ACADEMIA Letters

A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher

Education
Leander Brown

The first two years are the most critical ones for undergraduate STEM students because this
is the most likely period when they will change to a non-STEM major or drop out of col-
lege. STEM student undergraduate education begins with proficiency in gateway courses,
especially science and math courses but they are the most challenging for STEM students if
they are not adequately prepared (Langie & Pinxten, 2018; PCAST, 2012). However, they
could form STEM learning communities where they regularly get a chance to interact with
STEM practitioners. This could be accomplished through peer mentoring programs whereby
new students learn from more advanced ones (BHEF, 2013; Edgcomb et al., 2010). Likewise,
students can demonstrate knowledge and skills fundamentally learned as part of the engineer-
ing design process through brainstorming, researching, creating, testing, improving, and other
actions (Dayton Regional STEM Center, 2015; UDC STEM Center, 2018).
STEM student development can persist based on the Tinto (1993) Student Integration The-
ory (SIT) which positsthatif students become connected to the social and academic life of the
institution or socially integrate they are more likely to persist. Likewise, soft skills are aimed at
developing the students’ knowledge, understanding, values, and skills which are the essence of
education including critical thinking, problem-solving, and teamwork (Ngang, 2011). STEM
students can complement their tertiary education with hands-on mentored research in their
fields of study, engage critical thinking and quantitative reasoning skills, receive mentoring
on their research work, or assist faculty with their research (UDC STEM Center, 2018).
As part of teaching support, the STEM faculty attends professional development training
which encourages faculty awareness of research-based, effective approaches to teaching and
easily, accessible resources. From the training, faculty can help students by building evidence-
based teaching practices, group exercises, or research projects (AAU, 2017). Also, the faculty

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.

1
can redesign gateway courses from a standard lecture format to a student-centered format using
interactive, engaged project-based learning because it achieves better learning outcomes and
fosters active student learning (BHEF, 2013).
The faculty should engage students as active participants, implement research-based STEM
teaching practices, and use student learning data to refine practices with real-world examples
and technology (AAU, 2017). The STEM Transition Model encourages teachers to use inte-
grated STEM lessons and activities so that students transition between multiple disciplines and
provides a holistic way of thinking that spans multiple STEM disciplines (Glancy & Moore,
2013). When students learn concepts better in interdisciplinary settings by recognizing core
concepts that bind them together, it is called convergent cognition (Rich, Leatham & Wright,
2012). Likewise, the faculty can advocate and support replacing standard laboratory courses
with discovery-based research courses (PCAST, 2012).
Faculty may provide traditional coursework and exams that usually involve manual assess-
ment but feedback may be delayed unless staff members are present while students perform
tasks. Digital-based solutions are an option (Boud & Molloy, 2013). Digital assessment that
mirrors existing paper-based processes has an important advantage in transferring on-campus
operations to remote work during externally-induced campus closures, such as during the re-
cent COVID-19 pandemic closures (Knight & Drysdale, 2020). However, faculty needs the
support of the institution in classroom activities and student engagement.
As part of institutional support, STEM Intervention Programs are tailored to meet the
specific needs of their targeted, diverse recipients resulting in a wide variety of program de-
signs, purposes, and services for STEM students (Scott, 2013). They can range from basic
services for students, such as tutoring, mentoring, counseling, and coaching to more proac-
tive ones, such as peer tutoring and peer advising, STEM club activities, and community
outreach. While there is no single intervention solution, they may work best with other inter-
ventions (Martin et al., 2018). Mentored research is common in academic outreach programs
that aim to promote diversity in science fields, especially for underrepresented minority STEM
students (Robnett, Nelson, Zurbriggen, Crosby, & Chemers, 2018). The 2019-2022 strategic
plan for the higher education institution (HEI) includes a goal to create a seamless pathway
for students by charting degrees to workforce competencies (UDC, 2019).
For institutional direction, campus teams should create an assessment plan to inform
whether an intervention is working and to establish ways to improve the initiative over time.
Assessment methods focus on measurable outcomes of single courses or programs, including
specific learning outcomes, course pass rates, or in-class observation monitoring to identify
areas for improvement (Kezar & Elrod, 2015; Pagliarulo & Molinaro, 2015). Likewise, re-
searchers used the STEM Value-Expectancy Assessment Scale to measure student motivation

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.

