This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 16 December 2014, At: 15:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Community College Journal of Researchand PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Engaging Faculty for Innovative STEMBridge ProgramsAndrea C. Goldfien a & Norena Norton Badway ba NSF-ATE Targeted Research in Technician Education , Pathways to,Through and Back to ATE , San Francisco , California , USAb NSF-ATE Principal Investigator , San Francisco State University ,San Francisco , California , USAPublished online: 17 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Andrea C. Goldfien & Norena Norton Badway (2014) Engaging Faculty forInnovative STEM Bridge Programs, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38:2-3,122-130, DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2014.851951

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.851951

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Engaging Faculty for Innovative STEMBridge Programs

Andrea C. Goldfien

NSF-ATE Targeted Research in Technician Education, Pathways to,Through and Back to ATE, San Francisco, California, USA

Norena Norton Badway

NSF-ATE Principal Investigator, San Francisco State University,San Francisco, California, USA

Bridge programs, in which underprepared students gain the academic and technical skills necessary

for college level courses and entry-level employment, are a promising initiative for expanding access

to, and success in, community college education. For career pathways related to science, technology,

engineering, or mathematics (STEM), bridge programs are critical for enlarging the pool of students

who are exposed to, and can aspire to, STEM preparation. This study, conducted with support from

the National Science Foundation Advanced Technological Education program, followed four com-

munity colleges for a year to understand local factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of a

bridge program in which basic skills were contextualized in biotechnology. The findings are that

implementation of a contextualized curriculum requires substantial faculty learning. Implementation

of these bridge programs was facilitated by instructional leadership by both administration and fac-

ulty. Administration assisted in creating the conditions that supported learning by coordinating fac-

ulty schedules and funding faculty time for initial and ongoing program development. Faculty

benefitted by the support of experienced team members who could guide interdisciplinary learning.

Implementation was facilitated when team members met frequently and when faculty worked

collaboratively to implement the curriculum. Recommendations include planning for faculty

development, both for faculty collaboration and contextualizing curriculum.

The intersection of three trends—the low persistence rate of underprepared students in

developmental education, consistently low participation of minorities in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and a national economic imperative to

develop a strong STEM workforce—indicate the value of finding effective entryways into post-

secondary STEM pathways. The argument for improving access and success in STEM education

for underrepresented populations goes beyond the nation’s economic competitiveness. It is an

ethical issue as well. A large body of evidence demonstrates that persistent systemic and societal

inequities decrease opportunities for quality education for low-income P–12 students, in parti-

cular for low-income students of color. Poor students of color are more likely to attend schools

where teachers are less qualified, where narrower curricular options are available, and where

Address correspondence to Andrea C. Goldfien, Pathways to, Through and Back to ATE, 102 Amelia Way, Novato,

CA 94949. E-mail: a_goldfien@yahoo.com

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38: 122–130, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1066-8926 print=1521-0413 online

DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2014.851951

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

they have less access to enriched learning either in instructional strategies or advanced courses

(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Oakes, 1985). The cumulative effect of these inequities has a signifi-

cant impact on achievement in general, and in science and mathematics in particular, leaving

many minority and low income students underprepared for college study or technical careers

(Museus, Palmer, Davis, & Maramba, 2011; Oakes, 1990; Scott, 2010).

Underprepared community college students face significant barriers to pursuing STEM pro-

grams of study. Before they can even attempt college level math—a prerequisite for most STEM

credentials—underprepared students may be required to take remedial math courses. Nearly 68%of African American students and 58% of Hispanic or Latino students entering community col-

lege enroll in remedial courses compared to 47% of their White counterparts; 65% percent of

students in remedial courses are low income (Complete College America, 2012). Only 33%of those who enroll in remedial math successfully complete their required sequence (Bailey,

Jeong, & Cho, 2010). The result is that a large percentage of underprepared community college

students never even enter college-level courses in math or science, much less succeed in them.

