Tracking Science Identity of Foothill Students

This report is prepared from data collected Fall 2018 - to Spring 2022. We have put these results together to share some of the findings from our study and so you can learn more about your students. However, we advise that you interpret any findings with caution, and keep in mind that this is not a study of your classroom in particular but of the larger population of students as a whole. In other words, the findings may not be representative of your classroom and teaching in particular, especially if only a small number of students from your class completed the survey.

Please note that this report has been personalized for you. You are free to share it as you wish, but we will not grant anyone access to your report without your permission. In the event of confidentiality concerns – e.g., only one student who fits a particular demographic profile participated and thus could be identified and their results de-anonymized – some results may have been omitted to protect students’ privacy.

Introduction

What is science identity?

The relationship between identity and student success has become a major focus of educational research. Identity theory argues that everyone has multiple identities, such as group identities (attached to groups the individual belongs to), person identities (unique ways the individual sees themselves), and role identities (attached to roles the individual occupies). We use these identities to guide our behavior, determine our belonging and status within a group, and predict the behavior of others.

In STEM fields, science identity (e.g., one’s identity as a ‘science person’ or scientist) and belonging have been linked to a range of outcomes, such as learning, grades, and persistence. Carlone & Johnson’s (2007) study of 15 successful female scientists of color put forth the central framework of science identity used in this study. In their work, the authors discovered three components of science identity (recognition, performance, and competence). Across a number of studies and publications this work was finalized in a model of science identity with three sub-constructs: Performance/Competence (a combination of the previous performance and competence), Interest (a new factor), and Recognition.

A number of studies have examined the relationship between science identity and a range of desired outcomes, including engineering practices, intentions to persist, degree progression, classroom belonging, ontological beliefs, and an array of non-cognitive factors like self-control, test anxiety, motivation, and personality. However, community college students in general, and pre-nursing and allied health students in particular, are understudied in this area. Our research focuses on the science identities of these students, and aims to examine changes in students’ science identities over time.

Why is science identity important in general?

A number of theories attempt to address how identity guides behavior across a range of settings, with Oyserman’s Identity-Based Motivation used most often in classrooms and academic settings. This theory argues that students use their identities and cues from their environment to make rapid decisions about how much time and effort to put into their studies.

For instance, a student who encounters difficulty (e.g., a challenging homework assignment) and has a weak science identity is likely to interpret this as a cue that the class and the identity is not ‘for them’, and that their time and attention is better spend elsewhere. On the other hand, a student who encounters the same stimulus but has a strong science identity would likely interpret this as a cue that they should exert themselves and that mastering the material will help them maintain an identity that is important to them. (Refer to Figure 1 more information about this process.)

A flowchart demonstrating how identity and interpretations of difficulty prime student motivation and engagment (Oyserman et al., 2017; https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/782/docs/Oyserman_et_al._2017_-_An_identity-based_motivaiton_framework_for_self-regulation.pdf).

Why is science identity important for pre-nursing and allied health students?

For pre-nursing and allied health students (pre-NAH), the question of science identity presents unique opportunities and challenges. Medical practitioners in general occupy a ‘gray space’ in STEM, with some people believing that they aren’t true scientists as they rarely run experiments or conduct research. Others argue that their frequent use of science knowledge qualifies them as scientists or at least ‘science people’, and that bolstering their science identities can improve their comfort and competence when interacting with research.

These points are especially relevant for nursing and allied health professionals, who frequently interact with patients and play an important role in public health. Cultivating pre-NAH students’ science identities can thus help improve science literacy and combat anti-science attitudes in the general population, such as vaccine hesitancy or resistance to stem cell research. Additionally, improving science identity and the accessibility and relevance of science among community college students can help draw these students further into STEM fields, helping to combat disparities that have devastating effects of marginalized communities (such as health disparities among people of color).

How was this data collected?

Data were collected from 2589 participants over 10 quarters from 11 classes and 28 instructors. Students were asked to participate at the beginning and ending of each term, and were shown items asking about their science identities (via the disciplinary role identity scale, also referred to as the PCIR scale; refer to Table 1) and their learning gains (via the Student Assessment of Learning Gains scale; refer to Table 2). They were also asked to respond to a short series of items asking about course content (e.g., “Which of the following is true about all veins in the human body?”) and to report their interest in a science career, their career goals, and their racial, ethnic, and gender identities.

Department Results

Participant Overview

Race/Ethnicity and Gender

Initial waves of data collection used information from institutional records, which was limited to ‘M/F’ options. After Fall 2019, participants were asked about their gender identity directly and a non-binary option was provided. 57 men 145 women, and 6 non-binary students indicated races/ethnicities not listed or did not respond to this item.

