This study looks at the impact first-year STEM grades have on the persistence of first- and continuing-generation college students. First-year introductory STEM courses are often cited as the reason for leaving STEM. Thompson found that grades in these courses differentially impact first- and continuing-generation college students even when prior preparation and STEM interest is taken into account. Knowing that these grades can have a large impact on who persists in STEM it is important to seriously evaluate their impact.
Terms to Know
First-generation
- College students who did not have a parent (or guardian) who earned a Bachelor's degree
Continuing-generation
-
College students who had at least one parent (or guardian) with a Bachelor’s degree or higher
Self-efficacy
-
Confidence in one’s ability to succeed at a task
Social Cognitive Career Theory
-
A theoretical framework that connects students’ persistence toward a career path with their expectations and self-efficacy
Grade sensitivity
- How responsive students are to the grades they earn
- Specifically, the impact those grades have on their persistence
The Study
This study was done using survey data from the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) Pathways through College Research Network (PCRN). Three moderately-selective universities (two public, one private) in different regions of the US were chosen for their emphasis on STEM and higher populations of first-generation college students. The goal was to study the relationship between first-year grades in introductory STEM courses and STEM persistence of first- and continuing-generation college students. There were approximately 800 students in the study with 352 first-generation and 451 continuing-generation students.
Takeaways
Thompson found that first-generation students are more likely to receive lower scores in first-year STEM courses than their continuing-generation counterparts. This finding was consistent even when taking into account previous preparation and STEM interest. These results show that there are features in our introductory STEM courses that are disproportionately impacting first-generation students. Thompson offers a few possible explanations for the gap in scores such as experiences with first year courses and assessments, less familiarity with faculty expectations, higher fear of failure, differences in academic engagement, and social experiences. This study did not aim to look at the specifics of what is causing this gap but to see if there was a difference in outcomes for these two student populations.
The study also showed that first-generation students are less likely to persist in STEM even with higher first-year grades and similar levels of previous preparation showing that there is more that is pushing out first-generation students than introductory grades. Thompson also found that continuing-generation students were actually more sensitive to first-year STEM grades than their first-generation peers and first-year STEM grades impact the persistence of all students. Thompson ends with the point that there is inequity in introductory STEM courses because students with comparable levels of preparation and interest are not having the same outcomes. This difference is not limited to first- versus continuing-generation students but also other demographic groups and students’ responses to their grades. Previous studies showed that women are more sensitive to low first-year STEM grades than men for example.
Although not nationally representative, this study points out that more is happening in our first-year STEM courses than simply weeding-out those who will not succeed in STEM. More work needs to be done on the specific factors stopping students from persisting in the major but in the time being we can take a closer look at our own first-year STEM courses to consider the impact our pedagogical decisions have on our students.
Full Paper: Thompson, M. E. (2021). Grade Expectations: The Role of First-Year Grades in Predicting the Pursuit of STEM Majors for First-and Continuing-Generation Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(6), 961-985.