You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
It comes as no surprise that transfer is a core mission for community colleges, with nearly four-fifths of their over eight million students intending to attain a bachelor’s degree. Yet only a quarter of those transfer-intending students actually transfer within six years, signaling a huge gap between students’ goals and what transpires. This issue permeates all areas of study but is particularly pronounced in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, with only 12 percent of these students transferring within six years. In a similar fashion, the structural and institutional barriers inequitably experienced by transfer-aspiring students manifest across all fields but are noticeably magnified in STEM.
On both ends of the transfer equation, two-year and four-year institutions need to wrestle harder with the question: Why is there such a huge gap?
I offer some answers in my new book, On My Own: The Challenge and Promise of Building Equitable STEM Transfer Pathways. Based on a longitudinal, mixed methods research project following nearly 1,670 two-year college students as they navigated STEM courses, programs and the prospect of transfer, I revealed disparities and inequities that permeated the students’ paths toward or away from transfer -- with students of color, women, students with mental health issues or learning disabilities, first-generation students, and those from lower-income backgrounds often facing the largest hurdles.
Yet these students held fiercely to their high aspirations and strong perseverance and agency, pushing through structural barriers in hopes of realizing their immense talent. Those hurdles revolved around finances, advising, teaching and learning, institutional services, competing life and job obligations, and more. The types of challenges and barriers are by no means an individual student’s problem to resolve. Instead, they reflect the inequitable transfer mechanisms systemically in place and in need of disruption.
How do we combat the structural barriers instead of defaulting to students’ own initiatives -- leaving them to navigate the imperfect system on their own? In my book and a recent Inside Higher Ed article, I outlined a number of intertwined structural, systemic, interpersonal and cultural issues to be addressed. In this piece, I place a more explicit focus on institutional responsibilities: How can we, as institutions sending and receiving transfers, provide high-quality, equitable support for transfer-aspiring students?
Transfer-receiving and transfer-sending institutions are equally responsible. The politics around two-year to four-year articulation can be contentious. Much of that has to do with a lack of trust between some four-year and two-year faculty members, including unjust stigma associated with community colleges and their students, as well as power issues around who controls the curriculum, student learning outcomes and, ultimately, which courses are deemed “rigorous” enough to transfer. Four-year institutions and faculty are a crucial part of making articulation and transfer work. But the issue is often complicated by a general lack of initiative, understanding and respect for the quality of community college courses. We must break down such dynamics and recognize both sides’ common interest in and commitment to students and their success.
To fully realize a shared responsibility, four-year institutions need to step up and carry more of the weight that community colleges have historically shouldered. That starts with elevating community colleges as equal partners and contributors and compelling four-year institutions to re-examine their perceptions. Guided by a genuine spirit of equal partnership, both ends can productively co-create learning objectives, streamline courses across institutions and align course requirements. Plus, four-year faculty and advising roles should explicitly involve efforts that facilitate transfer. Only then can these institutions create a smoother and more collaborative transfer process, moving toward what Dimpal Jain and colleagues referred to as a transfer receptive culture.
Cultivating inclusive classroom environments and experiences is crucial. As part of their shared responsibility, institutions and faculty must constantly reflect on and revisit their current practices within campuses and classrooms in order to create truly inclusive and empowering environments that support all students -- especially those historically underserved student populations in general and in STEM. Specifically, instructors cannot and should not focus solely on who the majority is in the classroom or the overall satisfaction level when it comes to student feedback and course evaluations. Challenging ourselves as instructors and pinpointing problem spots can transform the classroom experience, especially for students who feel marginalized and overlooked.
That means that addressing implicit bias, stereotype threats, racism, sexism and other types of bias and discrimination is essential. Only then can instructors remove previously unchecked friction in this space, resulting in classrooms as safe havens for minoritized students to explore and cultivate their interests in STEM fields and transfer. Otherwise, persistent inequitable and less-than-supportive experiences will only reinforce disparities in the paths these students take toward or away from transfer and STEM.
