are used and learning is measured
with a single instrument. These studies consistently show that learning and retention of knowledge as
well as acquisition of higher order thinking and reasoning skills are better with many types of active
learning than lectures alone.
,
• Designed experiments that compare learning between two STEM courses in which the mate-
rial is presented with active or passive (largely traditional) means show that the introduction of
active learning into STEM courses of all sizes and disciplines induces more learning than lectures
alone.
,
,
In some of these experiments the instructor is the same in both classes, and in some
the instructors dier.
• Retrospective analyses of student performance in courses or curricula, which resemble epide-
miological studies in human health, also demonstrate more learning with active than passive
methods.
While each of these lines of evidence has limitations, together they create a compelling body of research
indicating that student learning can be enhanced by any of a large number of interventions that induce
active engagement of students in the course material. A more extensive discussion of this research, a
summary of more than 100 papers in the eld, and a discussion of the experimental approaches used
to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of this type of research are presented in Appendix F.
Technology to improve learning
Technology can be used in far more meaningful ways than is currently typical in STEM classrooms. In
addition to its use to save cost and time (e.g., putting a textbook, lecture, or assessment on-line) and
disseminate learning and assessment materials (e.g., portals that enable educators to search for lessons
online), far more dramatic change in education can be achieved with technologies that create a “cycle of
innovation.” Globally available and shared assessment tools can evaluate student learning and feed learn-
ing data into central databases for researchers as well as learners and teachers, leading to continuous
improvement of teaching and learning. As knowledge about learning evolves, this cycle of innovation
can provide a natural route for continuous experimentation, with immediate feedback for many dierent
types of classrooms and the provision of information to teachers about which methods are successful
in particular settings. This process also can aid in providing researchers in the cognitive sciences with
the data to develop generalizable principles about learning. Teachers will be able to adapt teaching
74. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). “The eect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.”
Science Education 84 (5): 566-593.
75. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). “A Time for telling.” Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
76. Schwartz, D.L., C. Chase, C. Chin, M. Oppezzo, H. Kwong, S. Okita, G. Biswas, R.D. Roscoe, H. Jeong, and J.D.
Wagster. (2007). “Interactive metacognition: Monitoring and regulating a teachable agent.” In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky,
and A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition and Education. New York: Routledge.
77. Roy, H. (2003). “Studio vs interactive lecture demonstration—eects on student learning.” Journal of College
Biology Teaching 29 (1): 3-6.
78. Knight, J. K. and W.B. Wood, W. B. (2005). “Teaching more by lecturing less.” Cell Biology Education 4, 298-310.
79. Hake, R. R. (1998). “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.” American Journal of Physics 66: 64-74.
80. See also: http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/les/Active%20learning%20research%20table%2012-27-11_0.pdf.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
19
★ ★
methods to maximize learning based on both specic data about their current students and research
conducted across many classrooms. Expansive use of this innovation model, facilitated through use of
technology, will provide ongoing improvement based on evidence, much like the software industry
provides product updates based on user reports and patterns of use.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 1.
1-1 Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal research agencies, academic
institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations to train current and future faculty in
evidence-based teaching practices.
Federal agencies, in particular NSF, should fund expansion of existing programs designed to
train current faculty in eective college teaching methods and provide materials to support the
application of such methods. These eorts should be undertaken in partnership with disciplin-
ary societies and foundations, and with matching funds for faculty participation contributed
by academic institutions. The expansion should make training available to faculty from diverse
backgrounds to provide role models for all students and from all disciplines and types of insti-
tutions. Examples of model programs include the National Academies’ Summer Institutes for
Undergraduate Education in Biology and the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)/
American Physical Society (APS)/American Astronomical Society’s (AAS) Physics and Astronomy
New Faculty Workshop and the Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group
on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) Symposium.
,
Key elements of the National Academies’ Summer Institutes that could be shared as best prac-
tices include:
− demonstrate evidence-based teaching methods and engage participants in them as both
teachers and learners;
− provide an understanding of the evidence supporting these methods;
− teach participants to use assessment eectively to increase learning and improve teaching;
− provide participants with an opportunity to develop new teaching materials with critical
peer review and feedback;
− teach participants how to change their teaching and extend change beyond their own
classrooms to foster institutional transformation on their campuses and discipline-wide
transformation through their professional societies.
For change in STEM education to become pervasive and propagate independently, a substantial
segment of the community needs to be trained so that the language and practice of evidence-
based teaching is familiar and embedded in the habits of mind of STEM faculty. Successful
81. The National Academies (2010). Expanding Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the
Crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
82. Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, K., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Ebert-May, D., et al. (2009). “Summer Institute to Improve
University Science Teaching.” Science 324(5926): 470-471.
83. See AAPT/APS/AAS Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop:
http://www.aapt.org/Conferences/newfaculty/nfw.cfm
84. Henderson, C. (2008). American Journal of Physics 76 (2), 179-187. http://www.sigcse.org/events/symposia
20
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
programs should be expanded to reach 10-20% of the nation’s 230,000 STEM faculty over the
next ve years. Based on existing teaching training programs, it is reasonable to expect trained
faculty to inuence the teaching of about 10 colleagues, making it possible to reach a substantial
proportion of the STEM faculty through programs targeted at a subset of faculty. Moreover a
group consisting of 10-20% of a STEM department’s faculty is large enough to become self-
sustaining. Such a group is also large enough to handle much or most of the introductory
teaching. Therefore, the goal of reaching 10-20% of the STEM faculty directly could result in
training most of those who teach in the rst two years of college.
A total of $10-15 million per year over 5 years will be required for the training of 23,000 to 46,000
STEM faculty. Funds for this training should be derived from a combination of Federal programs,
academic institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations. For example, funds from NSF’s
Advanced Technical Education could be used to support training for community college faculty.
One possibility is that institutions and private donors could be exhorted to provide funds for
this eort through capital campaigns with the theme “building the faculty of the future.”
To train future faculty, Federal agencies should require all graduate students and postdoctoral
fellows supported by institutional training grants to receive instruction in modern teaching prac-
tices. The competencies for postdoctoral researchers developed by the National Postdoctoral
Association should receive particular attention. Training could borrow models of success
from, for example CIRTL, an NSF-funded program that has created a national network of
research campuses that train graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in evidence-based
teaching across STEM disciplines. The National Academies Summer Institute model also could
be integrated with the CIRTL model, whereby either trainees could attend regional training
workshops or directors of campus training programs could be trained centrally and then return
to campus to deliver independent teaching workshops. Between 2 and 5% of training grant
funds should be set aside, or a supplement of this amount should be added to grants, to provide
this instruction.
Using the lever of training grant funding to induce adoption of this training has two important
outcomes beyond the students directly aected by the requirement. First, the training is likely
to spread beyond the graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are supported by the
training grant. Many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are eager for this training and
will take advantage of it when it is available. Precedent for this is found in the requirement for
ethics training instituted by NIH, which rapidly included most graduate students, independent
of funding source, at many universities. The second key outcome is that the graduate students
at research universities, many of whom are recipients of training grant support, are the future
faculty at all types of institutions of higher education. They will therefore become the ambas-
sadors for evidence-based teaching to a wide expanse of colleges and universities.
85. See The NPA Postdoctoral Core Competencies: http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/publications/competencies.
86. See The CIRTL Network: http://www.cirtl.net. http://www.cirtl.net/.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
21
★ ★
1-2 Create the “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program.
NSF should institute a competitive grants program designed to provide incentives for and facili-
tate transformational, sustainable innovations in the teaching and learning of STEM subjects at
two-and four-year colleges. This program could be based on the NSF’s ADVANCE Program for
increasing the participation of women in STEM or on NSF’s Alliances for Graduate Education
and the Professoriate, which was designed to increase the participation of minorities. Grants
from each of these programs have been successful in eecting transformative change, as estab-
lished by extensive national studies.
,
,
These programs provide the best existing models for
institutional level change, which has not historically been a target for Federal funding.
The key to these projects is that they focus on institutional change and the barriers to it. The
interventions developed by each campus should be locally tested but transferrable. The
model of the ADVANCE program indicates that a set of model campuses (approximately 100
for ADVANCE) can inuence practices at many other campuses by setting an example of suc-
cessful practices and providing materials that aid other campuses in implementation of similar
practices. All ADVANCE projects constructed websites that provided information about program
design, data on program impact, and transferrable materials that could be adapted by other
campuses. Similarly, a plan to aect other institutions should be part of every STEM Institutional
Transformation Award.
The key elements of the award program should include:
− A STEM department’s plan to improve education of students in the rst two years according
to features shown to be important to success of STEM students (see, for example, Table 3)
− Eorts to eect change at the department and institution level
− Sound evaluation to determine whether the interventions have inuenced faculty practice
and student persistence and performance
− Plan for sustaining programs beyond the duration of the grant
− Evidence of campus commitment to the project through matching institutional funds or
other means
− Dissemination of materials to other campuses through websites and publications
Grants also should support putting into practice the large body of existing research on teaching
and learning in STEM disciplines by creating incentives for individual departments or entire
institutions to adopt or adapt evidence-based methods to improve STEM teaching and learn-
87. See ADVANCE program page: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/index.jsp.
88. Stewart, A., J. Malley, and D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.). (2007). Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing
Academic Women. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
89. Sheridan, J.T., E. Fine, C.M. Pribbenow, J. Handelsman, and M. Carnes. (2010). “Searching for excellence &
diversity: Increasing the hiring of women faculty at one academic medical center.“ Academic Medicine 85(6): 999-1007.
90. Bilimore, D. (2011). Gender Equity in Science and Engineering: Advancing Change in Higher Education. New York,
NY: Routledge Publishing Co.
22
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
ing. The projects should focus on both faculty and department-level reward systems to induce
sustainable change.
The grants program should allocate $20 million per year over 5 years to fund a total of approxi-
mately 100 projects at around $1 million (scaled to the appropriate funding level based on insti-
tution type and size). This level of funding would provide sucient funding for a campus to hire,
for example, a teaching expert to assist in development of teaching materials, an evaluator to
study faculty behavioral change and eects on student persistence, and a part-time web expert
to provide an interface with the central website designed to disseminate materials developed
as part of the project. The funding could also be used, in part, to pay for faculty training such
as that recommended above. The ve-year duration is intended to provide sucient time to
observe change in practices by early adopters, extension of that change to other departments
at their institutions, and sharing of progress across institutions through websites and publica-
tions. Based on the wildly dierent capacities and needs at dierent institution types, grants
should be separately considered from community and technical colleges, 4-year colleges, and
research institutions. Grants should be awarded based on how proposals address the specic
needs of the STEM department or institution and proposed actions that will have the greatest
impact on improving student learning and achievement.
Funding could come from enactment of NSF’s proposed Widening Implementation and
Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms (WIDER) program at the President’s Fiscal Year 2012
requested level of $20 million annually.
Project evaluation should focus on changed faculty habits and implementation of evidence-
based teaching. In addition, the impacts of teaching practices on retention and on the per-
formance of students in STEM majors should be measured. Granting agencies should not,
however, focus on reporting of the eects of interventions on student learning. Assessment of
learning is a standard part of teaching plans, and student persistence and performance (courses
taken, grades, time to graduation) should be evaluated, but these measurements should be
distinguished from experiments to compare student learning with lectures alone versus with
evidence-based methods. The rationale for this is that evidence-based methods are predicated
on research using randomized controlled trials comparing various teaching methods and we
do not expect every faculty member teaching an introductory STEM course to perform sophis-
ticated learning science experiments. It is far more important to document whether and how
faculty are implementing the methods. Other sources of funding (such as NSF’s Research and
Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering program) could be used to support sound
experiments to continue to advance evidence-based learning.
Findings about changed faculty habits and student persistence and performance should be
publishable, and materials that are developed should be shared with the academic community
through web sites and other means. The grants should transform the campuses receiving them;
in turn, these campuses should provide others with models and specic mechanisms for change.
The sustainability of change should be planned and evaluated as part of the grant process.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
23
★ ★
The unique power of educational technology should be harnessed to this end twofold: (1) to
embed assessment into instructional activity and use the data gathered to create a virtuous
cycle of innovation, sharing, evaluation, and improvement and (2) to disseminate information
that can advance the transformation of other instructors, departments, and institutions. To the
latter point, the Department of Education, through the First in the World Initiative or ARPA-Ed
(described below under recommendation 2), should issue a request for proposals to produce an
interactive, online presence to collect and share data on institutional change and improvement
of postsecondary STEM education. Grantees funded by the STEM Institutional Transformation
Grants should be required to post their curricula and methods to an online resource.
1-3 Request the National Academies develop metrics to evaluate STEM education.
To evaluate progress toward the goals presented in this report, campuses, funders, students,
and accreditation agencies need a meaningful set of criteria by which to measure excellence
in STEM teaching among instructors, departments, and institutions. Sucient research now
supports the elements presented here to provide a valid basis for evaluation and benchmark-
ing. The National Science Foundation and Department of Education should provide funding
to the National Academies to develop criteria for STEM evaluation based on the partial list
provided in Table 3. Key among these criteria are the capacity to collect, analyze, and use data
about teaching and learning; inclusion of effective programs to enhance participation by
underrepresented students; incorporation of active student engagement in learning; provision
of research experiences in the rst two years of college; retention of students in STEM majors;
clear demonstration that learning goals guide development of courses and curricula; training
in teaching practices for current and future faculty; and evaluation of programs and instructors
based on meeting learning goals.
These metrics could be adopted by independent organizations, including accreditation agen-
cies, the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land Grant
Universities (APLU), the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), or U.S. News and
World Report, as a way of meaningfully evaluating the quality and success of STEM programs.
This eort could be coordinated with ongoing work by AAU to develop a “STEM Certication”
that would be granted to departments that provide outstanding STEM education based on
the criteria developed by the National Academies. The inclusion of a STEM education criterion
in evaluation of academic departments and institutions will enable prospective faculty and
students to make informed judgments and faculty and administrators to benchmark their
own progress toward building outstanding STEM undergraduate programs. When the National
Academies develop the undergraduate STEM teaching and learning metrics, they might also
consider options for collecting these data, such as the possibility of requiring institutions or
STEM departments receiving Federal research funding to report on them. In this case, the
responsibility for reporting would be that of the institution or STEM department, not the indi-
vidual investigator.
91. See Association of American Universities Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative:
http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588.
24
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table 3. Elements of Successful STEM Education Programs
Program Focus Evidence and Resources
Intellectually engage students
Teach science with evidence-based methods that engage
students in creating and integrating knowledge
Springer, Stanne et al. (1999); AAAS (2011)
Focus on learning goals that involve both the process and
content of STEM-related activities
AAAS (2011)
Involve students in research early, preferably as freshmen
Bartlett (2003); Carter, Mandell et al. (2009) Hathaway,
Nagda et al. (2002); Hunter, Laursen et al. (2007); Kight,
Gaynor et al. (2006); Kinkel and Henke (2006); Lopatto,
Alvarez et al. (2008); Russell, Hancock et al. (2007)
Build alliances between community colleges and research
universities to enhance the availability of research experiences to
students at community colleges
Shaer, Alvarez et al. (2010); Wei and Woodin (2011)
Facilitate study group formation and other structures that enable
group learning
Burstyn, Sellers et al. (2004); Springer, Stanne et al. (1999)
Personally engage students
Show relevance of STEM subjects to human and planetary problems
Donofrio, Russell et al. (2007); Buckley, Kershner, et al.
(2004)
Provide role models of diverse backgrounds and life choices to
inspire diverse students
Lockwood (2006); Stout. Nilanjana et al. (2011); Walton
and Cohen (2011)
Provide opportunities for students to become part of STEM
communities in classes, research laboratories, and STEM-related
extracurricular activities
Kight, Gaynor et al. (2006); Peckham, Stephenson, et al.
(2007)
Show students the diversity of careers in science Campbell, Fuller et al. (2005)
Provide mentoring and tutoring to help students excel in STEM
subjects
Muller (1997); Summers and Hrabowski (2006); Gilmer
(2007)
Engage students’ families in STEM-related academic experiences
Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito et al. (2000); Ong, Phinney et
al. (2006); Sy (2008)
Provide students with sucient resources, including employment
in laboratories and scholarships, to enable them to engage fully in
academic life and the science and technology community
Barlow and Villarejo (2004)
Provide students with critical feedback and encouragement to give
them realistic assessment of their performance in STEM subjects
Ovando (1994)
Build classroom communities in which students feel that they are
being groomed for STEM elds rather than weeded out
Gainen (1995)
Build connections between higher education and industry to
provide students with internships and exposure to potential career
options
Gilmer (2007); Turner, Petzold, et al. (2011)
Provide undergraduate STEM pathways with access to role models
by linking graduate training programs with undergraduate research
programs
May and Chubin (2003)
Accommodate the needs of non-traditional students Barlow and Villarejo (2004)
Educate faculty
Provide faculty with training in teaching through campus programs,
summer institutes, and programs organized by professional societies
Pfund, Miller et al. (2009); Yoon, Duncan et al. (2007)
Provide graduate students and postdocs with training in teaching
through training grants and professional societies
University of Texas at Austin (2008); Bouwma-Gearhart
(2007); Connolly (2008); Miller, Pfund et al. (2008)
Provide faculty with databases of learning tools and technology University of Texas at Austin (2011)
Assess outcomes
Assess understanding through diverse means, and articulate
assessment with learning goals
Haudek, Kaplan et al. (2011)
Assess student retention in major Wild and Ebbers (2002)
Measure achievement gap between various segments of student
body and assess impact of interventions on gap
Haak, HilleRisLambers et al. (2011)
Evaluate teaching in terms of learning goals and how they are
assessed and met
Felder, Rugarcia et al. (2000)
Improve learning assessment through technology development Beatty (2004); Caldwell (2007)
Notes: See Appendix I for full references.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
25
★ ★
Recommendation 2.
Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with
discovery-based research courses.
Rationale for Recommendation 2.
If we taught young people baseball history, statistics, and rules for years before we let them watch or
play a game of baseball, how many would become fans or players? Probably few. But in STEM elds,
most students must wait until they are quite far along in their studies before then can experience the
excitement of scientic research. Solving real-world problems is far more inspiring and instructive than
most of the STEM instruction that occurs in the rst two years of college. Research experiences in the
rst two years of college enable students to choose majors based on the best and most creative aspects
of STEM elds rather than on courses that do not reect the nature of inquiry.
Every college student should be given the opportunity to generate scientic knowledge through
research. Research experiences in the rst two years increase retention of students in STEM majors and
improve students’ attitudes toward STEM elds.
,
,
The eects of research experiences are quite posi-
tive for all students but have especially high impact for women and members of other groups currently
underrepresented in STEM disciplines (Table 4).
Table 4. Impact of student research experience on students in STEM
Eect Examples of studies demonstrating eect
Higher grades Barlow and Villarejo (2004); Junge, Quiñones et al. (2010); Kinkel and Henke (2006)
Identication as a scientist
or engineer
Hunter (2007)
Persistence in a STEM major
Barlow and Villarejo (2004); Carter, Mandell et al. (2009); Gilmer (2007); Kinkel and
Henke (2006); Summers and Hrabowski (2006)
Shorter time to degree Kinkel and Henke (2006)
Interest in post graduate
education
Foertsch, Alexanmder et al. (1997); Hathaway, Nagda et al. (2002); Kight, Gaynor et
al. (2006); Kinkel and Henke (2006); Lopatto (2004); Russell, Hancock at al. (2007)
Notes: See Appendix I for full references.
Not all college students can do research in faculty laboratories. Therefore, we propose the extensive use
of research courses, which have been successfully implemented and rigorously studied at both large
92. Alison Gopnik. (1999). Small Wonders. The New York Review of Books.
93. Nagda, B. A., S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty
research partnerships aect student retention.” The Review of Higher Education 22: 55-72.
94. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M.P., and J. McCullough. (2007 ). op. cit.
95. Carter, F. D., M. Mandell, and K.I. Maton. (2009). “The Inuence of On-Campus, Academic Year Undergraduate
Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerho Scholarship Program.” Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis 31(4): 441-462.
26
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
and small institutions and have been proven to increase student knowledge of, enthusiasm for, and
retention in STEM (e.g., see Appendix G).
,
Two strategies to engage students in research in their rst two years are necessary: (i) widespread
integration of research courses into the introductory STEM curricula, and (ii) increased opportunities
for students to participate in faculty research programs in the rst two years.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 2.
2-1 Expand the use of scientic research and engineering design courses in the rst two years
of postsecondary education through an NSF program.
All available data show that traditional cookbook, introductory laboratory courses which often
involve repeating classical experiment to reproduce known results, rather than engaging stu-
dents in experiments with the possibility of true discovery produce less learning, inspiration,
and retention in STEM disciplines than do research courses. The data suggest that approaches
to the development and scale-up of research courses should be made available through current
and future faculty training programs and centralized websites and could be an important com-
ponent of STEM Institutional Transformation Awards and STEM Certication (Recommendation
1-2). Research courses can act as training for subsequent participation in research in faculty or
industry laboratories, improving the skills that students bring to those positions.
The National Science Foundation should provide initial funding to replicate and scale-up
model research or design courses, possibly through the existing Transforming Undergraduate
Education in STEM (TUES) program or the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Talent Expansion Program(STEP). On the order of thirty percent of the existing programs across
STEM disciplines could be focused on funding for implementing research courses at postsec-
ondary academic institutions at an annual cost of approximately $12.5 million dollars, annually
(based on Fiscal Year 2010 funding levels). Based on the range of funding for Type 3 TUES grants
and Type 1 STEP grants, about 10 proposals per year at an average level of $1.2 million could be
awarded, in order to impact 100 campuses over the next 10 years.
Colleges and universities should seek to match NSF funding with private and philanthropic
sources. Because research courses will replace expensive introductory laboratory courses, they
should not require ongoing external support once the transition is accomplished.
2-2 Expand opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories by
reducing restrictions on Federal research funds and redening a Department of Education
program.
Independent research on faculty projects is a direct way for students to experience real discovery
and innovation and to be inspired by STEM subjects. All relevant Federal agencies should rigor-
96. Bednarksi, A.E., Elgin, S.C.R., and H.B. Pakrasi. (2005) “An Inquiry into Protein Structure and Genetic Disease:
Introducing Undergraduates to Bioinformatics in a Large Introductory Course.” Cell Biology Education Fall 2005.
97. Pope, W. H., D. Jacobs-Sera, et al. (2011). “Expanding the diversity of mycobacteriophages: insights into genome
architecture and evolution.” PLoS One 6(1): e16329.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
27
★ ★
ously examine their programs which support undergraduate research and where there exists
prohibitions, either in policy or practice, which would interfere with the recommendations of
this report to support early engagement of students in research, these should be changed.
Novel opportunities for research areas—for example, in theoretical areas without laboratories
—should also be supported as arenas for involvement by students in the rst two years.
Federal agencies should give special consideration to proposals for Federal training grants
that establish collaborations between research universities and community colleges or other
institutions that lack faculty research programs, including minority serving institutions that fall
into this category. In these programs, graduate students supported on training grants would
learn to be eective research mentors and have the opportunity to work with undergraduates
from other institutions.
Potential sources of funding include redenition of the Department of Education’s $1 billion
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program when it comes up for reauthorization;
specic focusing of Federal (NASA, Energy, Education, and USDA) investments in historically
black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges for building
institutional capacity; and NSF’s Broadening Participation at the Core on supporting early
research and building cross-institutional collaborations in undergraduate research.
Recommendation 3.
Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address
the mathematics-preparation gap.
Rationale for Recommendation 3.
Students need mathematical and, increasingly, computational competency at a college level to succeed
in STEM majors and jobs. This makes mathematics distinct from other disciplines, as it is a gateway to
other STEM elds.
Mathematics instruction credit hours, particularly in the rst two years, are dominated by “service
courses”—mathematics courses that are taken because they are required by another major that uses
mathematics in the discipline. This content is fundamentally dierent from how a pure mathematician
thinks about mathematics or knows how to use it, which is problematic for teaching students the skills
they need. Discipline-based education on eective undergraduate mathematics teaching also appears
less developed when compared with other STEM elds.
Today, many students entering college do not meet the necessary mathematics standards. Among stu-
dents who take the ACT entrance examination for college, just 43% achieve the ACT College Readiness
Benchmark in math. Because of inadequate preparation, many students need to take developmental
classes in mathematics when they get to college. In addition, employers in the private sector, govern-
ment, and military frequently need employees with a level of mathematics preparation that is hard to
98. The benchmarks specify the minimum scores needed on each ACT subject-area test to indicate that a student
has a 50 percent chance of earning a grade of B or higher or about a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher in
a typical credit-bearing rst-year college course in that subject area. ACT. (2011). The Condition of College & Career
Readiness 2011. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
28
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
nd, placing the burden on employers to provide or obtain remedial education. This deciency in math-
ematics skills imposes a burden on students, higher education, the military, and employers through the
developmental education and worker training needed to produce a STEM competent workforce. Higher
education alone spends at least $2 billion dollars per year on developmental education. This high cost
for remediation is coupled to reported low eectiveness. Of those students who took remedial courses,
less than 30% complete a bachelor’s degree within eight years as compared to nearly 60% of students
who required no remediation. Additionally, a study of community college students reported that
60-70% of students who were placed in remedial mathematics never completed the required math-
ematics sequence and, therefore, never graduated. Reducing or eliminating the need for remedial
mathematics classes or improving their cost and eectiveness is one of the most urgent challenges—and
promising opportunities—in preparing the STEM workforce of the 21st century.
Undergraduate mathematics education in the U.S. is often below what is considered the appropriate
university level in many countries. In 2005, 57% of the students enrolled in 4-year colleges and universi-
ties were enrolled in pre-college algebra, trigonometry, or other pre-calculus courses; the proportion
is higher for 2-year institutions. Most U.S postsecondary students terminate their college mathematics
education at a pre-calculus course that is typically a review of high school algebra, trigonometry, and
sometimes functions. Many students in these courses have seen 90% of the material in high school but
are advised to take this course to make the transition to college easier. Such courses are frequently
uninspiring, relying on memorization and rote learning while avoiding richer mathematical ideas.
As this is the last mathematics course for many college students, they often are left with the impression
that the eld is dull and unimaginative, and they can extend this judgment to all STEM disciplines. This
is particularly harmful for students who later become K-12 STEM teachers. A focus on improving this
particular type of course oers potentially enormous benets.
Closing the mathematics-preparation gap would enable many more students to pursue STEM degrees in
college. About 15% of 12th graders are interested in STEM elds but not procient in mathematics, with
women slightly more common in this category. Many of these students are not far from mathematics
prociency (see Appendix E). If the preparation of these students in mathematics could be enhanced,
either before college enrollment or through improved remediation, many more students could be
prepared to pursue STEM elds in college.
This problem is a complex one that has resisted the eorts of many dedicated people over a consider-
able period of time. Closing the mathematics-preparation gap requires coordinated action on many
fronts starting in the earliest grades. PCAST’s report on K-12 STEM Education (“Prepare and Inspire”)
contains several recommendations that involve colleges and universities in this eort. In particular,
99. Strong American Schools. (2008). Diploma to Nowhere. Washington, DC.
100. Strong American Schools. (2008). op. cit.
101. Bryk, A. S. and U. Triesman. (2010). “Make Math a Gateway, not a Gatekeeper.” Washington, DC: The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
102. Lutzer, D. J., S. B. Rodi, E. E. Kirkman, and J.W. Maxwell. (2007). Statistical Abstract of Undergraduate Programs in
the Mathematical Science in the United States: Fall 2005 CBMS Survey. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
103. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for Success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
104. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010) Report to the President: Prepare and
Improve K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Washington, DC: PCAST.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/les/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
29
★ ★
it calls for the Federal Government to establish the objective of recruiting, preparing, and providing
induction support for at least 100,000 new middle and high school STEM teachers who have majors in
STEM elds and strong content-specic pedagogical preparation. This Administration has embraced this
goal, and the production of 1 million additional STEM graduates over the next decade could contribute
substantially to meeting it.
Secondly, the Federal Government has a critical role in supporting the development of a knowledge
base to close the mathematics-preparation gap. For example, research into the best ways to teach
mathematics to college students so they can pursue STEM subjects in the rst two years of college
is badly needed. Some developmental mathematics courses have demonstrated effectiveness in
increasing mathematics prociency among those not ready for college-level mathematics and even in
encouraging students intending to major in STEM subjects to persist to graduation and a STEM degree.
Mathematics education research should explore the attributes of these successful classes and ways to
disseminate best practices.
Mathematics education research also could lead to innovative and eective ways to teach the subject—
for example, through the use of games, simulations, and other technologies. Emerging computer-based
technologies—intelligent tutors—based on the latest learning science hold promise for accelerating
mathematics learning and achieving mathematics prociency at less cost than current approaches (see
Appendix E, Box E-1). Preliminary research suggests that intelligent tutors can increase mathematics
test scores on the order of one to two standard deviations. Further development and broad diusion
of these tools can provide eective, low-cost strategies for accelerating mathematics learning among
STEM-interested students.
In the Prepare and Inspire report, PCAST called for the creation of a mission-driven, advanced research
projects agency for education (ARPA-Ed) that would propel and support (1) the development of innova-
tive technologies and technology platforms for learning, teaching, and assessment across all subjects
and ages, and (2) the development of eective, integrated, whole-course materials for STEM education.
Many of these advances would benet not only K-12 education but also the developmental courses that
many students need to pursue STEM elds during the rst two years of college.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 3.
3-1 Support a national experiment in mathematics undergraduate education at NSF, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.
The National Science Foundation and the Departments of Labor and Education should support a
multi-campus ve-year initiative aimed at developing new approaches to remove or reduce the
mathematics bottleneck that is currently keeping many students from pursuing STEM majors.
This national experiment should fund a variety of approaches, including (1) summer and other
bridge programs for high school students entering college; (2) remedial courses for students
in college, including approaches that rely on computer technology; (3) college mathematics
105. Bettinger E. and B. Long, B. (2009). “Addressing the Needs of Underprepared Students in Higher Education:
Does College Remediation Work?” Journal of Human Resources 44(3): 736–771.
30
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
teaching and curricula developed and taught by faculty from mathematics-intensive disciplines
other than mathematics, including physics, engineering, and computer science; and (4) a new
pathway for producing K-12 mathematics teachers from undergraduate and graduate programs
in mathematics-intensive elds other than mathematics. Diverse institutions should be included
in the experiment to assess the impact of the intervention on various types of students and
schools. Outcome evaluations should be designed as a collective eort by the participating
campuses and funding agencies.
Approximately 200 experiments at an average level of $500,000 should be funded at institu-
tions across the county, at an annual cost of $20 million per year for ve years. As mathematics
preparation issues vary across the postsecondary spectrum, a variety of sources will be needed
to fund experiments at diverse institution types. Funds for these experiments could be derived
from a combination of the Department of Education’s proposed First in the World Initiative, pos-
sibly the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career
Training initiative or Career Pathways Innovation Fund, and a strategic focus on mathematics of
NSF’s Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) program or Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program(STEP) for the next ve years.
Recommendation 4.
Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM
careers.
Rationale for Recommendation 4.
Besides increasing student persistence in STEM education, more students need to be attracted
t
o STEM
disciplines to produce 1 million addi
t
ional college graduates over the next decade. To take advantage
of the breadth of talent in STEM elds, students who need non-traditional pathways to STEM degrees
require special attention. Adult and working students and those from backgrounds atypical of traditional
STEM students, including returning veterans, may need alternative pathways to be successful in STEM
disciplines.
New STEM pathways need to oer nationally portable, industry recognized credentials that are integrated
into for-credit academic degree programs. These programs provide bridges from high school to commu-
nity colleges, from community colleges to 4-year institutions, and from all institution types to STEM jobs.
The sizeable group of high school dropouts who return to study for General Education Development
(GED) tests oers a largely untapped source of students who could be interested in careers involving
STEM elds. Some community colleges have begun oering programs that combine preparation for the
GED tests with college courses that could serve as a gateway to further STEM courses and STEM-related
careers. Adult students and those returning to college after time away, especially U.S. military veterans,
also often have high levels of motivation and a focus on careers that could be channeled in the direction
of STEM-related jobs.
Educators concerned with increasing the number of students in STEM disciplines have given much
attention to “o-ramps”, the drop-out and attrition patterns in high school, community colleges, and
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
31
★ ★
four-year institutions. Equal attention should be given to on-ramps, multiple routes to enter or re-enter
STEM education. Rather than a single pipeline that is prone to leakage, or a ladder where any missed
step makes the next step too hard to reach, educators and policymakers should think of a network of
pathways along which students can take dierent routes to STEM readiness and competency. If students
have exited this network of pathways, they need accessible and cost-eective ways to get back on.
Many types of partnerships could aid in designing pathways to STEM training that would capture a
broader portion of society. These partnerships can smooth the way from high school to college, link
students at community and technical colleges with high-skill STEM jobs, enable students at two-year
colleges to transfer and earn four-year degrees, provide research experiences to students at institutions
without research programs, and oer students insight into the careers and opportunities for STEM prac-
titioners in industry. These partnerships will enable the academic advancement of all types of students,
but they will be particularly advantageous for students traditionally underrepresented in STEM elds.
Partnerships between high school and college.
To encourage the underrepresented majority to pursue STEM degrees, better integration between high
school and college is needed. High schools and colleges could collaborate on development of bridge
programs that would prepare students for college during the summer between high school and college
(e.g., Appendix H, Box H-1 and H-2). Typically, high school juniors and seniors in these programs live on
campus and receive classroom instruction, research experience, career counseling, SAT and ACT prep
classes, and mentoring from students and faculty.
Most of these programs, such as Carnegie Mellon University’s Summer Academy for Mathematics and
Science and the California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science, are open to high
school students statewide or nationwide. Some are aimed at the underrepresented majority to provide
incoming students with the intellectual, personal, and social supports they will need to excel.
The majority of partnerships between high schools and colleges and universities that aim to increase
the number of students entering STEM pathways do so indirectly by p
r
ovidin
g
better teacher training
and support, which in turn can lead to more students interested in STEM disciplines and better prepared
to
e
n
ter
college. Such programs can train high school teachers to use new tools for active learning
t
h
at
engage students in hands-on STEM activities. These programs also can provide on-site coaching and
leadership development for principals and other administrators.
Partnerships between two- and four-year institutions.
Two-year colleges are both a major source of STEM degrees and a conduit into STEM elds for many
students, including many members of the underrepresented majority. In man
y
cases, 2-year colleges
106. See Carnagie Melon University’s website:
http://www.cmu.edu/enrollment/summerprogramsfordiversity/sams.html.
107. See California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science:
http://www.ucop.edu/cosmos/.
