How an Early, Inclusive Field Course can Build Persistence in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Field courses have been identified as powerful tools for student success in science, but the potential for field courses to address demographic disparities and the mechanisms behind these benefits are not well understood. To address these knowledge gaps, we studied students in a nonmajors Ecology and Evolutionary Biology course, Introduction to Field Research and Conservation, at the University of California Santa Cruz, a large Hispanic-Serving Institution. We examined (a) the effects of participation on students' perception of their scientific competencies and (b) how the field course shaped student experiences and built their sense of community, confidence and belonging in science. Our mixed-methods approach included the Persistence in the Sciences (PITS) survey with field course students and a control group; interviews, focus groups, and prompted student journal entries with a subset of field course students; and participant-observation. We found that field course participants scored higher on all science identity items of the PITS instrument than students in the control (lecture course) group. Field course students from underrepresented minority groups also scored similarly to or higher than their well-represented peers on each of the six PITS survey components. From our qualitative data, themes of growth in peer community, relationships with mentors, confidence living and working outdoors, team-based science experiences, and a sense of contributing to knowledge and discovery interacted throughout the course-especially from the initial overnight field trip to the final one-to assist these gains and strengthen interest in science and support persistence. These findings highlight the importance of holistic support and community building as necessary driving factors in inclusive course design, especially as a way to begin to dismantle structures of exclusion in the sciences.

A comparative study between outcomes of an in-person versus online introductory field course.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many standard approaches to STEM education. Particularly impacted were field courses, which rely on specific natural spaces often accessed through shared vehicles. As in-person field courses have been found to be particularly impactful for undergraduate student success in the sciences, we aimed to compare and understand what factors may have been lost or gained during the conversion of an introductory field course to an online format. Using a mixed methods approach comparing data from online and in-person field-course offerings, we found that while community building was lost in the online format, online participants reported increased self-efficacy in research and observation skills and connection to their local space. The online field course additionally provided positive mental health breaks for students who described the time outside as a much-needed respite. We maintain that through intentional design, online field courses can provide participants with similar outcomes to in-person field courses.

Field courses narrow demographic achievement gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology.

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.

Engaging Underrepresented Adolescents in Authentic Scientific Settings: Scientist Role Models and Improving Psychosocial Outcomes.

There is a critical need for more effective comprehensive programs to increase the number of underrepresented minority students pursuing scientific careers. Science education often is fragmented, delivered with single-focused approaches - traditional classroom lectures, or hands-on-activities, or conducting research. The current paper examines a comprehensive biomedical research program that integrated classroom teaching, hands-on-activities, conducting a research study, and mentoring from scientists in authentic scientific settings. We assessed short-term psychosocial outcomes and long-term academic outcomes in the participants, largely underrepresented minority high school students. The psychosocial outcomes assessed pre and post program include: knowledge of science pathways, attitudes toward science, self-efficacy in science, and scientific communication skills. Post-program results showed an increasing trend for knowledge of science pathways, attitudes toward science, and self-efficacy in science. Post-program, students also reported significant increases in feeling they had role models in science. A long-term assessment was conducted examining participating students' college attendance and majoring in a STEM field. The long-term assessment showed that 77% of students were attending college, 79% were majoring in STEM, and 75% were planning to pursue additional higher education. Findings provide evidence for the short-term and long-term benefits of a comprehensive biomedical research program conducted in an authentic scientific setting.