Along the same lines, instructors need to honor and encompass more diverse learning styles and cultivate culturally responsive approaches to better support students of color, women, older students and other underserved students. Universal design for learning is a great starting framework. Further, instilling a community environment -- a significant cultural component for students of color, according to Gloria Ladson-Billings -- will go a long way toward developing more inclusive learning spaces.
Advising approaches must support the whole person. There are two issues related to advising for transfer. The first involves inadequate, or a complete absence of, advising. The second entails a lack of a humanistic, culturally receptive and responsive advising relationship. Many community colleges are severely underresourced, with a student-to-adviser ratio in the hundreds or even thousands. This makes an advising redesign critical, and it must be systemwide.
Some institutions have explored more innovative options to try and fill advising gaps. Nudging has gained momentum recently with great promise, yet large-scale efforts remain questionable. That approach can help communicate timely information to more students, but in the end, nothing can replace direct and personal human interaction between advisers and students. Other student-centered approaches can help students overcome challenges; leverage their existing knowledge, skills and motivation; and place them in a more active or central role. These strategies and carefully nurtured relationships can make students feel that their college sees them, hears them and cares about them as individuals within their distinct lives and contexts.
In this rapidly changing environment that we are all experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, relationship building is and will continue to be even more essential. Institutional leaders, instructors, advisers and students should all be lauded for their agility and innovative use of technology in the face of the challenges imposed by social distancing orders and rapidly changing directives. However, in order to not leave the most vulnerable behind, we need to be especially sensitive of the challenges confronted by those for whom these changes make progress toward educational goals nearly impossible, and do our best to help meet those students’ needs.
An equity-oriented policy environment allows the true value and mission of transfer to be fully realized. While I highlight the importance of putting the responsibility back on institutions, we can’t deny that institutions are constrained within the larger policy landscape, an issue accented by a long history of undervaluing and underfunding of community colleges by state and federal governing bodies. To complicate things further, when performance- or outcomes-based funding is applied, funding inequity is amplified when transfer is not part of the formula applied to both two-year and four-year institutions.
The jury is also still out on the effectiveness of state articulation policies. These policies inherently trickle down to institutions and practitioners to operationalize. So as long as these problems persist, students will continue to encounter a lack of clear and flexible course-, program- and institution-specific sequences and articulation agreements.
While state policies provide overarching and crucial support in facilitating transfer, we also cannot overlook the vital role institutions play in this process. Both two-year and four-year colleges must step in and flesh out institution- and major-specific articulation agreements, as they are best positioned to account for changes in programs, requirements and other regulations. In particular, such articulation agreements need to prioritize student diversity and issues of persistent inequities, rather than continuing the cycle of marginalization and implicit bias toward equitable transfer access and outcomes. Eventually, federal, state and institutional policies that prioritize explicit and concrete equity-oriented transfer goals, targets and measures would act toward fully realizing transfer and advance social mobility.
An equity-minded culture that intentionally practices deep, honest reflection is required. Ultimately, none of the other changes I’ve recommended are possible without an equity-centered mind shift and purposeful reflection. This includes a full understanding of and action toward equity-mindedness, a transformative concept developed by Center for Urban Education director Estela Mara Bensimon. To become equity-minded, instructors and practitioners hold themselves and their institutions responsible for enacting practices, policies and structures that address persistent inequities. The Office of Community College Research and Leadership, directed by Eboni Zamani-Gallaher, offers equity-guided resources that can help create inclusive teaching and learning environments.
If we are to truly achieve equitable transfer, in STEM and otherwise, it is up to us to take a holistic, thoughtful and critical approach to break down these systemic barriers, in higher education and society writ large. The fact that we, as educators, have been able to turn on a dime to at least try to adjust swiftly and responsibly in the wake of COVID-19 gives me hope that it’s possible to make drastic and timely changes that remedy inequitable access and outcomes for minoritized students that had been sorely needed well before this pandemic. While we are in the process of weathering an unprecedented storm, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that the most vulnerable students are not lost in this sea change.