108. Chen, G. (2009) The Minority Report: How Minority Students are Really Faring at Community Colleges. Community
College Review: http://www.communitycollegereview.com/articles/202.
32
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
are geographically closer to students who would have dicult
y
attending a four-year school. They also
are typically less costly than 4-year institutions.
The transition from a 2-to 4-year college can be dicult, especially for members of groups underrepre-
sented in STEM elds. For example, through a combination of bridge programs, building a community
of support for STEM students, increasing student research opportunities, and reevaluating teaching
and research practices, the University of Texas-El Paso boosted graduation rates in STEM disciplines
by nearly 50% from 2000 to 2006 and more than doubled the number of STEM baccalaureate degrees
awarded to Hispanics, transforming it into the largest producer of Mexican-American STEM graduates
in the Nation.
Collaborative partnerships between 2-year colleges and 4-year institutions
w
ould provide greater access
to and opportunities for advanced STEM education (see Appendix H, Box H-4) and advanced training
for those students who do not pursue a 4-year degree. Large state systems, such as the University of
California and California State University systems, have long-standing programs like MESA (Mathematics,
Engineering, Science Achievement) that create partnerships between 4-year universities and neighbor-
ing 2-year colleges to align curricula and work with students to ensure that they are well-prepared for the
transition to bachelor’s degree programs in STEM disciplines. Courses at the community college vetted
by university faculty not only provide the necessary intellectual rigor but also allow students to develop
relationships with faculty prior to transferring. In addition, students enrolled in these programs can be
granted access to libraries and can be provided with opportunities to participate in cultural and athletic
events at the university, helping them more easily integrate into campus life upon successful transfer.
Partnerships involving minority-serving Institutions.
Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) can serve as key intermediaries to improve the
numbers, prepara-
tion, and diversity of students interested in STEM elds.
,
For example, through a combination of bridge
programs, building a community of support for STEM students, increasing student research opportunities, and
reevaluating teaching and research practices, the University of Texas-El Paso has boosted graduation rates
in STEM disciplines by nearly 50%, transforming it into the largest producer of Mexican-American STEM
graduates in the Nation.
Several White
House initiatives have directed funds to MSIs to increase the
109. Phillippe, K.A. and L. Gonzalez Sullivan. (2005). National Prole of Community Colleges: Trends & Statistics.
American Association of Community Colleges. Washington DC: Community College Press.
110. Brown, S. (2009). “Making the Next Generation our Greatest Resource” in Latinos and the Nation’s Future, H.
Cisneros and J. Rosales (eds.) Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.
111. http://step.utep.edu./ The calculation of the six-year graduation rate considers only rst-time full-time (FTFT)
fall-entering students. The rate is dened as the fraction of a FTFT fall-entering student cohort that graduated six years
after being admitted.
112. Rodriguez, C., R. Kirshstein, M. Hale, (2005). “Creating and Maintaining Excellence: The Model Institutions for
Excellence Program “, prepared for The National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
113. This version includes some changes that clarify ambiguities in an earlier draft.
114. Cullinane, J. and L. H. Leegwater. (2009). Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: The Model Replication Institutions
Program. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
115.
Southern Education Foundation. (2005). Igniting Potential: Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Atlanta, GA.
116. Brown, S. (2009). “Making the Next Generation our Greatest Resource” in Latinos and the Nation’s Future, H.
Cisneros and J. Rosales (eds.) Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
33
★ ★
number of minority students who not only start but nish STEM degree programs. Collaborative
eorts between MSIs and other colleges and universities could greatly improve educational experiences
in STEM disciplines. Programs that enhance STEM curricula at MSIs and that focus on improving the
readiness of rst-year students, often through summer research experiences and laboratory experi-
ences at partnering research universities, have shown marked success at both increasing enrollment
and retention of students in STEM disciplines (see Appendix H, Box H-5).
Partnerships between the private sector and undergraduate STEM education.
Many U.S. businesses are active supporters of STEM eorts in high schools, colleges, and universities.
Recently, however, the U.S. business community has recognized that its traditional role of partnering
with existing institutions to promote best practices, provide resources, and involve corporate supporters
oers some aid but is not
likely to produce the radical change needed to meet future STEM workforce
needs.
Providing mentoring for promising STEM students through cooperative education, learn and
earn, and internship programs is an important and proven avenue by which businesses can both recruit
future
workers and help students complete their studies.
Not only do
cooperative education experiences
provide the kind of hands-on training shown to increase student retention in STEM programs, but they
also produce students who more quickly integrate into the workplace and express higher rates of job
satisfaction (e.g., Appendix H, Boxes H-6 and H-7).
There are several ongoing eorts in this area at the Federal level focused on distinct aspects of the
STEM workforce, and these should be incorporated into a broader strategy for partnerships between
industry and institutions of higher education to improve engagement and training of undergraduate
students in STEM disciplines. For example, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has
set a goal to double internship oerings from partnering businesses to increase the supply of qualied
and trained American engineers. In addition, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, launched
by President Obama in June 2011 in response to recommendations from a PCAST report on the topic,
has a workstream on education and workforce demand that is exploring opportunities for partnerships
between employers and educational institutions, with a particular focus on community colleges but
also including high schools and universities.
An untraditional avenue by which businesses can partner with universities to bolster pathways to STEM
careers is to help transitioning employees become STEM educators. IBM launched such a program in
2005 and has helped over 100 employees start new careers in teaching. The program works with
117. See White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-index.html.
118. Hess, F.M., A.P. Kelly, and O. Meeks. (2011). The Case for Being Bold: A New Agenda for Business in Improving STEM
Education. Washington, DC: Institute for a Competitive Workforce.
119. See President’s Council on Jobs and Competiveness website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council.
120. See Jobs Council Internship Commitment Announcement. http://energy.gov/articles/president-s-council-
jobs-and-competitiveness-announces-industry-leaders-commitment-double.
121. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/amp.
122. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2011). Report to the President on Ensuring
American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. Washington, DC: PCAST. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/les/
microsites/ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-june2011.pdf.
123. See IBM’s ‘IBM “Transition to Teaching”Teaching’ Program:
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/teaching.shtml.
34
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
university partners to provide employees who have engineering, health, computing, and science back-
grounds with the resources needed to custom-tailor their own teacher preparation through on-line and
traditional classes
w
hile retaining their jobs at IBM until their training is complete.
Actions to Achieve Recommendation 4.
Increasing the number and strength of pathways to STEM elds during the rst two years of college
requires a coordinated strategy involving not just the Federal Government but K-12 education, higher
education, businesses, and the nonprot sector, including foundations. Still, the Federal Government
can lead this eort through strategic planning, reallocation of funding, and strong leadership.
4-1 Sponsor at the Department of Education summer STEM learning programs for high school
students.
The Department of Education should roll out the summer learning programs authorized in the
2007 America Competes Act (in an amendment introduced by then-Senator Obama), funded
in part by the Federal Government, in partnership with state and local entities. To cover the full
costs of such programs, state and local entities should recruit institutions of higher education
and private industry as partners. As an expansion of the original proposal, these programs should
be focused on mathematics, engineering, and science for high school students. In particular,
these programs should provide mathematics instruction to prepare students to be college- and
career-ready and provide hands-on STEM experiences. Based on the size of National Science
Foundation’s former Young Scholars Program for summer institutes, we recommend invest-
ment of $10 million to fund approximately 100 projects reaching on the order of 5000 students,
annually, including signicant cost-sharing with academic institutions and private investors.
In addition, as authorized in the law, the Department of Education should establish a “Summer
Learning Grants Website” that would provide information for students, parents, and educators
on successful programs, curricula, and best practices for summer learning opportunities.
4-2 Expand a Department of Labor Program scope to encourage pathways from two-year to
four-year institutions.
The mission of the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College
and Career Training initiative should be expanded beyond development of important part-
nerships between community and technical colleges and employers in the private sector to
encourage scientic research and engineering design exchanges across 2- and 4-year institu-
tions.Alternatively, these activities could be funded through a strategic focus of the Department
of Labor’s Career Pathways Innovation Fund on research partnerships. NSF’s Advancing Technical
Education program could also be focused on cross institutional collaborations. The bridges
described here should provide authentic STEM experiences for community college students on
the 4-year campus and allow them to develop relations with faculty and the college or university
community to ease the potential transition from a 2- to 4-year institution or to provide advanced
experiences and inspiration for students who do not pursue a 4-year degree.
IV. A MULTIFACTED APPROACH: REACHING THE TIPPING POINT
35
★ ★
4-3 Establish public-private partnerships to support successful STEM programs.
To enhance students’ STEM readiness, the Federal Government should engage private industry
and foundations to support successful programs that create bridges between high schools and
colleges and between 2- and 4-year institutions and ensure that programs incorporate learning
standards and content consistent with industry-recognized skills. In the model of Change the
Equation, for which business leaders stood with President Obama and committed nancial
investment in strategies that work in K-12 STEM education, the President should call on founda-
tions and private industry to commit to improving recruitment and retention in undergradu-
ate STEM education and to partner with Federal agencies to expand education technologies,
provide internships to students in the rst two years of college, and invest in programs with
proven success (such as cohort programs, bridge programs, and certication programs linking
community college and technical education to industry-recognized standards).
Particular attention should be paid to U.S. military veterans who often have exceptional levels
of motivation, maturity, and focus along with STEM skills gained during their service. Defense-
related industries should consider partnerships with the Department of Defense and Veterans
Aairs to support eorts to train and certify veterans for careers in STEM and STEM-capable elds.
This commitment could involve industry oering internships and learn and earn programs to
veterans who enroll in college to enhance their workplace experience and improve their job-
readiness upon graduation.
4-4 Improve data provided by the Department of Education and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
to STEM students, parents, and the greater community on STEM disciplines and the labor
market.
The private sector and the Federal agencies that run laboratories and employ STEM profession-
als and the STEM-capable workforce have a vested interest in high-quality information about
eective STEM education and relevant data about workforce supply, demand, and skill levels.
Current data sources, however, limit their ability to answer important questions about the skills
and choices of workers and about trends in the supply of and demand for a STEM and STEM-
capable workforce. One way to help mitigate this data gap would be to resurvey members of
cohorts followed in the High School and Beyond and National Education Longitudinal studies.
Also, the National Center for Education Statistics within the Department of Education’s Institute
of Education Sciences should facilitate the enhancement of state student unit record systems
to permit matching to postsecondary school data and labor market outcomes.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics should redene employment categories around STEM jobs to
reect the breadth of jobs that require STEM skills, including STEM-capable jobs, such as medical
and advanced manufacturing professionals and K-12 STEM educators.
36
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Recommendation 5.
Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the
academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for
transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.
Rationale for Recommendation 5.
The leadership of higher education and STEM-dependent industries needs to be inspired to generate sweep-
ing change in higher education to produce the workforce America needs. The leaders in these sectors need
to be challenged by the country’s political leaders to think creatively, design and implement programs, to
challenge existing reward structures, and to raise money from private donors to benet STEM education.
The White House should add its voice to this cause to help these leaders take charge of STEM education in
their institutions and lead the way to new levels of achievement in STEM education.
Actions to achieve Recommendation 5.
The leadership of higher education and STEM-enabled businesses needs to be inspired to generate sweeping
changes in higher education to produce the workforce America needs. Toward this end, we recommend that
the President, via Executive Order, form a Presidential Council on STEM Education to provide advice and
leadership on postsecondary STEM education. The council should include members that represent the
breadth of academic institutions, professional societies, businesses, and private foundations involved
in the development and use of human capital in STEM elds. Based on the guidance provided in this
report, the council should make recommendations that advance the quality of postsecondary STEM
education through all mechanisms available to the President. The council could provide a forum for
leaders in the public and private sectors to weigh in on the development and deployment of metrics
to evaluate STEM departments (Recommendation 1) and to design collaborative coalitions to support
initiatives in STEM education (Recommendation 4), including expanding internship programs in industry
and connecting industrial research agendas with research courses (Recommendation 2). In addition, it
could provide advice and review for the National Experiment in Mathematics Undergraduate Education
(Recommendation 3) and could conduct further study of the mathematics education issue, if necessary.
37
★ ★
V. Engage to Excel:
Summary of Recommendations,
Actions, and Estimated Costs
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
38
★ ★
Table 5: Engage to Excel: Summary of Recommendations, Actions, and Estimated Costs
1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
Action Agency and Estimated Cost
Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal
agencies, academic institutions, professional societies,
and foundations to train (1) current and (2) future faculty
in evidence-based teaching practices.
1. NSF and other agencies should partner with foundations and
disciplinary societies to expand existing teacher training programs
($10-$15 M per year over ve years to train 23,000 to 46,000 STEM
faculty).
2. All agencies that provide training grants for graduate students and
postdocs, through a combination of training grants and institutional
funds.
(1) Create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards”
competitive grants program at NSF.
(2) Develop an online presence to share data and best
practices.
1. NSF’s proposed Widening Implementation and Demonstration of
Evidence-based Reforms (WIDER) program. $20 M per year over ve
years to fund 100 multi-year projects.
2. Education through proposed First in the World Initiative or ARPA-Ed.
Request that the National Academies develop metrics to
evaluate STEM education.
NSF and Education to request this study, with cost to be determined.
2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.
Action Agency and Estimated Cost
Expand the use of scientic research and engineering
design courses in the rst two years through an NSF
program.
NSF, with initial funding possibly through Transforming Undergraduate
Education in Science (TUES) or Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) at $12.5 M, annually
(i.e. 10 Type 3 TUES or Type 1 STEP proposals per year at an average of
$1.2M).
Expand opportunities for student research in faculty
laboratories by (1) reducing restrictions on Federal
research funds, (2) giving special consideration to
training grants that establish collaborations between
research universities and other institutions, and (3)
redening a Department of Education program.
1. All Federal agencies should make it possible to use undergraduate
research program funds for rst- and second-year students.
2. Federal agencies that fund programs for minority institutions could
encourage cross-institution research partnerships.
3. Include research opportunities as technical education, such as that
supported by the Department of Education’s Carl D. Perkins CTE
program.
3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics-preparation gap.
Action Agency and Estimated Cost
Support a national experiment in mathematics
undergraduate education focused on: (1) summer
programs; (2) remedial courses including use of
technology; (3) discipline-based mathematics instruction,
and (4) new pathways for K-12 mathematics teachers.
Fund 200 sites at an average of $500,000 over ve years, or $20 M
per year for ve years, with funds from: NSF’s TUES or STEP programs,
DOL’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career
Training (TAACCCT) Grant Program or Career Pathways Innovation
Fund, and Education’s proposed First in the World Initiative.
4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.
Action Agency and Estimated Cost
Sponsor summer STEM learning programs for high
school students.
Education as authorized in the America Competes Act ($10m to fund
about 100 projects reaching on the order of 5000 students, annually).
Expand the scope of a DOL program and focus an
NSF program to encourage pathways from 2-4 year
institutions.
DOL’s TAACCCT Grant Program initiative or Career Pathways Innovation
Fund or NSF’s Advancing Technical Education program to support
community college-university or college research and design
partnerships.
Establish public-private Agency-Institution-Industry
partnerships to support successful STEM programs.
All STEM and education-focused Federal agencies.
Improve data provided to STEM students, parents, and
the greater community on STEM education disciplines
and the labor market.
Department of Education should devote more resources to tracking
students from high school into their careers.
Bureau of Labor Statistics should redene employment categories to
include in “STEM” the breadth of jobs that require STEM skills.
5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to
provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.
39
★ ★
Appendix A:
Experts Providing Input to PCAST
PCAST and its STEM Undergraduate Education Working Group express gratitude to the following indi-
viduals, who contributed input by attending meetings or by responding to requests for information:
Joann Boughman
Chief Executive Ocer
American Society of Human Genetics
David Burgess
Professor of Biology
Boston College
Board Member, Treasurer, and Past-President
Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and
Native Americans in Science
Ashwin Ram
Director, Cognitive Computing Lab and Associate
Professor, College of Computing
Georgia Tech
Founder
Enkia Corporation
Cli Adelman
Senior Associate
Institute for Higher Education Policy
Bruce Alberts
Editor-in-Chief
Science
Mary Ann Rankin
Dean, College of Natural Sciences
University of Texas at Austin
Joseph Aoun
President
Northeastern University
David Asai
Director of the Precollege and Undergraduate
Science Education Programs
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Margaret Ashida
Project Director
Empire State STEM Education Initiative
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
Debbie Bial
President
The Posse Foundation
Board on Science Education (BOSE)
Division of Behavioral and Social Science and
Education, National Research Council
The National Academies
Kenneth Boutte, Sr.