One challenge for increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce is the proportionately higher

attrition rate of underrepresented minorities from STEM programs (Olson & Labov, 2012;

Seymour &Hewitt, 1997). This disparity is especially concerning because demographic trends sug-

gest that racial and ethnic groups currently considered minorities will soon make up the majority of

the United States population (Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007; Museus et al., 2011). If the

United States is going to build its STEM workforce, the education system must do a better job

attracting and retaining these students in STEM programs. For this reason, the National Science

Foundation (NSF), among others, is focusing on increasing diversity in the STEM workforce in

part by improving minority participation in STEM education (Cullinane, 2009).

To meet this challenge, proposals to the NSF for funding to improve advanced technological edu-

cation (ATE) are reviewed for a potential to benefit society including the full participation of under-

represented minorities in STEM programs (National Science Foundation, 2011). One program that

was created with support from ATE funding is BioBridge (a pseudonym) developed as an entryway

for a biotechnology pathway leading to certificates and the associate degree. The program was

designed to incorporate research-based educational strategies. Students register as a cohort for linked

courses in language, math, and science, forming a learning community of faculty and students.

Bridge programs, in which underprepared students gain the academic and technical skills neces-

sary for college level courses and entry-level employment, are a promising initiative for expanding

access to, and success in, community college education. Bridge programs have the potential to

apply research-based curriculum and pedagogy appropriate for adult learners, many of whom seek

career and academic preparation (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). By arranging coursework

so that developmental reading and math are offered concurrently with technical preparation, stu-

dents retain motivation: they can immediately apply skills learned in development courses to tech-

nical education. Bridge curricula address the disconnect for developmental students of learning

basic academic skills now so that someday in the future they can apply those skills (Perin, 2001).

PROBLEM AND PURPOSE

BioBridge was developed almost a decade ago at Bayview Community College (a pseudonym)

as an innovative interdisciplinary instructional program. It is taught by a team of faculty from

INNOVATIVE BRIDGE PROGRAMS 123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

multiple disciplines, and the curriculum is contextualized so that basic academic skills are

imparted as those skills are used in biotechnology workplaces. Contextualization, in its broadest

use, is the teaching of the knowledge and skills of one discipline in the context of its use and

application in another (Perin, 2011). It is considered an improved strategy for promoting deeper

learning, not only because it more closely resembles the manner in which people learn naturally,

but also because it tends to focus on experience and the active utilization of what is learned to

address a problem or activity (Bransford et al., 2000; Baker, Hope, & Karandjeff, 2009). How-

ever, contextualization challenges the typical disciplinary organization of postsecondary institu-

tions (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). In addition, collaboration is counter to the prevailing norm of

autonomy and isolation that characterizes the experience of most community college faculty

(Grubb & Associates, 1999). Though bridge programs are promoted as a promising practice,

there is little research examining the issues regarding implementation (Bragg, Harmon, Kirby,

& Kim, 2009). Therefore, this study examined the factors that supported and impeded the

implementation of BioBridge’s interdisciplinary approach to instruction.

METHODOLOGY

BioBridge is a learning community designed to bridge developmental education and college

science by teaching basic math and literacy skills, contextualized in biotechnology, concurrently

with an introductory science and laboratory course. This qualitative study focused on the

implementation of BioBridge at four community and technical colleges across the nation. The

guiding question for this research was: In what ways do factors facilitate or impede faculty

implementation of BioBridge’s contextualized curriculum?

San Francisco State University’s Institutional Review Board approved the conduct of

research involving human subjects; therefore, data collection consisted of semistructured inter-

views; review of artifacts (meeting notes, websites, webinars, planning documents, syllabi,

course assignments, and products of electronic searches); and classroom observations that

occurred during site visits, follow-up phone calls and correspondence. A total of 22 participants

were interviewed across the four sites; the interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim,

and analyzed for complementary and conflicting themes (Creswell, 2008).

CONTEXT: DISSEMINATING BIOBRIDGE

In 2010, the National Science Foundation supported the effort to scale up promising practices in

ATE programs, and BioBridge was one of the programs selected to scale. In addition to sharing

the program model and providing guidance in its implementation, the design team at Bayview

Community College also made their BioBridge curriculum available to the adopter colleges par-

ticipating in the scale-up project. Colleges could adopt the curriculum in total or in part, modify

it, or develop their own curriculum.