2
to persist or leave STEM programs and to validate how the motivations of female STEM stu-
dents changed and when interventions were needed and with whom (Appianing & Van Eck,
2018).
PCAST (2012) noted the following recommendations for HEIs in response to the STEM
challenges: improve the first two years of STEM education in college, adopt empirically-
validated teaching practices, advocate discovery-based research courses, and encourage part-
nerships to diversify pathways to STEM degrees. It requires institutional management sup-
port and commitment to the importance of evidence-based, student-centered teaching (AAU,
2017). More importantly, community-connected STEM ecosystems that engage individuals
and organizations can more effectively leverage resources and gain expertise from strategic
partners (EOP, 2018).
In the guided pathways model, the HEI supports its students by creating clear maps for
every program it offers which are easily accessible on its webpages so prospective students
will understand what courses are necessary to complete a program. The HEI should help
new students explore programs and possible careers, develop complete academic plans, and
remove institutional barriers, such as a lack of evening or online classes. It should track student
learning outcomes and work to improve teaching, especially for underrepresented minority
students. To ensure buy-in, reform efforts should also involve faculty and academic advisors
(Bailey, 2020).
However, the institution may use models that have been proven to be effective in STEM ed-
ucation at U.S. HEIs. There are very successful STEM frameworks/models across the nation
(Massa et al., 2012), six of which are described as follows:

• The STEM Education Framework has three critical areas, core competencies of STEM
students, instructional design, and implementation (Global STEM Alliance, 2016).

• Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM Education Model is based
on the Federal five-year STEM strategic plan for equity and diversity, evidence-based
practices, and collaboration with salient stakeholders (EOP, 2018).

• The U.S. STEM Undergraduate Model is a Federal model aimed at improving STEM
education during the first two critical years of college for students (BHEF, 2013).

• The Framework for Quality STEM Education describes critical competencies of STEM
students that educators should assess including engineering design (DRSC, 2011).

• The Framework for Systemic Change in Undergraduate STEM Teaching and Learning
based on the Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative seeks to influence the culture of

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.

3
 STEM departments at AAU universities and encourages faculty members to use teach-
ing practices proven by research to engage STEM students (AAU, 2011).

• The Keck/PKAL Model for Systemic Institutional Change in STEM Education Model
describes both a process and the content scaffold for campus leaders to plan, implement,
assess, and evaluate change efforts in undergraduate STEM education (Kezar & Elrod,
2015) and has an accompanying guidebook (Elrod & Kezar, 2016).

The STEM Student Success Model rests on a solid foundation of recent case studies, frame-
works, models, theories, instruments, and other materials. Each stakeholder group has a set
of two themes and the most relevant group attributes. Student attributes contribute to their
education or their development. Faculty attributes address teaching support or classroom en-
gagement of students. The HEI attributes provide institutional support of STEM students or
institutional direction of STEM programs and improvement of STEM education.
“High attrition, low motivation, and low entrant numbers are big challenges for STEM
education growth. Examining the reasons for low student persistence and retention and how
to increase motivation and retention rates remains a top priority in STEM education” (Sithole
et al, 2017, p. 48). This paper addresses these challenges using relevant stakeholder attributes
in a STEM Student Model to be adapted for a university experiencing STEM education chal-
lenges.
The selected model is The Keck/PKAL Model because it can be used at the institutional,
departmental, or course level together with the relevant stakeholder attributes noted above as
part of the team fieldwork and implementation processes (Kezar & Elrod, 2015). An accom-
panying guidebook provides benchmarks, key questions for analysis, timeline information,
challenge alerts that help leaders anticipate common roadblocks, and practical tools and in-
formation that will assist campus teams in their efforts (Elrod & Kezar, 2016). The researcher
plans to conduct interviews with the salient stakeholders at a local university to finalize the
STEM Student Model as adapted for that institution and the results will be shared in a future
paper.

References
Appianing, J., & Van Eck, R. N. (2018). Development and validation of the Value-Expectancy
STEM Assessment Scale for students in higher education. International Journal of STEM
Education, 5(24), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0121-8

Association of American Universities (AAU). (2011). AAU undergraduate STEM education

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.