Professor of Biology and Associate Dean of
Summer Programs and External Initiatives
Xavier University of Louisiana
Michelle Cahill
Vice President for National Programs
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Anthony Carnevale
Research Professor and Director, Georgetown
University Center on Education and the
Workforce
Georgetown University
Julie Carruthers
Senior Science and Technology Advisor
Oce of the Deputy Director of Science
Programs
U.S. Department of Energy
David Conley
Professor of Educational Policy and Leaders,
College of Education
University of Oregon
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
40
★ ★
Sandra Everett
Technical Projects and Training Manager
Lorain County Community College
Nord Advanced Technology Center
John Ewing
President
Math for America
Joan Ferrini-Mundy
Assistant Director for Education and Human
Resources
National Science Foundation
Norman Fortenberry
Executive Director
American Society for Engineering Education
Richard Freeman
Herbert Ascherman Chair of Economics
Harvard University
Je Froyd
Director of Academic Development, Dwight Look
College of Engineering
Project Director, NSF Foundation Coalition
Texas A&M University
William Gary
Vice President for Workforce Development
Northern Virginia Community College
Marybeth Gasman
Professor
University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of
Education
Howard Gobstein
Executive Vice President for Research, Innovation,
and STEM Education
Association of Public and Land Grant Universities
Co-Director
Science and Mathematics Teaching Imperative
William Goggin
Executive Director
Federal Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance
U.S. Department of Education
Gary Green
President
Forsyth Technical Community College
Peter Henderson
Director
Board on Higher Education and Workforce
National Research Council
The National Academies
Gary Hoachlander
President
ConnectEd: The California Center for College
and Career
Freeman Hrabowski
President
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Raynard Kington
President
Grinnell College
Kate Kirby
Executive Ocer
American Physical Society
Mary Kirchho
Director
American Chemical Society Education Division
Ken Koedinger
Director
Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center
Professor
Human-Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
APPENDIX A: EXPERTS PROVIDING INPUT TO PCAST
41
★ ★
Dennis Kox
Manager
Advanced Manufacturing
Raytheon Missile Systems
Michael Lach
‡
Special Assistant
U.S. Department of Education
Alan Leshner
Chief Executive Ocer
American Association for the Advancement of
Science
Executive Publisher
Science
James Lightbourne
Senior Advisor
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation
Anne MacLoughlin
Senior Researcher
Center for Studies in Higher Education
University of California, Berkeley
Cathy Manduca
Director
Science Education Resource Center
Carleton College
Robert Mathieu
Professor of Astronomy
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Director
Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching,
and Learning (CIRTL)
Krish Mathur
STEM Liason
Oce of Post Secondary Education
Program Ocer
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education
U.S. Department of Education
Irving McPhail
President and CEO
National Action Council for Minorities in
Education
Harris Miller
CEO and President
Association of Private Sector Colleges and
Universities (APSCU)
Mitzi Montoya
Vice Provost and Dean, College of Technology &
Innovation
Chair
Department of Technological Entrepreneurship &
Innovation Management
Arizona State University
Jeanne Narum
Director
Independent Colleges Oce
Founding Director
Project Kaleidoscope
Patrick Natale
Executive Director, Chief Sta Ocer and
Secretary
American Society of Civil Engineers
Ben Noel
President and Chief Executive Ocer
360Ed
Willard Nott
Vice President for Public Awareness
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Jane Oates
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training
U.S. Department of Labor
Eduardo Ochoa
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
42
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Michael Pearson
Associate Executive Director
Mathematical Association of America
Jan Plass
Co-Director
NYU Games for Learning Institute (G4LI)
Founding Director
CREATE
Professor of Educational Communication and
Technology
New York University
Clifton Poodry
Director
Division of Minority Opportunities in Research
National Institutes of Health
Samuel Rankin, III
Associate Executive Director
American Mathematical Society
Mark Regets
Senior Program Ocer
Board on Higher Education Workforce (BHEW)
National Research Council
The National Academies Senior Analyst
Science and Engineering Indicators Program
Division of Science Resources Statistics
National Science Foundation
Linda Roberts
Former Director
Oce of Education Technology
U.S. Department of Education
Steven Robinson
Special Assistant
Oce of Elementary and Secondary Education
White House Domestic Policy Council
Deborah Santiago
Co-founder and Vice-President for Policy and
Research
Excelencia in Education
Victor Santiago
Deputy Division Director
Division of Human Resource Development
National Science Foundation
Martin Scaglione
President and COO
Workforce Development Division
ACT, Inc.
Mel Schiavelli
President
Harrisburg University of Science & Technology
Betty Shanahan
Executive Director and Chief Executive Ocer
Society of Women Engineers
Tobin Smith
Vice President for Policy
Association of American Universities
Blair Smith
Dean
College of Information Systems and Technology
University of Phoenix
Michael Staton
Chief Executive Ocer and Co-Founder
Inigral, Inc.
Martin Storksdieck
Director
Board on Science Education
National Research Council
The National Academies
Vincent Tinto
Distinguished University Professor
Former Chair
Higher Education Program
Syracuse University
Mark Tomlinson
Executive Director and General Manager
Society of Manufacturing Engineers
APPENDIX A: EXPERTS PROVIDING INPUT TO PCAST
43
★ ★
Josh Trapani
Senior Policy Analyst
Association of American Universities
Uri Treisman
Professor of Mathematics and Public Aairs
University of Texas at Austin
Founder and Director
Charles A. Dana Center
Jodi Wesemann
Treasurer and Member of the Board
Association for Women in Science
John Wilson
Executive Director
White House Initiative on Historically Black
Colleges and Universities
Michael Wolf
Supervisory Economist
Employment Projections Program
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bill Wood
Co-Director
National Academies Summer Institute on
Undergraduate Education in Biology
Professor, Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental
Biology
University of Colorado at Boulder
Frederico Zaragoza
Vice Chancellor of Economic and Workforce
Development
Alamo Colleges
Rodney Ulane
NIH Training Ocer
Director, Division of Scientic Programs
Oce of Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health
‡
As of November 2011, Michael Lach serves as Director of STEM Education at the Urban Education Institute,
University of Chicago.
45
★ ★
Appendix B:
Acknowledgements
PCAST wishes to express gratitude to the following individuals who contributed in various ways to the
preparation of this report:
Asha Balakrishnan
Research Sta Member
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Greg Gershuny
‡
Condential Assistant
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Michelle Costanzo
Student Volunteer
PCAST
Michael Feder
Policy Analyst
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Dara Fisher
Student Volunteer
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Kumar Garg
Policy Analyst
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Gera Jochum
Policy Analyst
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Thomas Kalil
Deputy Director for Policy
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Brandon Ledford
Student Volunteer
PCAST
Elizabeth Lee
Research Assistant
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Justin Scott
Research Sta Member
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Sam Thomas
Research Assistant
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Maya Uppaluru
Student Volunteer
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
Carl Wieman
Associate Director for Science
White House Oce of Science and
Technology Policy
‡
Greg Gershuny left OSTP to join the White House Office of Presidential Personnel as the Energy and
Environment Director in October 2011.
47
★ ★
Appendix C:
STEM Higher Education Enrollment,
Persistence, and Completion Data
Appendix C describes data regarding the STEM enrollment, persistence and completion for students
studying at post-secondary institutions. This appendix is the result of work done by Institute for Defense
Analyses’ (IDA) Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI).
Figure C-1. Number of Institutions by Sector, 1994 to 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure C-2. Number of Institutions by Sector Breakdown, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure C-3. Total Undergraduate Enrollments in all Fields by Institutional Sector,
1999 to 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure C-4. Total Undergraduate Enrollments Breakdown (in thousands), 2008 . . . . . . 50
Table C-1. Distribution of Gender by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 2003-04. . . 51
Table C-2. Enrolled Major by Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure C-5. Percentage of Institutional Sector Enrollments by Field, 2003-04 . . . . . . . 53
Figure C-6. Distribution of Race/Ethnicity by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled,
2003-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure C-7. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure C-8. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table C-3. Persistence in Enrolled Majors Between 2003-04 and 2009 Among
Bachelor’s Degree Attainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table C-4. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2003-04 . . . . . . 58
Figure C-9. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2009 . . . . . . . 59
Table C-5. 2009 Attainment Level by Major When First Enrolled in 2003-04 . . . . . . . 60
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
48
★ ★
Table C-6. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Major Field of Study in 2003-04 . . . . . 61
Table C-7. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . 62
Figure C-10. STEM and Total Degrees Conferred, 2001-009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure C-11 STEM Degrees as a Percentage of Total Degrees Conferred, 2001-2009 . . . . . 63
Figure C-12 STEM, Health, and Social Science Bachelor’s Degrees, 1995-2009 . . . . . . . 64
Figure C-13 STEM, Health, and Social Science Associate’s Degrees 1995-2009 . . . . . . . 65
Table C-8. Percentage of Degrees Conferred by Race/ Ethnicity, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . 66
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
49
★ ★
Derived from: IPEDS, National Center for Education Statistics Derived from: IPEDS, National Center for Education Statistics
Figure C-1. Number of Institutions by Sector,
1994 to 2009
Figure C-2. Number of Institutions by
Sector Breakdown, 2009
Denitions of Institution Type and Institutional Control:
Public 4-year and above
Public institutions that have at least one-degree program that confers 4-year
degrees; yet not all degrees conferred are 4-year degrees
Not-for-prot 4 year and above
Not-for-prot institutions that have at least one-degree program that confers
4-year degrees; yet not all degrees conferred are 4-year degrees
For-prot 4-year and above
For-prot institutions that have at least one-degree program that confers 4-year
degrees; yet not all degrees conferred are 4-year degrees
Public 2-year
Public institutions that confer 2-year degrees; Often referred to as Community
Colleges
Not-for-prot 2-year Not-for-prot institutions that confer 2-year degrees
For-prot 2-year For-prot institutions that confer 2-year degrees
Key Points (Figure C-1 and Figure C-2):
• Overall, the number of higher education institutions has remained steady over the past ve years.
• There has been an increase in the number of for-prot institutions, and a slight decline in the number
of not-for-prot institutions in the past decade.
50
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Derived from: IPEDS, WebCASPAR Derived from: IPEDS, WebCASPAR
Figure C-3. Total Undergraduate Enrollments in all
Fields by Institutional Sector, 1999 to 2008
Figure C-4. Total Undergraduate Enrollments
Breakdown (in thousands), 2008
Key Points (Figure C-3 and Figure C-4):
• Four-year and above not-for-prot institutions outnumber the other institutions sectors.
• Enrollments at all institution types have been increasing steadily over the past decade.
• Public 4-year and 2-year institutions have larger enrollments than the other institution types.
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
51
★ ★
Table C-1. Distribution of Gender by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 2003-04
Gender
Estimates (%) Male Female Total
Total 42.5 57.5 100
First institution sector (level and control) 2003-04
Public 4-year 44.8 55.2 100
Not-for-prot 4-year 43.9 56.1 100
For-prot 4-year 40.3 59.7 100
Public 2-year 43.4 56.6 100
Not-for-prot 2-year 42.5 57.5 100
For-prot 2-year 44.6 55.4 100
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09)
Key Points (Table C-1):
• The ratio of male students to female students across all institution sectors is fairly equal, with
females representing about 55-60% of the student population.
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
52
★ ★
Table C-2. Enrolled Major by Gender
Major When First Enrolled in 2003-04
STEM Majors
Estimates
(%)
STEM
Total
Life Sci Phys Sci Math
Comp/
Info Sci
Engineering/
Eng Tech
Science
Tech
Health
Professions
Social Sci
Other
Non-STEM
Undeclared Total
Total 12.4 3.0 0.7 0.4 3.8 4.4 0.1 13.4 4.7 37.2 32.3 100
Gender
Male 20.6 3.3 0.8 0.3 6.9 9.1 0.2 ! 4.5 4.2 36.2 34.5 100
Female 6.3 2.7 0.6 0.4 1.5 1.0 0.1 ! 19.9 5.1 38.0 30.7 100
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because
the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate. These data represent the percentage of students majoring in various disciplines when rst enrolled at post-secondary
institutions. However, these data do not represent the elds in which these students received degrees.
Key Points (Table C-2):
• Of those enrolled at postsecondary institutions, 12.4% of all students rst enroll in a STEM discipline.
• Of males enrolled at postsecondary institutions, 20.6% rst enroll in a STEM discipline.
• Of females enrolled at postsecondary institutions, 6.3% rst enroll in a STEM discipline.
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
53
★ ★
Figure C-5. Percentage of Institutional Sector Enrollments by Field, 2003-04
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: For-Prot 4-year Health Professions, Not-for-Prot 2-year STEM and Health Professions, For-Prot 2-year STEM and Health Professions
data should be interpreted with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the
estimate.
Key Points (Figure C-5):
• Of all students enrolled in STEM elds, 41.6% are enrolled at public 4-year institutions, 31.0%
are enrolled in public 2-year institutions and 14.9% are enrolled in not-for-prot institutions.
54
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: Asian/ Pacic Islander For-Prot 4-year/2-year data should be interpreted with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error
represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. American Indian/ Alaska Native For-Prot 4-year/2-year data should be interpreted
with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.
Key Points (Figure C-6):
• Of those rst enrolled across all disciplines at 4-year public or not-for prot institutions, 69.9%
are white, 9.8% are black/African American and 9.7% are Hispanic/Latino.
• Of those rst enrolled at the 2-year institutions, the percentage of whites is lower, and the percent-
ages of underrepresented minorities are higher.
Figure C-6. Distribution of Race/Ethnicity by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 2003-04
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
55
★ ★
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: These data represent the type of eld in which a student was last enrolled during the longitudinal survey follow up in 2009. This
includes students who may have dropped out as it represents “eld when last enrolled”—not taking into account whether or not the
student completed a degree, was still enrolled or dropped out.
Key Points (Table C-7):
• During the second follow-up in 2009, 23.6% of male students when last enrolled at post-
secondary institutions were enrolled in STEM elds.
• During the second follow-up in 2009, 9.2% of female students when last enrolled at post-
secondary institutions were enrolled in STEM elds.
Figure C-7. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Gender
56
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: American Indian/ Alaska Native STEM and Health Professions data should be interpreted with caution. Estimate is unstable because
the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.
Key Points (Figure C-8):
• During the second follow-up in 2009, 26.0% of Asians and 15.9% of Whites were last enrolled
in a STEM eld, while 9.8-11.9% of underrepresented minority groups were last enrolled in a
STEM eld.
Figure C-8. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Race/Ethnicity
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
57
★ ★
Table C-3. Persistence in Enrolled Majors Between 2003-04 and 2009 Among Bachelor’s Degree Attainers
Major When Last Enrolled 2009
STEM
Estimates (%) Life Sci Phys Sci Math
Comp/
Info Sci
Engineering/
Eng Tech Sci Tech Social Sci
Health
Profes-sions
Other
Non-STEM Un-declared Total
Total 7.9 1.8 1.3 2.5 6 0.0 !! 17.3 6.5 56.5 0.2 !! 100
Major when rst enrolled in 2003-04
Life Sci 56.5 4.3 ! 0.8 !! 0 1.6 ! 0 10.5 5.4 20.9 0 100
Phys Sci 23.1 35.4 3.6 !! 0 3.8 !! 0 13.5 ! 2.6 !! 18.0 ! 0 100
Math 2.3 !! 2.3!! 54.9 1.4 !! 4.3 !! 0 15.3 ! 0 19.5 ! 0 100
Comp/Info Sci 1.2 !! 0 2.6 ! 48.1 4.3 ! 0 11.4 0 32 0.4 !! 100
Engineering/
Eng Tech
4.6 ! 1.3 ! 2.2 ! 4.2 ! 65.1 0 3.3 ! 0.7 !! 17.8 0.9 !! 100
Social Sci 2.5 ! 0.3 !! 0.3 0.1 !! 1.3 !! 0 65.7 1.2 !! 28.6 0 100
Sci Tech ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 100
Health
Professions
13.8 1.2 ! 0 1.1 !! 0.7 !! 0 7.8 43 32.4 0 100
Other Non-STEM 1.8 0.3 ! 0.9 ! 1 0.9 0 9.3 2.9 82.9 0 100
Undeclared 7.8 2.6 0.7 ! 1.9 ! 3.1 0.0 !! 22.7 5.1 55.5 0.5 !! 100
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: ‡ Reporting standards not met. ! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. !! Interpret data with
caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.
Key Points (Table C-3):
• Among students rst enrolled in Life Sciences in 2003-04, 56.5% attained a bachelor’s degree in Life Sciences by 2009.
• Among STEM fields, bachelor’s degree attainment within the field of original enrollment was highest among engineering and
engineering technician enrollees at 65.1%.
58
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table C-4. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2003-04
Attainment or level at last institution enrolled through 2009
Completers Persisters Leavers
Estimates
(%)
Attained
bachelor’s
degree
Attained
associate’s
degree
Attained
certicate
No
degree,
enrolled
at 4-year
No
degree,
enrolled
at less-
than-4-
year
No degree,
not
enrolled Total
Total 30.7 9.3 9.4 7.1 7.9 35.5 100
Field when First Enrolled in 2003-04
STEM 40.8 10.0 3.7 8.6 5.5 31.5 100
Non-STEM 30.0 10.2 10.6 6.8 7.6 34.8 100
Undeclared 28.1 7.6 9.7 6.9 9.5 38.2 100
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Key Points (Table C-4):
• Students rst enrolled in STEM elds have a higher degree of postsecondary degree attainment
than students rst enrolled in other elds.
• 40.8% of students rst enrolled in a STEM eld attained a bachelor’s degree in any eld, while
30.0% of students in a non-STEM eld and 28.8% of students who were rst undeclared attained
a bachelor’s degree.
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
59
★ ★
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: The attainment levels are aggregated into three higher-level categories: completers, persisters, and leavers.
Key Points (Figure C-9):
• Overall, 31.5% of students rst enrolled in STEM had no degree and were no longer enrolled
after the 6 year follow-up, while 34.8% of non-STEM students and 38.2% of undeclared students
had dropped out.