This study examined the implementation of BioBridge, both at the original site and at three

other adopter colleges, to understand the factors that facilitated and impeded the faculty effort to

implement the curriculum. This study looked specifically at the challenges of this teaching

model in which faculty worked as an interdisciplinary collaborative team to teach in a contex-

tualized program. The four colleges included in this study were Bayview Community College, a

124 A. C. GOLDFIEN AND N. N. BADWAY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

large urban college in the western United States; Midwest Community College, a large urban col-

lege in the Midwest; Rolling Hills Community and Technical College, a midsized college in the

southern United States; and Southern Technical College, a small rural college in the Southeast.

All college names are pseudonyms. A purposeful selection process was utilized based on two cri-

teria: that the college intended to implement the BioBridge program as designed, and launched the

program within the timeframe of the current study, between May 2012 and February 2013.

FINDINGS

A number of commonalities revealed challenges for faculty in implementing this particular

model of bridge program. Some challenges were curricular, some were pedagogical, and others

related to the actual development of a curriculum that was novel for the campus.

Contextualization is Hard to Do

Contextualization was a fundamental feature of Bayview’s BioBridge model and the one

BioBridge design element that each college committed to implementing. In Bayview’s

BioBridge curriculum, the science course emphasized topics such as cellular and molecular

biology, chemistry, and genetics. The language course developed reading, writing, speaking,

and study skills using life science applications and texts linked to specific activities from the

BioBridge science course. The math course covered topics such as numeration, algebraic equa-

tions, and statistics used in science laboratory experiments, and it used those skills to analyze

data generated from experiments conducted in the BioBridge science course.

The faculty in this study used the term contextualization to describe curriculum that was more

relevant and instruction that was more effective. As Bayview’s BioBridge science instructor

explained, contextualization was a way to ‘‘make [school] more practical for the student.’’

Rolling Hills’ science instructor saw it as a better way to teach, particularly math, because

the conventional method of teaching used in the math department was ‘‘not what helps our stu-

dents.’’ The consensus among the faculty was that contextualization was an important strategy

for improving student learning and success.

Even though the four colleges took different approaches to curriculum development for their

BioBridge programs—Bayview and Midwest developed their own curriculum, and Rolling Hills

and Southern Tech adopted Bayview’s curriculum—contextualized instruction was a challenge.

Creating the Curriculum

Both Bayview and Midwest developed their own curriculum, but their experiences were very

different. Bayview’s instructional team included both full-time and part-time faculty. Through

the efforts of supportive administrators, the Bayview team benefitted from extensive time to col-

laborate, support from several sources of funding, and schedules that were coordinated to allow

for joint planning time. This joint planning time was crucial because it took time for the team to

understand their shared purpose. The team also benefitted from the expertise of the BioBridge

Coordinator, whose previous experience in developing these programs served as a guide for

the process. He understood the need to get the faculty to ‘‘buy-into’’ the idea of changing the

INNOVATIVE BRIDGE PROGRAMS 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

way they had always taught. He was willing to exert considerable effort to demonstrate how

contextualizing their curriculum would increase student motivation, make student learning more

relevant, and, as a result, make teaching easier. As the team met week by week to develop the

lessons for each of the classes, the BioBridge Coordinator was there to remind them at every

stage to make explicit connections between the courses.

Faculty were called upon to change their teaching as well as to learn from one another what

content was important. In order for the faculty to make explicit connections for students, they

had to first identify for themselves what those connections were. This took what the language

instructor referred to as ‘‘explicit’’ conversations about content and standards. He recalled that

many hours were spent in meetings to understand one another:

I had a little bit of a hard time asking [the science instructors] what language needs do your students

have because they’re scientists. And you know they can speak about whether they learn mitosis well

or not, but they can’t necessarily say what’s wrong with [the students’] language skills.

