Field courses narrow demographic achievement gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology

Abstract

Disparities remain in the representation of marginalized students in STEM. Classroom-based experiential learning opportunities can increase student confidence and academic success; however, the effectiveness of extending learning to outdoor settings is unknown. Our objectives were to examine (a) demographic gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) major completion, college graduation, and GPAs for students who did and did not enroll in field courses, (b) whether under-represented demographic groups were less likely to enroll in field courses, and (c) whether under-represented demographic groups were more likely to feel increased competency in science-related tasks (hereafter, self-efficacy) after participating in field courses. We compared the relationships among academic success measures and demographic data (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation, and gender) for UC Santa Cruz undergraduate students admitted between 2008 and 2019 who participated in field courses (N = 941 students) and who did not (N = 28,215 students). Additionally, we administered longitudinal surveys to evaluate self-efficacy gains during field-based versus classroom-based courses (N = 570 students). We found no differences in the proportion of students matriculating at the university as undecided, proposed EEB, or proposed other majors across demographic groups. However, five years later, under-represented students were significantly less likely to graduate with EEB degrees, indicating retention rather than recruitment drives disparities in representation. This retention gap is partly due to a lower rate of college completion and partly through attrition to other majors. Although under-represented students were less likely to enroll in field courses, field courses were associated with higher self-efficacy gains, higher college graduation rates, higher EEB major retention, and higher GPAs at graduation. All demographic groups experienced significant increases in self-efficacy during field-based but not lecture-based courses. Together, our findings suggest that increasing the number of field courses and actively facilitating access to students from under-represented groups can be a powerful tool for increasing STEM diversity.

Keywords: STEM; assessments; marginalized; minority; outcomes; student; success.

FIGURE 1

Gaps in 5‐year college completion and EEB retention for all students admitted to UC Santa Cruz between 2008 and 2014 (N = 28,500), split by demographic group (panels). Dots are scaled by sample size ((√N)*0.1)

FIGURE 2

Pairwise correlations between under‐represented groups: under‐represented minority (URM), first‐in‐family status (FIF), socioeconomic status (Educational Opportunity Program status, EOP), and gender. Values are measured as Cramer's V values, scaled between 0 (no association, white) and 1 (full association, brown)

FIGURE 3

Demographic gaps in enrollment between the gateway biology lecture course BIOE20C (N = 11,589 student enrollments, black squares) and the UCSC Ecology and Evolutionary Biology field courses (N = 1,239 student enrollments in six courses, blue circles)

FIGURE 4

Field courses increase student self‐efficacy more than a lecture course. Improvement values are the difference in self‐ranked confidence between pre‐ and postsurveys, across all demographic groups

FIGURE 5

Pre‐ (circles) and post‐ (squares) self‐efficacy scores for under‐represented minority (URM, green), economically disadvantaged (EOP, blue), first‐generation (FIF, yellow), and women (pink) students in the lower‐division field course BIO82 (N = 194). Starred pairs of pre–post gains differed significantly (p < .05)