Figure C-9. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2009
60
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table C-5. 2009 Attainment Level by Major When First Enrolled in 2003-04
Attainment or level at last institution enrolled through 2009
Completers Persisters Leavers
Estimates (%)
Attained
bachelor’s
degree
Attained
associate’s
degree
Attained
certicate
No
degree,
enrolled at
4-year
No
degree,
enrolled at
less-than-
4-year
No
degree,
not
enrolled Total
Total 30.7 9.3 9.4 7.1 7.9 35.5 100
Major when rst enrolled in 2003-04
Life Sci 56.7 8.6 1.8 ! 9.3 4.0 19.5 100
Physical Sci 57.9 6.1 !! 3.7 ! 8.7 ! 4.6 ! 18.9 100
Math 54.6 7.4 ! 4.1 ! 0.0 1.7 !! 32.3 100
Comp/ Info Sci 20.6 15.6 3.8 8.6 7.4 44.0 100
Engineering/
Eng Tech
44.6 8.0 4.6 ! 8.8 5.7 28.3 100
Science Tech 35.9 ! 11.8 !! 1.8 !! 4.3 !! 19.4 !! 26.9 ! 100
Social Sci 50.7 6.7 1.4 8.0 8.6 24.5 100
Health
Professions
17.7 11.6 19.3 4.8 9.7 37.0 100
Other
Non-STEM
31.7 10.1 8.7 7.4 6.6 35.6 100
Undeclared 28.1 7.6 9.7 6.9 9.5 38.2 100
Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Notes: ! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.
!! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.
Key Points (Table C-5):
• Students rst enrolled in life sciences or physical sciences are more likely to attain bachelor’s
degrees in any eld (not necessarily a STEM eld) than students rst enrolled in non-STEM elds.
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
61
★ ★
Table C-6. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Major Field of Study in 2003-04
Degree Attainment and Persistence as of 2009
Completers Persisters Leavers
Estimates (%)
Attained
a STEM
degree
Attained
non-STEM
degree
No degree;
enrolled in a
STEM eld
No degree;
enrolled in
a non-STEM
eld
Left
postsecondary
education
without a
degree Total
Total 8.1 42.2 1.8 13.5 34.5 100
Major eld of study in 2003-04
STEM 35.1 21.6 5.7 8.9 28.7 100
• Math 40.3 27.3 0.0 1.9 !! 30.5 ! 100
• Life Sci 37.8 31.9 3.7 9.7 16.8 100
• Physical Sci 41.3 28.1 2.1 !! 11.5 ! 16.9 100
• Eng/ Eng
Tech
41.8 16.9 7.2 7.9 26.2 100
• Comp/ Info
Sci
24.6 16.7 6.6 ! 9.3 42.7 100
• Science
Tech
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 100
Non-STEM 3.1 48.7 1.0 13.6 33.6 100
Undeclared 6.1 39.1 1.6 15.0 38.3 100
Derived from: Preliminary Estimate - U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Key Points (Table C-6):
• Among students rst enrolled in STEM elds, 35.1% of students attained a STEM degree.
• Among the STEM elds, students rst enrolled in physical science and engineering/engineer-
ing technology had the highest percentage of degree attainment within a STEM eld at above
40% while computer science had the lowest at 24.6%.
62
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table C-7. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Demographic Characteristics
Persistence in STEM eld (excl social/behavioral sci) as of 2009
Completers Persisters Leavers
Estimates (%)
Attained
a STEM
degree
Attained
non-STEM
degree
No degree;
enrolled in a
STEM eld
No degree;
enrolled in
a non-STEM
eld
Left without a
degree Total
Total 8.1 42.2 1.8 13.5 34.5 100
Gender
Male 12.1 35.3 3.2 13.2 36.1 100
Female 5.1 47.3 0.7 13.6 33.3 100
Race/ethnicity
White 9.3 46.2 1.8 10.9 31.9 100
Black/ African
American
4.1 32.6 1.2 19.5 42.7 100
Hispanic/
Latino
4.8 36.9 1.6 15.3 41.3 100
Asian 15.9 40.6 3.7 ! 17.6 22.2 100
American
Indian/ Alaska
Native
5.7 !! 25.5 0.3 !! 26.0 ! 42.6 100
Native
Hawaiian/
other Pacic
Islander
4.9 !! 36.9 ! 0 22.7 !! 35.5 ! 100
Other 7.9 ! 37.8 1.4 !! 21.1 31.7 100
More than
one race
7.0 37.5 2.7 ! 16.8 36 100
Derived from: Preliminary Estimate - U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).
Key Points (Table C-7):
• Overall, 8.1% of who entered postsecondary education in 2004/5 had attained a STEM degree
by 2009.
• Among male and female students who entered postsecondary education in 2004/5,
12.1% and 5.1% attained a STEM degree, respectively.
• Asian and White students had the highest percent of degree attainment within a STEM eld
at approximately 16% and 9%, respectively, while a distribution of 4-6% of underrepresented
minorities attained STEM degrees within their race/ethnicity groups.
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
63
★ ★
Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR
Figure C-10. STEM and Total Bachelor’s and Associate’s
Degrees Conferred, 2001-2009
Figure C-11. STEM Bachelor’s and Associate’s
Degrees as a Percentage of Total Degrees
Conferred, 2001-2009
Key Points (Figure C-10 and Figure C-11):
• A greater number of bachelor’s degrees are conferred than associate’s degrees.
• A greater percentage of bachelor’s degrees than associate’s degrees are conferred in STEM elds.
• STEM degrees as a percentage of all degrees conferred has declined since 2001 at both the
bachelor’s and associate’s degree levels.
• The percentage of STEM associate’s degrees conferred decreased sharply between 2003 and
2005, but has since leveled o. This trend is mostly due to the rise in associate’s degrees in health
professions and the decrease in associate’s degrees in computer/information sciences.
64
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR
Key Points (Figure C-12):
• Computer/information science bachelor’s degrees increased from 2000 to 2004, but reverted
back to 2000 levels from 2005 to 2009.
• Engineering/engineering technologies bachelor’s degrees have remained steady over the past
decade.
Figure C-12. STEM, Health, and Social Science Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred, 1995-2009
APPENDIX C: STEM HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION DATA
65
★ ★
Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR
Key Points (Figure C-13):
• Compared to conferred bachelor’s degrees, a greater proportion of associate’s degrees are
conferred in health professions and computer/ information sciences.
Figure C-13. STEM, Health, and Social Science Associate’s Degrees Conferred, 1995-2009
66
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table C-8. Percentage of Degrees Conferred by Race/ Ethnicity, 2009
Percentage of Degrees Conferred in 2009
STEM Majors
Race/Ethnicity
STEM
Total Life Sci
Physical
Sci Math
Comp/
Info Sci
Engineering/
Eng Tech Sci Tech Social Sci
Health
Professions
Other
Non-
STEM Total
White 14.4 4.9 1.1 0.7 2.7 5.0 0.1 9.7 12.3 63.5 100
Black 10.6 2.9 0.6 0.4 3.4 3.3 0.1 10.2 13.9 65.3 100
Hispanic 11.9 3.4 0.7 0.5 2.6 4.7 0.1 10.5 10.8 66.8 100
Asian/ Pacic Islander 23.0 10.0 1.7 1.1 3.0 7.1 0.1 12.5 11.0 53.5 100
American Indian/
Alaska Native
13.1 4.9 1.0 0.4 2.6 4.1 0.1 9.6 12.6 64.7 100
Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR
Key Points (Table C-8):
• Among all White students who received degrees in 2009, 14.4% obtained degrees in a STEM eld.
• Across all race/ ethnicity categories, White and Asian/Pacic Islander students obtained STEM degrees at the highest percentages at 14%
and 23%, respectively. That is, among the Asians who earned degrees in 2009, 23.0% of the degrees are in STEM. Among underrepresented
minorities, 10.6% of Blacks and 11.9% of Hispanics earned degrees in STEM.
67
★ ★
Appendix D: Economic Analysis
of STEM Workforce Need
Appendix D describes data regarding the demand for STEM workers and the anticipated supply of STEM
undergraduates from post-secondary higher education institutions. This appendix is the result of work
done by IDA’s Science and Technology Policy Institute.
Figure D-1. Estimated Percentages of Females in STEM Occupational Groups,
2001, 2005, and 2009 (Data Labels Indicate 2009 Values) . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table D-1. Estimated Number of Employed Persons and Percentage of Unemployed
(Compared to Entire Labor Force), 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table D-2. Fastest Growing Jobs as Reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2008–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure D-2. Estimated Race/Ethnicity of Labor Force in All STEM Occupations,
2001, 2005, and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure D-3. Historical and Projected Educational Attainment in STEM Occupations,
Various Years from 1983 through 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure D-4. New and Replacement Job Openings and Occupational Distribution
between 2008 and 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table D-3. Percent of Labor Force with Bachelor’s STEM Degrees (Columns) in
Corresponding STEM Occupations (Rows) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure D-5. Total Job Openings and the Distribution of Educational Demand
within Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure D-6. Projected Job Openings in STEM Occupations, 2008–2018 . . . . . . . . . 78
68
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Figure D-1: STEM Workforce Denition
Note: The categories of jobs that require STEM skills and understandings are expanding, generating
additional demand for workers with STEM degrees.
• STEM Professionals. Workers who regularly draw on their expertise in STEM elds—including
scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and technicians in STEM occupations—make up a rela-
tively small but essential fraction of the U.S. workforce. They advance the frontiers of knowledge
in industry, government, and academia, generating the new ideas and technologies that can
transform entire industries and sectors of society. In colleges and universities, they also educate
future generations of scientists, engineers, technicians, and mathematicians along with other
students who will draw on STEM knowledge throughout their lives.
• The STEM-Capable Workforce. A much larger group of workers, whom we categorize in this report
as the STEM-capable workforce, routinely use knowledge and skills developed in STEM elds
as part of their jobs. Many of these people have STEM degrees or certicates but are working
in jobs that would not be formally categorized as STEM occupations. At one end this group
shades into the ranks of STEM professionals who develop and apply new knowledge. At the
other end it shades into workers in all professions who use information and capabilities derived
from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to analyze, communicate, innovate,
manage, and strategize. For example, physicians, nurses and other health workers generally
are not categorized as STEM professionals, yet many of these individuals draw heavily on STEM
knowledge and skills in their jobs. As another example, the advanced manufacturing workforce
requires prociency in math, technology, and engineering principles to succeed in their jobs,
from entry-level workers through graduate-degreed engineers.
69
★ ★
APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED
• Non-STEM Workers Who Draw on STEM Skills. Many occupations today require higher levels of
familiarity with STEM subjects than they did in the past. A proxy for these increased demands
is the increasing level of education required for many jobs. Between 1973 and 2008, the share
of jobs in the U.S. economy that required postsecondary education increased from 28% to 59%,
and this percentage is projected to continue to increase. While college provides knowledge
and skills other than STEM capabilities, the prominence of STEM subjects in higher education
suggests that at least part of what employers are seeking is greater familiarity with STEM con-
cepts and skills and STEM-derived technologies. One of many examples would be a market
researcher who uses statistical techniques to draw conclusions; such a worker might fall into
either this category or the previous category depending on the exact nature of the job.
• Non-STEM Workers Who Do Not Draw on STEM Skills. Many jobs in the economy do not draw
directly on STEM skills. To again cite a specic example, athletes, singers, actors, and other enter-
tainers typically do not draw on STEM subjects to do their jobs. However, even these individuals
may need to master specic STEM content—for example, to devise a training regimen, or to
create or disseminate artistic materials using new technologies.
In general, no job is completely isolated from the inuence of new technologies and new ideas. All
Americans regularly encounter the products of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in
their jobs and in their daily lives, though they may not recognize the connection with STEM subjects. The
decisions individuals make in supermarkets, doctors’ oces, and voting booths often depend at least
in part on ideas drawn from STEM elds. To the extent that people are comfortable and familiar with
STEM concepts, they are better able to take advantage of new opportunities and make good decisions
on STEM-related issues. In doing so, they help create a cultural environment that is conducive to STEM
endeavors and to the benets those endeavors can produce.
124. Bresnahan, Timothy F., Erik Brynjolfsson, and Lorin M. Hitt. (2002). “Information Technology, Workplace
Organization and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 339-376. For a
contrasting view, see: Michael J. Handel. (2005). “Worker Skills and Job Requirements: Is There a Mismatch?” Washington,
DC: Economic Policy Institute.
125. Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Je Strohl. (2010). “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education
Requirements through 2018.” Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
70
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Table D-1. Estimated Number of Employed Persons and Percentage of Unemployed (Compared to Entire Labor Force), 2005-2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Occupation Employed
%Un
emp.* Employed
%Un
emp.* Employed
%Un
emp.* Employed
%Un
emp.* Employed
%Un
emp.*
All Occupations 137,147,492 6.9% 142,545,193 6.4% 143,630,939 6.3% 147,486,711 6.3% 141,932,926 9.8%
All STEM Occupations 7,112,960 3.3% 7,347,542 2.6% 7,369,304 2.5% 7744152 2.6% 7,498,307 5.2%
All STEM Managers 548,618 2.9% 581,833 2.0% 602,188 1.7% 645,681 2.4% 635,896 4.6%
All Computer
Occupations
2,996,823 4.0% 3,110,616 2.9% 3,164,358 2.9% 3,297,403 2.8% 3,315,697 5.2%
All Mathematical
Occupations
162,123 2.1% 163,212 2.1% 168,721 2.6% 178,357 1.5% 187,337 3.4%
All Engineers 1,833,225 2.6% 1,854,730 1.9% 1,837,649 1.7% 1,906,983 1.9% 1,777,445 4.4%
All Engineering
Technicians
686,259 4.0% 710,790 4.0% 728,494 3.4% 767,355 4.0% 650,708 9.5%
All Life and Physical
Scientists
382,472 2.7% 394,300 2.3% 423,308 2.2% 430,841 2.3% 625,330 3.0%
All Life Scientists 232,008 1.5% 254,607 1.3% 239,823 2.0% 285,454 2.0% 266,868 2.0%
All Physical Scientists 346,370 2.5% 357,387 1.8% 326,480 2.4% 360,300 2.3% 358,462 3.8%
All Science Technicians 307,534 4.4% 314,367 4.5% 301,591 4.6% 302,619 4.6% 305,894 6.9%
Derived from: American Community Survey one-year estimates, Census Bureau; data retrieved from IPUMS-USA database.
Note: * %Unemp. indicates percentage of labor force that is unemployed.
Key Points (Table D-1):
• STEM occupations make up approximately 5.6% of the employed labor force in the United States.
• From 2005 through 2009, STEM occupations fared well compared to the general workforce; the total unemployment percentage for all
STEM jobs was typically about half of that for the entire occupational labor force.
• Overall, the number of STEM workers in the labor force grew from 7.5 million in 2005 to over 7.9 million in 2009.
71
★ ★
APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED
Table D-2. Fastest Growing Jobs as Reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008–2018
Occupation
Percent
Change
Number of New
Jobs
Median Annual
Wage
(May 2008)
Biomedical Engineers 72 11,600 $77,400
Network Systems and Data Communications
Analysts
53 155,800 $71,100
Home Health Aides 50 460,900 $20,460
Personal and Home Care Aides 46 375,800 $19,180
Financial Examiners 41 11,100 $70,930
Medical Scientists
(Except Epidemiologists)
40 44,200 $72,590
Physicians Assistants 39 29,200 $81,230
Skin Care Specialists 38 14,700 $28,730
Biochemists and Biophysicists 37 8,700 $82,840
Athletic Trainers 37 6,000 $39,640
Derived from: Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics and Division of Occupational Outlook.
Note: Highlighted rows indicate STEM-related occupations.
Key Points (Table D-2):
• Though the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not have an ocial STEM designation for catego-
rizing occupations, those commonly labeled as STEM in other research appear as some of the
fastest growing in the most recent employment projections.
• While the absolute number of new jobs being created for biomedical engineers as well as bio-
chemists and biophysicists remains relatively low compared to others on this list, the median
wages earned by all of the fastest growing STEM occupations are some of the highest among
all occupations.
72
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Derived from: American Community Survey of The Census Bureau, 2001, 2005, 2009 (one-year estimates); data retrieved from IPUMS-USA
database.
Key Points (Figure D-2):
• Overall, the average percentage of females in all STEM occupations in 2009 (25%) was the same
as in 2001.
• The ratio of female to male workers remains low despite large numbers of women entering
selected occupational elds (e.g., life sciences) over the past decade.
• The number of women in STEM occupations in 2009 ranged from as low as 9% in some engi-
neering elds to upwards of 46% in mathematical occupations.
Figure D-2. Estimated Percentages of Females in STEM Occupational Groups,
2001, 2005, and 2009 (Data Labels Indicate 2009 Values)
73
★ ★
APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED
Derived from: American Community Survey of The Census Bureau, 2001, 2005, 2009 (one-year estimates); data retrieved from IPUMS-USA
database.
Note: Detailed data for all ethnicities and STEM occupational groups are available in Appendix C.
Key Points (Figure D-3):
• The percentage of various race/ethnicities across STEM occupations has remained stable from
2001 through 2009. One exception is Asians, who have moved from 10.6% of all STEM occupa-
tions in 2001 to 13.7% in 2009.
• The trends in race/ethnicity vary when looking at specic occupational groups. For example, in
the life sciences (not shown), the percentage of Whites has decreased signicantly from 2001
to 2009, and much of that employment has shifted to Asians.