The language instructor’s pedagogical training helped. Asking questions like ‘‘What’s a sat-

isfactory answer?’’ was one of the ways that he and his team came to a mutual conception of the

standards they valued for their students. Though one goal of the language course was to help

students succeed in their science course and future science courses, Bayview’s team came to

see that they were trying to help their students ‘‘represent themselves’’ to future employers as

technicians with ‘‘more than just book knowledge about a subject.’’

Midwest also had funding for developing the curriculum, but the team rarely met. The language

instructor described her experience in contextualizing as quite different than her Bayview counter-

part. Midwest’s team had less expertise in contextualization. The language instructor had a general

sense of what her course was supposed to do, ‘‘It was supposed to address, be very specifically

aligned to, the other courses in the project so that you try not to teach anything that would be

not used in their specific field, necessarily.’’ Such a vague understanding of what contextualization

was provided her little guidance for curriculum development. Further, she had no substantive

knowledge of the field of biotechnology and little support or occasion to gain that knowledge.

With little joint planning time, her team could not support her. Midwest’s coordinator explained

the frustration of the team’s incompatible schedules: ‘‘In an ideal world, if we’re all in the same

campus at the same time and they all have class hours or opportunity times to all be together at one

time, that’s fine, but that didn’t work for us.’’ Left to create the curriculum alone, Midwest’s lan-

guage instructor wished for the support of another English faculty member: ‘‘Having another Eng-

lish person around would have helped because they’re [other team members] all science and math

guys. And it’s just—different content takes different styles of teaching sometimes.’’ Ultimately,

she found little support from her team and the challenge of contextualization became ‘‘overwhelm-

ing.’’ Moreover, she held fast to her disciplinary perspective regarding student learning objectives

and the belief that students can ‘‘put together some business writing things like the memo, cover

letter and things like that and also a basic five-paragraph essay where they can explain themselves

pretty clearly, and get used to speaking in front of people.’’ Without the on-going conversation

about the needs and purposes of language in the scientific context, she had a narrower view of what

interdisciplinary instruction might look like. For faculty members whose focus is limited by their

disciplinary training, shifting perspective takes time and intentionality and requires input from

multiple perspectives (Pharo et al., 2012). Whereas Bayview created the conditions under which

such learning could take place, Midwest did not.

126 A. C. GOLDFIEN AND N. N. BADWAY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Implementing the Contextualized Curriculum: Teaching What You (Don’t) Know

Though Rolling Hills and Southern Tech implemented Bayview’s BioBridge curriculum, it still

required substantial learning to implement. The task was greatest for the language course. It

was challenging at Rolling Hills, on the one hand, because the language instructor had little

background in biology. For the Southern Tech instructor, a microbiologist, his training in

science did not prepare him well to teach a language course.

The Rolling Hills team met each week to coordinate lessons and monitor student progress, but

the focus of those conversations was rarely course content or how to best teach lessons. Instead,

the language instructor took it upon herself to ‘‘re-learn the biology’’ and described the extra

hours she spent preparing for any given lesson: ‘‘Just staying a step ahead. And see how

I’m having to go through and I’m searching YouTube, Kahn Academy, you know? Plus my

materials—trying to learn myself, make sure that I know what I’m talking about.’’ A classroom

observation illuminated her challenge. In one BioBridge language class, this instructor made a

conceptual error when attempting to preteach the vocabulary for the upcoming science class; she

prepared a demonstration of diffusion that was erroneous (see Figure 1).

The language course was problematic at Southern Tech as well, but in that case, it was the

BioBridge Leader, a scientist, teaching the language course. Implementation of the course might

not have been possible if he had had to develop his own curriculum, but with Bayview’s cur-

riculum he could create the course and move forward with implementation. At the time he made

the following comment, he had taught the course for a semester:

I sometimes feel like I’m not the best person to be doing it when, especially when it comes time to

grade their cover letters. Actually, like, I’m not such a great writer myself . . .But otherwise, I canteach things out of the reader. It’s not so technical. I don’t think it’s like an English course where

you really could not teach.

