A Nuanced Look at Women in STEM Fields at Two-Year Colleges: Factors That Shape Female Students' Transfer Intent

Abstract

In this study, we explored the relationship between the intent to transfer upward and a set of motivational, contextual, and socio-demographic background factors among 696 female students beginning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs or courses at two-year colleges in a Midwestern state. Drawing upon survey data and administrative records, our multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that students' math and science self-efficacy beliefs, as well as transfer-oriented interaction, were significant and positive predictors for their intent to transfer into STEM fields as opposed to having no intent to transfer. In addition, the association between transfer intent and these key motivational and contextual factors was moderated by students' racial/ethnic backgrounds, marital status, and childcare obligations. For example, despite the positive relationship between transfer-oriented interaction and the intention to transfer into STEM fields, Black women were less likely to have intent to transfer into STEM fields than White students until Black students reported a moderate level of transfer-oriented interaction. Conversely, Hispanic students were more likely to report intent to transfer into STEM fields than their White peers, even when Hispanic students reported a relatively low level of engagement in transfer-oriented interaction. These and other reported findings bear important and nuanced implications as policymakers, educators, and researchers continue to discover ways to better support women's educational pathways and success in STEM fields at and through two-year colleges.

Women, Community Colleges, and STEM Careers

“…We found that SCCT extends to community college women in STEM and reinforces the importance of self‐efficacy (Wang, Chan, Soffa, & Nachman, ). Specifically, self‐efficacy in math and science is key to transfer in STEM (Wang, Chan, et al., ). Moreover, the model was extended in the sense that academic interests and concerns around future careers may play a larger role than self‐efficacy for two‐year college women.…”

“…One framework was social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Bandura, 1986;Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000, which has been applied to the community college STEM context (Wang, 2013). We found that SCCT extends to community college women in STEM and reinforces the importance of self-efficacy (Wang, Chan, Soffa, & Nachman, 2017). Specifically, self-efficacy in math and science is key to transfer in STEM (Wang, Chan, et al, 2017).…”

“…Women's paths through STEM in community college are full of individual and intricate identities and experiences, which are deeply intertwined and shape whether and how women navigate this pathway. One of our studies drew upon SCCT and used multinomial logistic regression to examine factors influencing two‐year college women's transfer intent (Wang, Chan, et al., ). We found that being a single parent did not necessarily deter women from transferring in STEM, especially if students had greater transfer‐oriented interactions, such as talking with advisors about transfer or looking at transfer information.…”

“…Moreover, the concept of self-efficacy underscores the importance for women to believe in their ability to persist and succeed. Going back to the previously described work on factors influencing women' s transfer intent (Wang, Chan, et al, 2017), selfefficacy in math and science has the potential to enhance intent to transfer in STEM. This study also revealed that self-efficacy in math can be particularly powerful in amplifying STEM transfer intent among African American women (Wang, Chan, et al, 2017).…”

The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017

“…The success of the academic adjustment of STEM students to a 4-year institution is influenced by previous experiences with faculty and staff (Bohanna 2016;Zamudio 2015), interactions with advisors (Jorstad 2015), exposure to role models and mentors (Edwards 2015), the intent to transfer (Wang et al 2017), support systems (Jackson 2013), and the overall experience of the transfer process (Jackson 2010). Students may face setbacks in the transfer process due to dissatisfactory advising or imperfect program alignment with the courses they have already taken (Packard, Gagnon, and Senas 2012).…”