The transfer pathway from community college to university holds promise for advancing equity in STEM because it is followed by disproportionately high numbers of underrepresented students. Among the challenges these students face is cultivating belonging in multiple institutional settings. By combining belonging and validation theories, this qualitative study investigated how underrepresented students’ belonging developed in their STEM majors, highlighting differences between students who transferred and those who began as first-time in college (FTIC) students. The findings revealed that for each type of belonging experience a smaller proportion of transfer students than FTIC students experienced validation and a higher proportion experienced invalidation. Department-based transfer student orientation and ongoing programming were uniformly validating to STEM transfer students. The study provides evidence that major belonging is an academic phenomenon that is within the scope of institutional responsibility to improve. Practical implications for administrators and faculty are included as are suggestions for future research.

No abstract

Objective/Research Question: This research explores how community college students, who are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and aspire to vertical transfer in STEM make choices about majors and transfer destinations. The question is important to advancing equity in STEM, which continues to perpetuate disparities in attainment for minoritized, first-generation, and financially disadvantaged students, who disproportionately enter higher education in community colleges. Methods: Using a longitudinal, qualitative research design, the study relied on semi-structured interviewing to generate in-depth evidence about student experiences. Results: Findings showed that career goals were uniformly influential to students, yet career information was unevenly available or comprehensible during community college. Students’ choices about what to major in and where to transfer were iterative and intertwined, with these choices deeply connected to students’ families and lifetime priorities. Delays in student decision-making tended to have less to do with uncertain individual preferences than to lack of information about a specific STEM major and its alignment with possible future degrees, transfer destinations, and career pathways, as well as contingencies associated with the transfer admission process. Conclusions/Contributions: This research demonstrated STEM-specific nuance in how underrepresented community college students navigate major, career, and transfer destination decision-making as well as the influence of family and location-based priorities in student choices. Future research should investigate how to best provide directional support for students’ major and transfer destination decisions, including major-to-career awareness and the academic and personal dimensions of transfer.

Community colleges have long been touted as a pathway to increase social mobility through their transfer function, yet this promise has not always been realized. This study uses the lens of community cultural wealth, particularly the concepts of aspirational, social, and navigational capitals, to understand vertical transfer students’ experiences and outcomes during the pandemic. Longitudinal interviews were conducted with 27 students over a four-year period as they moved through the transfer pathway in STEM majors. Students who transferred to a university immediately prior to or during the pandemic experienced greater academic and navigational challenges and reported diminished access to social capital. Students employed multiple, informal navigational strategies and drew on social networks, when possible, to maintain their academic progress. Findings also reveal the importance of the transfer-receiving department, especially access to supportive institutional agents, in sustaining STEM transfer students’ progress during COVID-19.

No abstract