Figure D-3. Estimated Race/Ethnicity of Labor Force in All STEM Occupations,
2001, 2005, and 2009
74
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Derived from: Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Je Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements
through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Note: The denition of STEM used here includes the following occupations and corresponding standard occupational classications (SOC):
computer and mathematical science occupations (SOC 15-1011-SOC 15-2099), architecture and architectural technician occupations
(SOC 17-1011-SOC 17-1022; SOC 17-3012-SOC 17-3019; SOC 17-3031); engineers and engineering technician occupations (SOC
17-2011-SOC 17-2199; SOC 17-3021-SOC17-3031); life and physical sciences occupations (SOC 19-1011-SOC19-2099; SOC 19-4011-
SOC 19-4099); social sciences occupations (SOC 19-3011-SOC19-3099).
Key Points (Figure D-4):
• Based on the Center on Education and the Workforce’s projections and a historical analysis of
BLS data, the authors revealed a trend through 2018 that more STEM occupations will demand
education that includes at least some college.
• Over time, the population of STEM workers that are high school dropouts or high school gradu-
ates decreases to 8.8% by 2018, thus indicating that 91.2% of STEM workers will need at least
some post-secondary education.
Figure D-4. Historical and Projected Educational Attainment in STEM Occupations,
Various Years from 1983 through 2018
75
★ ★
APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED
Table D-3. Percent of Labor Force with Bachelor’s STEM Degrees (Columns) in Corresponding STEM Occupations (Rows)
STEM Bachelor’s Degrees
All Comp
& Info Sys
All
Mathematics
All
Engineering
All
Eng
Techs
All Life
Sciences
All Phys
Sciences
All
Science
Techs
All STEM
Education
Eng and
Industrial
Mgmt
Multi-
disciplinary
or General
Science
% of
Corresponding
Labor Force
with any STEM
Bachelor’s Degree
STEM Occupations
All Computer
Occupations
18.8% 3.1% 12.3% 0.9% 1.7% 2.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.7% 40.0%
All
Mathematical
Occupations
5.9% 16.0% 6.0% 0.4% 3.4% 2.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.8% 35.5%
All Engineers 1.2% 0.7% 43.1% 2.0% 1.4% 1.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 50.9%
All
Engineering
Technicians
0.5% 0.2% 4.9% 1.2% 1.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 9.4%
All Life
Scientists
0.5% 0.7% 4.1% 0.1% 51.7% 9.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.9% 68.5%
All Physical
Scientists
1.5% 1.8% 9.8% 0.3% 27.0% 35.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 2.1% 78.5%
All Science
Technicians
0.5% 0.4% 2.8% 0.2% 15.0% 5.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 25.1%
All STEM
Managers
12.3% 2.8% 22.4% 1.4% 2.8% 2.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 45.3%
All STEM
Occupations
9.9% 2.3% 18.8% 1.1% 5.2% 3.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.7% 42.3%
Derived from: American Community Survey of the Census Bureau, 2009. Data retrieved from IPUMS-USA database.
Note: This table excludes social scientists from disciplines and occupations; a complete listing of the columnar degree eld groups and the corresponding detailed degree elds is detailed
below; occupations follow the CPST conventions of ~50 detailed occupations aggregated into eight groups but excluding those occupations in the social sciences.
Key Points: (Table D-3):
• This table illustrates the diculty in tracking the STEM workforce due to the number of possible occupational paths that a STEM graduate may take;
only the options categorized as STEM occupations are shown here but many more STEM enabled occupations exist.
• Across all education levels, 42.3 percent of individuals in the STEM labor force have a bachelor’s degree that was received in a STEM eld while 64.4
percent of individuals in the STEM labor force with a bachelor’s degree or above received their bachelor’s in a STEM eld (data not shown).
• Life science occupations have the highest proportion of bachelor’s degrees from the identical discipline of life sciences with 51.7% working in the
same eld they studied. The two groups with the lowest number of workers who have a matching degree and occupational eld are engineering
technicians and science technicians.
• Of the estimated 11.4 million individuals with STEM bachelor’s degrees in the entire workforce in 2009, only 3.3 million or 29.3 percent of them were
in STEM occupations.
76
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Figure D-5. New and Replacement Job Openings and Occupational Distribution
between 2008 and 2018
Source: Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Je Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education
Requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. p. 27.
Reprinted with permission.
Key Points (Figure D-5):
• Based on Carnevale et al. (2010), net new STEM jobs and STEM replacement jobs due to retire-
ment are projected to be about 2.77 million between 2008 and 2018.
77
★ ★
APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED
Figure D-6. Total Job Openings and the Distribution of
Educational Demand within Occupations
Source: Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Je Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education
Requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. p. 28.
Reprinted with permission.
Key Points (Figure D-6):
• 83% of these jobs require an associate’s degree or above.
• The projected total number of new and replacement STEM jobs between 2008 and 2018 requir-
ing an associate’s degree or above is 2.3 million.
78
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Figure D-7. Projected Job Openings in STEM Occupations, 2008–2018
Derived from: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Key Points (Figure D-7):
• The number of job openings projected in 2018 is delineated here as growth versus replace-
ment needs. Job growth includes the creation of new jobs while replacement needs are those
that result from workers retiring or permanently leaving a position. Together, these categories
indicate the minimum number of workers who will need to be trained for the given occupation.
• In terms of total number of job openings, computer specialists are projected to require more
than 1.3 million workers as a result of job growth and replacement needs.
• Engineers are the next most required STEM occupation with 531,300 job openings projected
through 2018.
79
★ ★
Appendix E: Evidence of the
Mathematics Preparation Gap
Today, many students enter college not prepared for college level mathematics. Among students who
take the ACT entrance examination, just 43 percent achieve the ACT College Readiness Benchmark in
mathematics. Because of inadequate preparation, many students need to take developmental classes
in mathematics when they get to college. This poses a burden on students, institutions of higher educa-
tion, the military, and employers in the form of developmental education and worker training. Higher
education alone spends at least two billion dollars on developmental education per year.
Figure E-1. 12th Grade Student STEM Interest and Mathematics Prociency
Source: The Business-Higher Education Forum. (2011). The STEM interest and prociency challenge: Creating the workforce
of the future. Washington, DC.
Key Points (Figure E-1)
• Among high school seniors who have taken the series of exams oered by the ACT in eighth,
tenth, and twelfth grades, about one in six is both procient in mathematics and interested in
STEM elds.
• Closing the mathematics-preparation gap would enable many more students to pursue STEM
degrees in college. About 15% of 12th graders are interested in STEM elds but not procient
in math, with women slightly more common in this category (Figure E-1). Furthermore, many
members of this group are not far from math prociency. More than half of white and Asian-
American students, more than 40% of Hispanic/Latino and American Indian students, and
almost one third of African-American students who are interested in STEM elds are within
four points on the ACT exam of the cuto for math prociency (Figure E-2). If the preparation of
these students in math could be enhanced, many more students could be prepared to pursue
STEM elds in college.
126. The benchmarks specify the minimum scores needed on each ACT subject-area test to indicate that a
student has a 50 percent chance of earning a grade of B or higher or about a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher
in a typical credit-bearing rst-year college course in that subject area. ACT. (2011). The Condition of College & Career
Readiness 2011. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
127. Strong American Schools. (2008). Diploma to Nowhere. Washington, DC.
80
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Figure E-2. High School Student Performance on ACT Math Exam
Source: ACT. (2011). The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2011. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Note: Students who score a 22 or higher on the mathematics portion of the ACT exam are considered math procient and
have a high probability of college success.
Key Points (Figure E-2)
• Large numbers of students who take the ACT exam in twelfth grade, including many students
from groups underrepresented in STEM elds, are within a few points on the exam of math-
ematical prociency.
• One idea to improve and decrease the high cost of math remediation is to make widespread
availability of the resources the Federal government has developed for its use in training the
U.S. military (See, for example, Box E-1).
APPENDIX E: EVIDENCE OF THE MATHEMATICS PREPARATION GAP
81
★ ★
BOX E1: USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO BRIDGE THE MATHEMATICS
PREPARATION GAP
The Oce of Naval Research (ONR), the science and technology provider for the U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps, has supported academic research in cognitive learning science for more than two decades. For
example, the Cognitive Science of Learning program has supported the development of computer-based
learning tools, including a 3-D video game developed by ONR, that permit recruits to learn at-sea safety,
ship handling, and electronics maintenance during on-shore training. Recruits who use the safety video
game make 50 percent fewer errors and locate ship or submarine compartments in 50 percent less time
than others. In a study measuring how much information recruits remember, game-playing recruits
retained 83 percent of their reading gains, almost four times more than their counterparts.
a
ONR is now developing articially intelligent STEM tutors to help high school students increase their
prociency in STEM subjects. ONR-sponsored researchers at Arizona State University have demonstrated
the success of digital tutors among algebra students, raising student grade levels by up to 20 percent--the
equivalent of increasing going from “Cs” to “As.”
b
The success of these intelligent tutors has led the Chief of
Naval Research to sponsor a multi-million dollar “grand challenge” to adapt the technology for use in STEM
education projects.
Sources:
a. Murphy, C. (In Press).Why Games Work—The Science of Learning.Modsim World 2011, Virginia Beach, VA, October 2011.
Accesible fromhttp://www.goodgamesbydesign.com/?p=59.
b. Barrus, A. K. Sabo, S. Joseph, R. Atkinson, and R. Perez. (In Press). Evaluating Adaptive, Computer-Based Mathematics
Tutoring Systems: A Math Improvement Feasibilty Study. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
83
★ ★
Appendix F: Ecacy of Various
Classroom Methods
Thinking like a scientist requires acquisition of information, habits of mind, skills, and a scientic iden-
tity. It seems unlikely that such diverse attributes would all be learned most eectively through one
mode of teaching. Indeed they are not. Yet most introductory STEM courses taken in the rst two years
of college are in the same format: lectures, followed by practice problem sets, followed by multiple
choice or word-problem tests. A single model of instruction cannot achieve all the signicant learning
goals of science instruction, nor can a single form of assessment detect all the consequential outcomes.
To create vibrant science classrooms that eectively transmit knowledge and develop the intellectual
attributes of scientists, college faculty must overcome the inertia of the historical habits passed from
generation to generation.
A substantial empirical literature demonstrates that alternative models of instruction can achieve many
important learning outcomes more eectively than current practice and without added time or cost
(for one example, see Box F-1). These studies address learning in many elds of science as we well as
engineering and math. Many of the alternatives include lectures, but they also include two key elements:
(1) Students are actively engaged in the process of learning compared to solely following a lecture and
then executing what they have been told; and (2) Students receive feedback while learning, which is
usually inherent in activities that engage students’ minds.
Two types of studies demonstrate the impact of active learning on comprehension of concepts and
retention of information. The rst are randomized, controlled studies conducted under experimental
laboratory conditions in which students are taught the same material in dierent ways. One study
determined that either writing or talking about material increased comprehension and learning over a
control group, and both talking and writing had a more substantial eect on comprehension and also
increased long-term retention of knowledge. Similar studies replicate this eect on humans, and one
even suggests that active engagement enhances learning in rhesus monkeys.
The second type of study involves comparison of real classrooms. Because randomized, controlled
studies are challenging with real students and teachers, many designs have been used. Some compare
student performance in courses that are taught traditionally for many years with the same instructor
using the same exams, with the only change the introduction of active exercises. Others have used
parallel sections of the same course, and others have randomly introduced active learning into some
128. National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
129. Rivard, L.P. and S.B. Straw. (2000). “The eect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.”
Science Education 84: 566-593.
130. Kornell, N. and H.S. Terrace. (2007). “The generation eect in monkeys.” Psychological Science 18(8): 682-685.
131. Woods, D., A. Hrymak, R. Marshall, P. Wood, C. Crowe, and T. Homan (1997). “Developing problem solving
skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program.” Journal of Engineering Education, April, 75-91.
132. Deslauriers, L., E. Schelew, and C. Wieman (2011). “Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.”
Science 332(6031): 862-4.
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
84
★ ★
class sessions and not others within a single course and analyzed student performance on exam ques-
tions on topics taught with active or traditional methods. Numerous studies in chemistry, physics,
biology, math, and engineering courses show that students learn, perform, and develop higher order
thinking skills in active settings better than in passive ones (Table F-2). In almost any research study on
humans in real world settings, concern arises that other factors co-vary with the variable of interest.
Many studies control for these confounding variables as indicated below (Table F-1). Given the size of
the body of peer-reviewed research about active learning; the variation in experimental design among
the studies; the diverse settings and subjects used; the consistency of ndings across many STEM dis-
ciplines; and the concordance between studies of subjects under experimental conditions and studies
of real STEM classes, the conclusion is convincing: teaching methods that require active engagement
of the mind lead to more learning than does lecturing alone.
Table F-1 Controls for Confounding Variables in Classroom Learning Studies
Confounding Variable Approach that Avoid this Problem
Better students in the active learning
cohort
• Randomize the students in the active learning and comparison groups
• Use matched groups with similar grades in previous courses
Instructor aims to prove that active
learning is more eective
• Compare a traditional course taught to one by an outstanding instructor
aiming to prove that active methods are not better than lectures alone
Active learning professor “teaches to
the exam”
• Use standardized national test
• Have students interviewed about the course content by a colleague
who does not know which students received which treatment and who
had not attended either course
• Test students’ ability to pose good scientic questions as judged by
blind reviewers
The Evidence Summarized
Today, hundreds of papers have documented the scientic evidence regarding eective teaching,
including examples of large studies with robust ndings in this eld. A meta-analysis of 62 physics
courses (14 traditional, 48 active) taught across the U.S. showed that among a total of 6,000 students,
performance on a common test was higher among those who were taught with active methods.
Another study analyzed 39 studies of small-group learning and showed that it enhanced academic
erformance, attitudes toward learning, and persistence in STEM. In chemistry, a meta-analysis of con-
trolled studies of high school chemistry, college introductory chemistry, and organic chemistry reported
133. Smith, M.K, W.B. Wood, K. Krauter, and J.K Knight. (2011). “Combining peer discussion with instructor
explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions.” CBE Life Sciences Education 10: 55-63.
134. A general survey of promising practices in undergraduate STEM education, with an emphasis on the extent
to which the practices have been validated by research, is the white paper “Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM
Education” (2008) by J. E. Froyd. Available at
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Froyd_Promising_Practices_CommissionedPaper.pdf. See also Baldwin, Roger
G., ed. (2009). Improving the Climate for Undergraduate Teaching and Learning in STEM Fields. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
135. Hake, R.R. (1998). “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.” American Journal of Physics 66(1): 64.
136. Springer, L., M.E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan (1999). “Eects of small-group learning on undergraduates in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.
APPENDIX F: EFFICACY OF VARIOUS CLASSROOM METHODS
85
★ ★
that nearly all of 37 studies involving 3,500 students showed statistically signicant positive eects of
active learning, and the average eect of active learning across all studies would move a student from
the 50
th
percentile to the 70
th
percentile. Among the 37 research studies reviewed, 11 also showed
improvement of student attitudes toward science and 9 showed an average 22 percent higher retention
of students in STEM after an active learning chemistry course than a traditional one.
In the 1990s, many medical schools changed from a traditional style of delivery to problem-based learning
in courses for medical students. University of Missouri-Columbia studied the impact of this change on
student performance on the national Medical Licensing Examination. They found a signicant improve-
ment of scores associated with the change. For example, among the classes in 1995 and 1996, who were
taught in the traditional courses, an average of 8 students per year scored in the 90
th
percentile. In contrast,
in 1997-2000, an average of 21 students per year scored in the 90
th
percentile. Performance improved
over time, apparently due to increased faculty experience in teaching with the problem-based style, so
that by 2000, 29 students scored in the 90
th
percentile, representing a greater than three-fold increase
compared with the traditional curriculum. Subsequent studies showed that the students taught by
problem-based learning methods received better evaluations from residency directors.
In addition to experimental and classroom data, the enhancement of learning in active settings is sup-
ported by neurobiology and common experience. The current understanding of knowledge acquisition,
short-term and long-term memory, and brain development indicate that learning changes the brain
and that is accomplished by an active process of building neural connections. These are constructed
through active processing.
The research indicates that many dierent types of active engagement can accomplish learning gains.
Introduction of clickers into a lecture, having students solve a problem before attending a lecture,
use of group discussion, problem-solving, individual writing or “one-minute papers,” taking a
test, conducting an inquiry-based lab, and combinations of these activities all have had signicant
impacts in improving learning. Therefore, the support for using evidence-based teaching methods
137. Bowen, C.W. (2000). “A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning eects on high school and
college chemistry achievement.” Journal of Chemical Education 77(1): 116.
138. Ibid.
139. Homan, K., M. Hosokawa, R. Blake, L. Headrick, and G. Johnson. (2006). “Problem-based learning outcomes:
ten years of experience at the University-Columbia School of Medicine.” Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of
American Medical Colleges 81(7): 617-25.
140. Ibid.
141. Smith, M., W. Wood, W. Adams, C. Wieman, J. Knight, N. Guild. (2009). “Why peer discussion improves student
performance in class.” Science 323: 122-124.
142. Schwartz, D.L. and J.D. Bransford. (1998). “A time for telling.” Cognition and Instruction 16(4): 475-522.
143. Buck, J.R. and K.E. Wage. (2005). “Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses.” IEEE Signal
Processing Magazine 22(2): 76-81.
144. Capon, N. and D. Kuhn (2004). “What’s so good about problem-based learning.” Cognition and Instruction 22(1):
61-79.
145. Almer, E., Jones, K., and Moeckel, C. (1998). The impact of one-minute papers on learning in an introductory
accounting course. Issues in Accounting Education 13(3): 485-495.