Career Goals

As part of the survey, participants were asked to select their current career goal from a drop down list.

Survey Participation by Course

Across all ten quarters of data collection, students from seven courses participated in the survey at either pre- or post-test.

Identity Shifts by Course

In the section below, we look at shifts in science identity. We’ve limited this examination to courses that had 100 or more participants, and have collapsed across terms. This means that, for instance, the F001A participants who completed the pre-test survey in Winter 2019 are combined with those who completed the pre-test in Winter 2020, and the same for those who completed the post-test in Winter 2019 and Fall 2019.

Unfamiliar with box plots? The diagram below (from https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-boxplots-5e2df7bcbd51) might be helpful!


Changes in Science Identity By Course

Discussion

Demographics

Science identity is important to success as a science student and is one of the main forces influencing students to pursue science careers. With this survey, we can explore how diverse, community college students’ science identities are impacted by the science courses they take. We can also look at the demographics of students enrolling in classes at the department and their listed career goals. Overall, the student population the completed the survey was fairly diverse, with three main racial groups represented: Asian (n = 1057, 41%), Latinx (n = 645, 25%), and White (n = 591, 23%). Students who identified as Black, Native American, or other races/ethnicities made up 11% of the population (n = 297).

In terms of gender, the majority of students identified as women (n = 1868, 72%) or men (n = 706, 27%), with a small percentage of students identifying as non-binary (n = 15, 1%). Of students who responded to the career goals question, the majority were interested in careers in Allied Health and/or Nursing (n = 560, 64%), followed by other health careers (n = 88, 10%), other STEM careers (n = 66, 8%), and veterinary careers (n = 65, 7%). Although we had participants from 11 courses, the bulk of our participants were from F001A (n = 103), F010 (n = 890), F040A, B, and C (n = 1465, 798, and 677), and F041 (n = 1281).

Science Identity

Although we have scores for seven constructs (overall science identity, recognition, science performance/competence, verbal performance/competence, content connections, ongoing interest, and science applications), in this report we focus on three constructs. Recognition, the first variable, is an important component of science identity, and previous work has shown it to be one of the most dynamic and predictive factors in the larger construct. In general, students reported higher recognition at post-test across all courses, but it does not appear that gains from one course are reflected strongly in the next course in the sequence. For instance, 40A students’ average recognition increased from approximately 3.25 to 4.0, while 40B students started with a recognition score of approximately 3.75, as did 40C students.

Ongoing interest, the second variable, was chosen because of its implications for student interest in science majors and careers and because of previous work that highlights it as a strength within under-represented populations. Like recognition, interested generally increased from pre- to post-test but appears to backslide between terms. The third variable, science applications, was chosen to focus on aspects of science literacy and students’ content knowledge. In general, students’ science application scores were quite high and skewed positive (hence the truncated boxplots on page 8). This scale also increases from pre- to post-test in most terms, but is also the most consistent in returning to baseline between terms.

Overall, these results highlight the positive effects of the department’s classes on students’ science identities, but also the difficulty in maintaining those gains across quarters. However, there are two important caveats to keep in mind: first, this preliminary analysis is cross-sectional, and analyzes students who complete courses in close sequence (e.g., fall-winter-spring of 2020) alongside those with gaps in their attendance (e.g., fall 2019, winter 2021, spring 2022). It may also be that there some students show persistent gains while others do not, and understanding what factors predict consistent improvement in science identity is an important research question moving forward. Second, this analysis is descriptive rather than inferential. Although the pre/post improvements discussed above are visually apparent, they may not be statistically significant or meaningful.

Resources and Recommendations

Interest & Science Applications

How can we identify the sources of the “interest” students report? And how can we leverage students’ interest to promote student success and equitable outcomes? We find it likely that students’ interests might stem from communal goals, or the interest in using knowledge and skills from class to help others (Diekman et al., 2011). Researchers might apply a goal congruity perspective to investigate this possibility (Diekman et al., 2011). Further, frameworks like Teaching for Transformative Experiences in Science (Pugh et al., 2017) or case-based teaching (Kassirer, 2010; Malau-Aduli et al., 2013) might guide instructors to paths for connecting content with the existing real-world interests of students.

Recognition

Despite students’ apparent interest in science, our results suggest that our students are not always seen as scientists to the same degree as other biology students. This raises the question; whose science identity is considered important in life science education? Examining how students and their social networks define scientists and crafting opportunities for recognition in the community might be one way to bolster students’ science identities. Additionally, numerous interventions developed and tested in STEM courses might prove useful within the department (see Table8).

Getting Involved

Thank you for letting us survey your students! We couldn’t do this work without your help. If you’d like to get involved more with the research process, then please reach out to us at hlperkin@purdue.edu or schinskejeff@fhda.edu.