4
 initiative: Framework for systemic change in undergraduate STEM teaching and learning.
https://www.aau.edu/education-service/undergraduate-education/undergraduate-stem-education-
initiative/stem-framework

Association of American Universities. (2017, October 3). Progress toward achieving sys-
temic change. https://www.aau.edu/education-community-impact/undergraduate-education/
undergraduate-stem-education-initiative/progress

Bailey, T. R. (2020). Guided pathways at community colleges:From theory to practice. Diver-

sity & Democracy, 20(4), 10-12. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files /files/periodical_issue/DD_20-
4_FA17.pdf

Bhattacharya, B., & Hansen, D. (2015). Implementing a summer STEM bridge program.
Peer Review, 17(2). https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2015/spring/bhattacharya

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge
of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462

Business-Higher Education Forum. (BHEF). (2013). U.S. STEM undergraduate model.

https://www.bhef.com/sites/default/files/BHEF_2013_stem_undergrad_model.pdf

Dayton Regional STEM Center (DRSC). (2011). STEM education quality framework. [Brochure].
http://daytonregionalstemcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/STEM-Framework-Background.
pdf

Edgcomb, M. R., Crowe, H. A., Rice, J. D., Morris, S. J., Wolffe, R. J., & McConnaughay,
K. D. (2010). Peer and near-peer mentoring: Enhancing learning in summer research
programs (CUR focus). Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 31(2), 18-25.
https://wilmu.on.worldcat.org/oclc/4528521707

Elrod, S., & Kezar, A. (2016). Increasing student success in STEM: A guide to systemic
institutional change.

Executive Office of the President. (EOP). (2018, December). Charting a course for suc-
cess: America’s strategy for STEM education. (A report by the Committee on STEM
Education).

Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2013). Theoretical foundations for effective STEM learn-
ing environments. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, Purdue e-Pubs, School of

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.

5
 Engineering Education Working Papers, Paper 1. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/enewp/1

Global STEM Alliance (2016). STEM education framework.

Inouye, C., Ouyang, C-H, Couch, S., & Yeager, E. (2015). Improving STEM retention at
CSU-EB. Peer Review, 17(2). https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2015/spring/Inouye

Kezar, A., & Elrod, S. (2015). Increasing student success in STEM. Peer Review, 17(2).
https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2015/spring/elrod-kezar

Knight, G. L., & Drysdale, T. D. (2020). The future of higher education (HE) hangs on
innovating our assessment – but are we ready, willing and able?, Higher Education Ped-
agogies, 5(1), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1771610

Langie, G., & Pinxten, M. (2018). The transition to STEM higher education: Policy rec-
ommendation – conclusions of the readySTEMgo-project. International Journal of Engi-
neering Pedagogy, 8(10). 10-13. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i2.8286

Martin, J. P., Choe, N. H., Halter, J., Foster, M., Froyd, J., Borrego, M., & Winterer, E.
R. (2018). Interventions supporting baccalaureate achievement of Latinx STEM students
matriculating at 2-year institutions: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 56(4), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21485

Massa, N., DeLaura, J., A., Dischino, M., Donnelly, J. F., & Hanes, F., D. (2012). Problem-
based learning in a pre-service technology and engineering course. (American Society
of Engineering Education publication).

Mpofu, V. (2019). A theoretical framework for implementing STEM education. In K. G.

Fomunyam (Ed.) Theorizing STEM Education in the 21st Century (pp. 1-15). http://dx.
doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88304

Ngang, T. K. (2011). Soft skills integrated in sustainable higher education. Journal of Mod-
ern Education Review, 1(2), 99-110. http://www.academicstar.us/UploadFile/Picture/2014-
3/201431142455613.pdf

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012, February 7).
Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics. (A Report by the President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology).

Rich, P. J., Leatham, K. R., & Wright, G. A. (2012). Convergent cognition. Instructional

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.

6
 Science, 41(2), 431–453. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9240-7

Robnett, R. D., Nelson, P. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., Crosby, F. J., & Chemers, M. M. (2018). Re-
search mentoring and scientist identity: Insights from undergraduates and their mentors.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(41), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-
018-0139-y

Scott, G. A. (2013, April 10). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education:
Governmentwide strategy needed to better manage overlapping programs. Statement be-
fore the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Com-
mittee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives. (GAO-13-529 T). http:/
/www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-529TUDC

Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J.
(2017). Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and
continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46-59. doi:10.5539/hes.v7n1p46
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n1p46

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED371658 UDC

STEM Center. (2018). Journal club handbook (generic version) 2018. University of the
District of Columbia. (2019). Equity Imperative final. https://www.udc.edu/strategic-
plan/equity_imperative_final/

Weaver, K. F., Garcia, J. V., & Broussard, C. (2015). First-year STEM retention strategies at
the University of La Verne. Peer Review, 17(2).

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Leander Brown, leander1956@yahoo.com

Citation: Brown, L. (2021). A Generic STEM Student Success Model in Higher Education. Academia Letters,
Article 2014. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2014.