146. McDaniel, M., J. Anderson, M. Derbish, and N. Morrisette (2007). “Testing the testing eect in the classroom.”
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19(4): 494-513.
147. Brickman, P., C. Gormally, N. Armstrong, and B. Hallar. (2009). “Eects of Inquiry-based Learning on Students’
Science Literacy Skills and Condence.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
86
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
presented in this report is not advancing a single type of teaching. Instead, based on the numerous data
points available, we posit that the key change is to bring to STEM classrooms various approaches that
truly engage students intellectually and involve thinking, problem-solving, questioning, or analyzing
information. Based on the weight and variety of the research evidence, it is reasonable to say that if one
active-learning event in which students engaged and received feedback were incorporated into each
classroom session of every introductory college class in the United States, science education would
likely be transformed.
BOX F1: ENHANCED LEARNING IN A LARGE PHYSICS CLASS
A recent experiment at the University of British Columbia demonstrated the feasibility of using active learning
to greatly enhance student learning in large classes at no additional cost.
In the second term of a rst-year Electricity and Magnetism course, one group of students was taught in three
hours of lecture by an experienced instructor, while another group received the same material through three
hours of interactive learning. Altogether, 267 students heard lectures, while 271 students were taught with a
method known as “deliberate practice” based on recent ndings in cognitive psychology and physics educa-
tion. The instructor for the experimental group began by giving students a multiple-choice question on a
particular concept. The students discussed the question in small groups and answered electronically, revealing
their understanding or lack of understanding of a topic. The instructor took this feedback into account during a
discussion of the topic before repeating the process with the next concept. The goal was for students to spend
as little time as possible passively listening and as much time as possible making and testing predictions and
arguments, solving problems, and critiquing their reasoning and that of others.
In the non-traditional class, attendance grew from 57 to 75 percent, engagement rose from 45 to 85 percent,
and the students learned twice as much based on test results as the students in the traditional section (see
gure). In the traditional section, attendance and engagement remained unchanged.
In a survey afterwards, 90 percent of students in the experimental group agreed that they enjoyed the interac-
tive teaching technique. The technique did not require additional sta or small or specialized classrooms.
Source: Deslauriers, L., E. Schelew, and C. Wieman. (2011). “Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.” Science 332: 862-864.”
APPENDIX G: REVIEW OF EVIDENCE THAT RESEARCH EXPERIENCES HAVE IMPACTS ON RETENTION
87
★ ★
Appendix G: Review of Evidence
that Research Experiences have
Impacts on Retention
One way to engage and, therefore, retain students in STEM subjects is to involve them in contemporary,
authentic research during the rst two years of college (see Box G-1). For example, in a randomized
trial at the University of Michigan, students who engaged in research with a professor as sophomores
were much less likely to leave science majors than those who did not. Though the numbers of students
involved were relatively small, the results were dramatic for all ethnic groups: attrition rates dropping
from 20% to 11% for black students, from 14% to 0% for Hispanic students, and from 5.5% to 1.4% for
white students. A nationwide assessment of 4,500 students involved in undergraduate research found
that the research experience claried students’ interests and increased their condence. Close to 70%
of those surveyed said that their interest in a STEM career increased due to their experience, and about
30% of the students who had never considered earning a PhD now expected to do so. The surveys did
not detect signicant dierences between students based on gender or demographic group. The con-
clusion of the researchers was that “the inculcation of enthusiasm is the key element—and the earlier
the better.” Additionally, an intervention of early research experience at UC-Davis showed improved
grades across STEM courses and improved retention in STEM majors for students who are given rigorous
academic program during their rst two years of college, are funded to work in research laboratories
during their sophomore year, and are provided personal support and guidance (see Box G-2).
148. Nagda, B. A., S.R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty
research partnerships aect student retention.” Review of Higher Education 22(1), 55-72.
149. Russell, S.H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. (2007). “Benets of undergraduate research experience.” Science
316: 548-9.
88
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
BOX G1: THE FRESHMAN RESEARCH INITIATIVE AT UT AUSTIN
The Freshman Research Initiative at the University of Texas, Austin, enrolls 25 percent of the freshman class in the
College of Natural Sciences in three-semester-long laboratory courses based on faculty research programs. The
program oers rst-year students the opportunity to do cutting-edge, original, publishable research in chemis-
try, biochemistry, nanotechnology, molecular biology, physics, astronomy, or computer science.
The faculty member leading the course provides the overall direction for the research. Postdoctoral “Research
Educators” (REs) organize the entering students’ laboratory work and curricula. Mentoring includes help with
presentations, data collection and analysis, and placement after the three-semester “research stream.”
Early results suggest that student retention in STEM programs is 30 to 35 percent higher for students in the
initiative. The program also has formal ways to help students continue in research in faculty laboratories,
research abroad, or industry internships.
A key feature of the Freshman Research Initiative is the autonomy of the REs to work directly with students
and shape their experience and motivation. The REs are stakeholders in the institute’s success and make it a
hotbed for innovation in teaching.
Source: University of Texas at Austin website: http://fri.cns.utexas.edu/about-fri.
BOX G2: PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IMPROVES STEM PERSISTENCE AND
PERFORMANCE
The UC-Davis Biology Undergraduate Scholars Program (BUSP) Program is an intensive enrichment program
for undergraduate students who have a strong interest in life science elds. BUSP, sponsored by the College of
Biological Sciences at UC-Davis, enriches the undergraduate experience by providing exciting and challeng-
ing opportunities to learn about and participate in the biological sciences. BUSP students enroll in a specially
designed, rigorous academic program during their rst two years of college, are funded to work in a biology
research laboratory during their sophomore year, and meet regularly with skilled advisers who oer academic
guidance and personal support. The Table below summarizes BUSP students’ persistence and performance
in STEM foundation courses, such as chemistry and calculus, for students of the underrepresented minority
(URM) who participated in the BUSP program (URM-BUST) as compared to students of the underrepresented
minority, generally (URM comparison), or white and Asian students.
Source: Villarejo, M., A. Barlow, D. Kogan, B.D. Veazey, and J. Sweeney (2008). “Encouraging Minority Undergraduates to Choose Science
Careers: Career Paths Survey Results.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 7(4): 1-16.
89
★ ★
Appendix H: Eective Programs to Improve
STEM Undergraduate Education
Building STEM Communities
Many programs have proven eective at addressing issues of retention and completion in STEM majors
by focusing on building a community of STEM scholars, including the Meyerho Scholars Program at the
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (see Box H-1), the Science Posse program that is beginning in
several universities (see Box H-2), and the Louisiana Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics
(LA-STEM) Research Scholars Program. Common to all these programs is a mentoring community in
which upper-division students work with beginning students to provide guidance and model success;
access to research groups early in the undergraduate experience; bridge programs to prepare students
for the intellectual content of the rst year; and group recognition of the need to succeed in introduc-
tory and gateway courses. All of these and similar programs require funding, both for students, many
of whom are receiving nancial aid, and for the sta members and time needed to create and guide
learning communities.
150. See Louisiana Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Research Scholars Program Website:
http://www.lsu.edu/lastem/les/LA-STEM%20yer%20for%20LSU%20and%20Transfer%20Students%202011.pdf.
BOX H1: THE MEYERHOFF SCHOLARS PROGRAM
The Meyerho Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, has been at the forefront
of eorts to increase diversity among future leaders in science, engineering, and related elds. Started in
1988, the program now has more than 1,000 alumni. Key components of the program include scholarships
contingent on maintaining a B-average in STEM majors, an intensive six-week summer bridge program,
a family-like program community, an emphasis on achieving at the highest levels, personal advising and
counseling from program sta, summer research internships in national and international laboratories,
science mentoring, and support from administrators and faculty.
The nomination-based application process is open to prospective undergraduate students of all back-
grounds who plan to pursue doctoral study in the sciences or engineering and who are interested in the
advancement of minorities in those elds. The program’s success is built on the premise that, among
like-minded students who work closely together, positive energy is contagious. By assembling such a high
concentration of high-achieving students in a tightly knit learning community, students continually inspire
one another to do better.
Among African American students who entered the program between 1996 and 2003, 51% (88 of 172)
attended STEM PhD and MD/PhD programs. An additional 40% entered master’s programs, particularly
in technical elds, or medical school. Many representatives from Federal agencies, campuses, and corpo-
rations across the country have visited UMBC’s campus to learn more about the program’s success. The
College Board’s National Task Force on Minority High Achievement has praised the Meyerho Scholars
Program as a model that provides lessons that could be broadly applied.
Source: University of Maryland, Baltimore County website: http://umbc.edu/meyerho/.
90
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Engaging and Preparing Rising College Students
Bridge programs, which are typically oered in the summer between high school graduation and the rst
term of college, can help prepare entering students for the rigors of college academics and life (see Boxes
H-2 and H-3). Typically, high school juniors and seniors live on campus and receive classroom instruc-
tion, research experience, career counseling, SAT and ACT preparation, and mentoring from graduate
students and faculty. Most of these programs, such as Carnegie Mellon University’s Summer Academy
for Mathematics and Science and the California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science, are
open to high school students on statewide or nationwide basis. Some are aimed at the underrepresented
majority to provide incoming students with the intellectual, personal, and social supports they will need
to excel.
BOX H2: A POSSE PROGRAM FOR STEM FIELDS
The Posse Foundation is a successful college access and youth leadership development program. Through
creative partnerships between local communities and 39 select colleges and universities, Posse cur-
rently recruits, nurtures, and delivers outstanding student leaders from eight urban sites: Atlanta, Boston,
Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, and New York.
Since its inception, Posse has sent 3,650 students to college, 90 percent of whom have graduated. As one
measure of the program’s impact on leadership development, over 70 percent of Posse Scholars either start
new campus organizations or become presidents of existing ones. A recent survey shows that more than 45
percent of Posse alumni either have completed a graduate degree or are currently in graduate school.
Posse’s college access process is noteworthy. Each fall seniors are nominated by high schools and commu-
nity-based organizations in the eight cities. Posse sta and volunteers evaluate students, looking for leaders
with true commitment and potential. Partnering colleges and universities then select ten-student Posses in
December of the students’ senior year of high school. During the remainder of their senior year, the students
participate in weekly sessions with sta trainers and peers who provide scholastic and cultural preparation
for college. Once on campus the students are mentored by sta and upperclassmen. The home community
supports the recruiting process, and the partner colleges and universities provide four-year scholarships.
Posse recently began a STEM Posse initiative on three campuses based on the proven elements of the origi-
nal program, with additional components needed for STEM. Thus far Brandeis University, the University of
Wisconsin at Madison, and Franklin and Marshall College are admitting STEM Posses. The program identies
students with an interest in STEM and provides extra pre-collegiate training during their senior year, a two-
week campus immersion program just prior to matriculation, intensive mentoring in STEM-related areas, and
placement in research opportunities throughout the four undergraduate years.
Although highly successful, growth of the program is limited by the nancial burden on the participating
institutions. The reach of this program could be greatly enhanced by a Federal or other partner cost-sharing
program with the schools. Since 75 to 80 percent of the students require nancial aid, a 50 percent Federal or
other partner contribution to the scholarships would clearly allow more institutions to participate by reliev-
ing their nancial aid budgets and would target federal nancial aid dollars to a group of students with high
potential for success.
Source: Posse Foundation website: http://www.possefoundation.org/.
APPENDIX H: EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE STEM UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
91
★ ★
BOX H3: MIT HELPS MINORITY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS SUCCEED IN COLLEGE
STEM MAJORS
A three-week engineering program for minority high school students at MIT that began in 1974 has
evolved into a national model for widening the pipeline of underrepresented college graduates in STEM
elds. Today the Minority Introduction To Engineering and Science (MITES) program supports 60 to 80 high
school students, annually, in the summer after their junior year. They live in an MIT dormitory for a six-and-
one-half week program of academic work, condence-building, and development of learning-to-learn
skills.
Of the 1,765 alumni of the program to date, 34 percent (more than 600 students) have gone on to MIT.
Recent MITES alumni have also gone to Harvard University, Stanford University, and other exceptional
schools.
The MITES alumni have been found to be consistently strong performers in college. At MIT, the graduation
rates of MITES alumni are 12 percentage points higher than the graduation rates of minority students who
did not attend MITES. MITES students at MIT also graduate with grade point averages comparable to the
majority MIT student population.
Because of its reputation and systematic outreach, the program receives some 500 to 700 applications
from around the country, making it more selective than MIT itself. In the summer of 2010, 65 students were
selected from 22 states and Puerto Rico. Acceptance includes consideration of a student’s status as rst
generation college and those who lack a family members background in science and engineering.
Upon arrival, students are tested to establish individual benchmarks and to guide course selection.
Through evaluation updates, instructors write detailed evaluation of each student’s mastery of the subject
in relation to his or her benchmark. Students are given many assignments and quizzes but no nal exam or
nal grades. The curriculum uses the cultural context—having students from dierent minority groups liv-
ing and working together—to show how cultural diversity and academic achievement can be connected.
The MITES program is entirely scholarship-based. Support comes from dozens of companies and founda-
tions, including 3M Worldwide, Boeing, and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and from alumni.
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology website: http://web.mit.edu/mites/.
92
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Partnerships Between Two-Year Colleges and Four-Year Colleges
Collaborative partnerships between two-year colleges and four-year institutions would provide greater
access to and opportunities for advanced STEM education to a growing number of students (see Box
H-4).
BOX H4: ARTICULATION BETWEEN TWOYEAR AND FOURYEAR INSTITUTIONS
A keystone of the applied STEM manufacturing skills certication model at the Lorain County Community
College (LCCC) in Cleveland, Ohio, is a unique partnership with four-year institutions. LCCC is the only
community college in the state that oers a program enabling individuals to earn Bachelor’s and Master’s
degrees from any of eight Ohio universities without leaving the LCCC campus.
The University Partnership program facilitates seamless, STEM-related education and career pathways
for students completing manufacturing-based programs at the Associate’s- and applied science- level.
Programs articulate with a variety of Bachelor’s of Science degrees in engineering and engineering tech-
nology for students who want to pursue additional levels of higher education.
As part of the industry certication initiative, college leaders launched a review of the curriculum’s align-
ment with industry requirements. Faculty identied new or revised content to address skill requirements.
The Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network (MAGNET), an employer-led organization, held
employer meetings to validate the certication pathways and discuss embedded skills, including both
applied STEM and critical “soft” skills. The University Partnership at LCCC enables students to gain the depth
and breadth of applied STEM skills required to spur innovation and creativity in the modern workplace.
Source: Lorain County Community College website: http://www.lorainccc.edu/up.
APPENDIX H: EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE STEM UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
93
★ ★
Partnerships Between Minority-Serving Institutions and Other Colleges and
Universities
Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) can serve as key intermediaries to improve the numbers, preparation,
and diversity of students interested in STEM elds. Collaborative eorts between MSIs and other colleges
and universities could greatly improve educational experiences in STEM disciplines (see Box H-5).
151. Cullinane, J. and L.H. Leegwater (2009). Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: The Model Replication Institutions Program.
Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
BOX H5: A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN A HISTORICALLY BLACK
TEACHINGFOCUSED COLLEGE AND A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
Institutional collaborations that benet both partners are exemplied by the joint endeavor developed by
the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), which are a research uni-
versity and a teaching-focused historically black institution, respectively. The goal of the partnership was to
expand the interest and success of students from underrepresented groups entering STEM careers through
expanded scientic knowledge and enhanced educational opportunities.
The collaboration involved exchanges of students and faculty, development of new courses, co-teaching,
and joint faculty meetings and presentations. Specic outcomes were providing UNH students with a more
diverse educational environment, ECSU students with access to research labs, and both campuses with
Federal support for improved STEM research and education.
The collaboration has delineated a set of best practices that could be useful to other alliances, including:
• Institutional commitment and faculty engagement
• Mutual respect and shared time commitments
• An engaged leader
• Critical change agents
• Initiation of dicult dialogues
• Preparing for growth and evolution
Source: Williams, J.E., C. Wake, E. Abrams, G. Hurtt, B. Rock, K. Graham, S. Hale, L. Hayden, W. Porter, R. Blackmon, M. LeCompte, and D.
Johnson.(2011). “Building a model of collaboration between historically black and historically white universities.” Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement 15(2): 35-56.
94
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Partnerships Between Higher Education and Business
Some U.S. businesses have found eective ways to partner to enhance STEM education and career-
readiness in high schools, colleges, and universities (see Boxes H-6 and H-7). Involvement of the private
sector in training of the future workforce can provide motivation and condence for students in their
ability to perform a STEM-capable job, enhanced training and useful experience, and career readiness.
BOX H6: EMT SUMMER ACADEMY
Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA, oers an accelerated Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Summer
Academy in partnership with the Silicon Valley Community Collaborative (SVCC), the Central County
Occupational Center (CCOC), and the San Jose Job Corps. The EMT Academy is presented as a stepping
stone for students’ advancement in allied health and medical careers. In addition to meeting labor force
needs, this program is designed to serve as a model for increasing the retention of underrepresented
students in community colleges, particularly in STEM-related elds.
The central components of the program include EMT certication, career and college counseling, tutor-
ing, supported transition to EMT employment and/or college programs, removal of barriers in navigating
institutional bureaucracy, and implementation of engagement strategies.
Source: Foothill College website: http://www.foothill.edu/bio/programs/emt/.
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES FOR TABLES 2, 3, AND 4
95
★ ★
BOX H7: HARRISBURG UNIVERSITY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY*
In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a postsecondary institution is helping students who leave high school without
good preparation become marketable in STEM elds. The Harrisburg University for Science and Technology
(HU), which has grown from 100 to 722 students, including those enrolled in degree programs (368) and
certicate-seeking students (354), between 2005 and 2011, is a private university with the mission of ready-
ing the central Pennsylvania workforce for 21st century jobs.
Just 12 percent of residents in the Harrisburg area have a college degree, and area colleges are under
producing STEM degrees as compared with similar regions. As manufacturing companies have closed, the
local economy needs more skilled STEM workers to be revived.
The HU academic format is interdisciplinary, without departments or tenure. Courses are organized around
learning objectives, and corporate partners advise on course design. Communication and teamwork are
stressed throughout the curriculum.
Two thirds of the students are adults, many sponsored by their employers. All students are coached on
life issues such as time management and juggling family and careers. An executive search rm helps new
students dene career paths, and each has a business mentor. Each student builds an “e-portfolio” that
includes performance, comments from faculty, and measures of civic engagement.
Of its rst 100 graduates, 92 were hired into the elds they studied, with salaries of $50,000 to $60,000 per
year, according to Mel Schiavelli, President of HU. Another striking result is that employers of 18-22 year old
students say they do not have to spend 12 to 18 months teaching their new hires how to t into corporate
culture. The students were already mentored through internships and academic-year projects based on
workplace needs. Despite these successes, Harrisburg University still faces problems of under- preparation
within their student body and refers 15 percent of its students to community colleges for remedial study,
Schiavelli noted.
Besides helping students and employers HU is helping to revive downtown Harrisburg, with a new build-
ing and dormitory and $30 million in annual economic impact.
Source: Based on PCAST Working Group on Undergraduate STEM education discussions with Mel Schiavelli, President, Harrisburg
University for Science and Technology, May 2011, and data from Harrisburg University of Science and Technology website.
* This version includes some changes that clarify ambiguities in an earlier draft.
97
★ ★
Appendix I: References for Tables 2, 3, and 4
References for Table 2.
Almer, E., K. Jones, and C. Moeckel. (1998). “The impact of one-minute papers on learning in an intro-
ductory accounting course.” Issues in Accounting Education 13(3): 485-495.
Anderson, W. L., Mitchell, S. M., and M.P. Osgood. (2005). “Comparison of student performance in
cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes.” Biochemistry and
molecular biology education: A bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology 33(6): 387-93.
Armbruster, P., M. Patel, E. Johnson, and M. Weiss. (2009). “Active learning and student-centered pedagogy
improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology.” Education 8: 203-213.
Armstrong, N., S. Chang, and M. Brickman. (2007). “Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology
classes.” Education 6: 163-171.
Beichner, R. J., J.M. Saul, D.S. Abbott, J.J. Morse, D.L. Deardor, R. J. Allain, et al. (2007). “The student-
centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project.” In E.
F. Redish & P. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-Based Reform of University Physics. College Park, MD:
American Association of Physics Teachers.
Born, W. K., W. Revelle, and L.H. Pinto. (2002). “Improving biology performance with workshop groups.”
Science Education 11(4): 347.
Buckley, M., H. Kershner, K. Schindler, C. Alphonce, and J. Braswell. (2004). “Benets of using socially-
relevant projects in computer science and engineering education.” SIGCSE ’04: Proceedings of
the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 36(1): 482–486.
Capon, N. and D. Kuhn. (2004). “What‘s so good about problem-based learning?” Cognition and Instruction
22(1): 61-79.
Chizmar, J. F. and A.L. Ostrosky. (1998). “The one-minute paper: Some empirical ndings.” The Journal of
Economic Education 29(1):3.
Cortright, R. N., H.L. Collins, D.W. Rodenbaugh, and S.E. DiCarlo. (2003). “Student retention of course
content Is improved by collaborative-group testing.” AJP: Advances in Physiology Education
27(3): 102-108.
Cortright, R. N., H.L. Collins, and S.E. DiCarlo. (2005). “Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning:
ability to solve novel problems.” Advances in Physiology Education 29(2): 107-11.
Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. (2001). “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results.” American
Journal of Physics 69(9): 970.
Fagen, A. P. (2002). “Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms.” The Physics Teacher 40(4): 206.
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
98
★ ★
Fonseca, A. P., C.I. Extremina, and A.F. Fonseca. (2004). “Concept mapping: A strategy for meaningful
learning in medical microbiology.” First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona,
Spain.
Freeman, S., E. O. Connor, J.W. Parks, M. Cunningham, D. Hurley,D. Haak, C. Dirks, and M.P. Wenderoth.
(2007). “Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology.” Education
6:132-139.
Harris, M. A., R.F. Peck, S. Colton, J. Morris, E.C. Neto, and J. Kallio. (2009). “A combination of hand-held
models and computer imaging programs helps students answer oral questions about mole-
cular structure and function: A controlled investigation of student learning.” CBE—Life Sciences
Education 8(1): 29-43.
Klappa, P. (2009). “Promoting active learning through “pub quizzes”— a case study at the University of
Kent.” Evaluation 14 (December), Article C2.
Lasry, N., E. Mazur, and J. Watkins. (2008). “Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college.”
American Journal of Physics 76(11): 1066.
Lewis, S. E. and J.E. Lewis. (2005). “Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry
alternative.” Journal of Chemical Education 82(1): 135.
McDaniel, C. N., B.C. Lister, M.H. Hanna, and H. Roy. (2007). “Increased learning observed in redesigned
introductory biology course that employed web-enhanced, interactive pedagogy.” CBE—Life
Sciences Education 6: 243-249.
McDaniel, M., H. Roediger, and K. McDermott. (2007). “Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the
laboratory to the classroom.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(2): 200-206.
OSullivan, D. W. and C.L. Cooper. (2003). “Evaluating active learning: A new initiative for a general
chemistry curriculum.” Journal of College Science Teaching 32(7): 448-453.
Pelaez, N. J. (2002). “Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in phy-
siology.” Advances in Physiology Education 26(3): 174-184.
Preszler, R. (2004). “Cooperative concept mapping: Improving performance in undergraduate biology.”
Journal of College Science Teaching 33(6): 30-35.
Preszler, R. W., A. Dawe, and C.B. Shuster. (2007). “Assessment of the Eects of Student Response Systems
on Student Learning and Attitudes over a Broad Range of Biology Courses.” CBE—Life Sciences
Education 6(1): 29 - 41.
Preszler, R. W. (2009). “Replacing lecture with peer-led workshops improves student learning.” CBE—Life
Sciences Education 8: 182-192.
Rivard, L.P. and S.B. Straw. (2000). “The eect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory
study.” Science Education 84: 566-593.
Schwartz, D. L. and J.D. Bransford (1998). “A time for telling.” Cognition & Instruction 16: 475-522.
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES FOR TABLES 2, 3, AND 4
99
★ ★
Smith, M., W. Wood, W. Adams, C. Wieman, J. Knight, N. Guild, et al. (2009). “Why peer discussion improves
student performance on in-class concept questions.” Science 323: 122-124.
Smith,M.K., W.B. Wood,K. Krauter,andJ.K. Knight. (2011) “Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor
Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions.” CBE—Life Sciences
Education 10: 55-63.
Steele, J. E. (2003). “Eect of essay-style lecture quizzes on student performance on anatomy and phy-
siology exams.” Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching 29(4): 15-20.
Tessier, J. (2004). “Using peer teaching to promote learning in biology.” Journal of College Science Teaching
33(6): 16-19.
Tessier, J. (2007). “Small-group peer teaching in an introductory biology classroom.” Journal of College
Science Teaching 36(4): 64-69.
Tien, L.T., V. Roth, and J.A. Kampmeier. (2002). “Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional
approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching
39(7): 606-632.
Traver, H. A., M.J. Kalsher, J.J. Diwan, and J. Warden. (2001). “Student reactions and learning: Evaluation
of a biochemistry course that uses web technology and student collaboration.” Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology Education 29: 50-53.
Yarden, H., G. Marbach-ad, and J.M. Gershoni. (2004). “Using the concept map technique in teaching
introductory cell biology to college freshmen.” Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching
30(1): 3-13.
References for Table 3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). “Vision and Change in Undergraduate
Science Eduction: A View for the 21
st
Century.” Washington, DC.
Austin, A. E., M.R. Connolly, and C.L. Colbeck (2008). “Strategies for Preparing Integrated Faculty: The
Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning.” New Directions for Teaching and
Learning 113: 69-81.
Barlow, A. and M. R. Villarejo (2004). “Making a dierence for minorities: Evaluation of an educational
enrichment program.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(9): 861-881.
Bartlett, K. (2003). “Towards a true community of scholars: Undergraduate research in the modern
university.” Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 666-667: 707-711.
Beatty, I. D. (2004). “Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems.” Educause
Center for Applied Research: Research Bulletin 2004(3): 1-13.
Bouwma-Gearhart, J. L., S.B. Millar, S.S. Barger, and M.R. Connolly (2007). “Doctoral and Postdoctoral STEM
Teaching-related Professional Development: Eects on the Early Career.” American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting.
100
★ ★
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
Burstyn, J., S. Sellers, A. Cabrera, K. Freidrich, and L. Giovanetto. (2006). “Resources for Inclusive Teaching in
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.” CIRTL Diversity Institute Literature Review.
Accessible at http://www.cirtl.net/bibliography.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips.” CBE— Life
Sciences Education 6(1): 9-20.
Campbell, S. P., A. K. Fuller, and D.A.G. Patrick. (2005). “Looking beyond research in doctoral education.”
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(3): 153-160.
Carter, F. D., M. Mandell, and K.I. Maton. (2009). “The Influence of On-Campus, Academic Year
Undergraduate Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerho Scholarship
Program.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(4): 441-462.
Connolly, M. R. (2008). “Eects of a Future-Faculty Professional Development Program on Doctoral
Students and Postdocs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Findings from a Three-
year Longitudinal Study.” Presented at conference on Preparing for Academic Practice: Disciplinary
Perspectives. Oxford, England.
Donofrio, L. A., B. Russell, et al. (2007). “Mentoring. Linking student interests to science curricula.” Science
318(5858): 1872-1873.
Felder, R. M., A. Rugarcia, and J.E. Stice. (2000). “The future of engineering education: Assessing teaching
eectiveness and educational scholarship.” Chemical Engineering Education 34(3): 198–207.
Gainen, J. (1995). “Barriers to success in quantitative gatekeeper courses.” New Directions for Teaching
and Learning 61: 5–14.
Gilmer, T. C. (2007). “An Understanding of the Improved Grades, Retention and Graduation Rates of STEM
Majors at the Academic Investment in Math and Science (AIMS) Program of Bowling Green State
University (BGSU).” Higher Education 8: 11-21.
Haak, D. C., J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman. (2011). “Increased Structure and Active Learning
Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology.” Science 332: 1213-1216.
Hathaway, R., B.A. Nagda, and S. Gregerman. (2002). “The relationship of undergraduate research parti-
cipation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study.” Journal of College
Student Development 43(5): 614-631.
Haudek, K. C., J. J. Kaplan, et al. (2011). “Harnessing Technology to Improve Formative Assessment of
Student Conceptions in STEM: Forging a National Network.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 10(2):
149-155.
Hunter, A-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. (2007). “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate
research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.” Science Education 91:
36-74.
Kight, S.L., J.J. Gaynor, and S.D. Adams. (2006). “Undergraduate Research Communities: A Powerful
Approach to Research Training.” Journal of College Science Teaching July/August, 34-39.
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES FOR TABLES 2, 3, AND 4
101
★ ★
Kinkel, D. H. and S. E. Henke. (2006). “Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance,
educational planning, and career development.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
Education 35: 194-201.
Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same-gender role
models?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30(1): 36-46.
Lopatto, D., C. Alvarez, et al. (2008). “Undergraduate research. Genomics Education Partnership.” Science
322(5902): 684-685.
May, G. S. and D. E. Chubin (2003). “A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underre-
presented minority students.” Journal of Engineering Education 92(1): 33.
Miller, S., C. Pfund, C. Maidle Pribbenow, and J. Handeslman. (2008). “Scientic Teaching in Practice.”
Science 322: 1329-1330.
Muller, C. B. (1997). “The potential of industrial ‘E-Mentoring’ as a retention strategy for women in science
and engineering.” Frontiers in Education Conference1997 - 27th Annual Conference, Teaching and
Learning in an Era of Change. Proceedings 2: 622-626.
Ong, A. D., J. S. Phinney, et al. (2006). “Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective inuence
of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students.” Journal of Adolescence 29(6):
961-979.
Ovando, M. N. (1994). “Constructive Feedback: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning.” International
Journal of Educational Management 8(6): 19 - 22.
Peckham, J., P. Stephenson, J-Y Hervé, R. Hutt, and Miguel Encarnação. (2007). “Increasing student reten-
tion in computer science through research programs for undergraduates.” SIGCSE ’07: Proceedings
of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 39(1): 124–128.
Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, D. Ebert-May, A.P Fagen, J. Gentile, S. Gossens, I.M.
Khan, J.B. Labov, C.M. Pribbenow, M. Susman, L. Tong, R.Wright, R.T. Yuan, W.B. Wood, and J.
Handelsman, J. (2009). “Summer Institute to Improve University Science Teaching.” Science 324:
470-471.
Rodriguez, A. L., F. Guido-DiBrito, V. Torres, and D. Talbot. (2000). “Latina College Students: Issues and
Challenges for the 21st Century.” NASPA Journal 37(Spring 2000).
Russell, S. H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough (2007 ). “The pipeline. Benets of undergraduate research
experiences.” Science 316(5824): 548-9.
Shaer, C. D., C. Alvarez, et al. (2010). “The Genomics Education Partnership: Successful Integration of
Research into Laboratory Classes at a Diverse Group of Undergraduate Institutions.” CBE—Life
Sciences Education 9(1): 55-69.
Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan. (1999). “Eects of small-group learning on undergraduates
in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational
Research 69(1): 21-51.
ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES
WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS
102
★ ★
Stout, J. G. D., Nilanjana; Hunsinger, Matthew; McManus, Melissa A. (2011). “STEMing the tide: Using
ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 255-270.
Summers, M. F. and F. A. Hrabowski (2006). “Preparing Minority Scientists and Engineers.” Science
311(5769): 1870-1871.
Sy, S. R. a. R., J. (2008). “Family Responsibilities Among Latina College Students From Immigrant Families.”
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 7(3): 212-227.
Turner, P., L. Petzold, A. Shiet, I. Vakalis, K. Jordan, and S. St. John. (2011). “Undergraduate Computational
Science and Engineering Education.” Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review
53(3): 561–574.
University of Texas, Austin. (2011). Course Transformation Site from
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctp/resources/literature-review/#instructional_dev_tech.
Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen. (2011). “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and
Health Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331(6023): 1447-1451.
Wei, C. A. and T. Woodin. (2011). “Undergraduate Research Experiences in Biology: Alternatives to the
Apprenticeship Model.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 10(2): 123-131.
Wild, L. and L. Ebbers. (2002). “Rethinking student retention in community colleges.” Community College
Journal of Research and Practice 26: 503- 519.
Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, et al. (2007). “Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development
aects student achievement.” Issues & Answers Report, REL, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. 2007 (033).
References for Table 4.
Barlow, A. and M. R. Villarejo (2004). “Making a dierence for minorities: Evaluation of an educational
enrichment program.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 00: 1-2.
Carter, F. D., M. Mandell, and K.I. Maton. (2009). “The Influence of On-Campus, Academic Year
Undergraduate Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerho Scholarship
Program.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(4): 441-462.
Foertsch, J. A., B. B. Alexander, and D.L. Penberthy. (1997). “Evaluation of UW-Madison’s summer under-
graduate research programs (nal report).” Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD
Center.
Gilmer, T. C. (2007). “An Understanding of the Improved Grades , Retention and Graduation Rates of STEM
Majors at the Academic Investment in Math and Science (AIMS) Program of Bowling Green State
University (BGSU).” Higher Education 8: 11-21.
APPENDIX I: REFERENCES FOR TABLES 2, 3, AND 4
103
★ ★
Hathaway, R., B.A. Nagda, and S. Gregerman. (2002). “The relationship of undergraduate research parti-
cipation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study.” Journal of College
Student Development 43(5): 614-631.
Hunter, A-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. (2007). “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate
research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.” Science Education 91:
36-74.
Junge, B., C. Quiñones, J. Kakietek, D. Teodorescu, and P. Marsteller. (2010). “Promoting Undergraduate
Interest, Preparedness, and Professional Pursuit in the Sciences: An Outcomes Evaluation of the
SURE Program at Emory University.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 9(2): 119-132.
Kight, S.L., J.J. Gaynor, and S.D. Adams. (2006). “Undergraduate Research Communities: A Powerful
Approach to Research Training.” Journal of College Science Teaching July/August, 34-39.
Kinkel, D. H. and S. E. Henke. (2006). “Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance,
educational planning, and career development.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
Education 35: 194-201.
Lopatto, D. (2004). “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): rst ndings.” Cell Biology
Education 3(4): 270-277.
Lopatto, D. (2007). “Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active
learning.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 6: 297-306.
Russell, S. H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. (2007 ). “The pipeline. Benets of undergraduate research
experiences.” Science 316(5824): 548-9.
Summers, M. F. and F. A. Hrabowski. (2006). “Preparing Minority Scientists and Engineers.” Science
311(5769): 1870-1871.