FIGURE 1 Faculty science error in the classroom.

INNOVATIVE BRIDGE PROGRAMS 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Trained in science, this faculty member viewed the isolated skills, such as note-taking or

identifying main topics, differently; he saw them as being ‘‘not so technical’’ and, therefore,

he was capable of teaching them. The availability of the curriculum allowed Southern Tech

to implement the new course and pave the way for increased contextualization within their

program when alternative routes were unavailable.

Even though the availability of the curriculum reduced the time it took to implement the pro-

gram, these findings suggest that implementing a contextualized curriculum can be challenging

for faculty, whether or not they are responsible for creating it. Creating a contextualized curricu-

lum took significant faculty time and energy. When the college provided the support instructors

needed to create contextualized curricula, be it time, funding, or expertise, the task was challeng-

ing. When faculty was supported inadequately in the effort, the task was overwhelming. How-

ever, even with the availability of the curriculum, the BioBridge language faculty struggled to

implement the contextualized language course. Though the curriculum made it possible to teach

the course and helped to fill in where the instructor’s knowledge was incomplete, it could not

take the place of disciplinary knowledge.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Contextualization presents certain challenges for community college faculty whose advanced

disciplinary training tends to narrow the focus of their disciplinary knowledge rather than widen

it. In this study, having access to a developed curriculum was an important facilitator for all the

adopter colleges. Thus, when faculty lack funding to support either planning or professional

development, and when organizational structures tend to hamper rather than enable collabor-

ation, a pre-existing curriculum can facilitate the implementation of curricular or program

change.

Still, the challenge of implementing a contextualized curriculum has important implications

for practice. Several current community college change initiatives promote contextualization as a

focal instructional strategy. Yet faculty may only vaguely understand what contextualization is

or interpret it differently. Further, faculty may fail to recognize the strategy’s inherent difficulty.

Given these potential pitfalls and the tendency toward faculty isolation with regard to teaching,

such change efforts are likely to yield mixed results. One implication of this study is that in order

to increase the likelihood of success in efforts to promote contextualized teaching and learning

colleges and faculty should include targeted professional development in their implementation

plans.

CONCLUSION

Community colleges have long been recognized by employers and policymakers as providers of

advanced technological education. This study focused on one example of community college

preparation for technical careers: careers in biotechnology. It focused on one initiative to expand

access to those technical programs: a bridge for academically unprepared adults into community

college STEM credentials.

This research reveals that bridge programs are complex, requiring leadership and expertise,

and they require an investment in faculty development for curriculum and pedagogy reform.

128 A. C. GOLDFIEN AND N. N. BADWAY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Although the four colleges in this study implemented a Biotechnology bridge program in differ-

ent ways, they each benefited from a model designed and shared by the faculty of the community

college of origin.

For the NSF, federal and state policy makers, and local campuses, the issues of developmen-

tal education are vexing. The findings of this study and the lessons learned from scaling up

BioBridge demonstrate that the NSF can support agents of change at the local and national

level by creating the conditions in which promising ideas can spread. In doing so, they support

what Fullan (2010) called the collective capacity of community and technical colleges to reach

out to underrepresented populations and support them back into the STEM pipeline, expanding

their life chance while improving the investment in education for all of us.

FUNDING

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.

DUE 1003589. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science

Foundation.

REFERENCES

Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S. W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education

sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 255–270.

Baker, E. D., Hope, L., & Karandjeff, K. (2009). Contextualized teaching and learning: A faculty primer. Sacramento,

CA: The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, Center for Student Success.

Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised and expanded edition of the

four cultures of the academy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bragg, D. D., Harmon, T., Kirby, C. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Initial results of Illinois’ Shifting Gears pilot demonstrationevaluation. Urbana: Office of Community College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.

expanded edition, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Complete College America. (2012). Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved from www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative

research. 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Cullinane, J. (2009). Diversifying the STEM pipeline: The model replication institutions program. Washington, DC:

Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our

future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Grubb, W. N., & Associates. (Ed.). (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation’sfuture. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service, Policy Evaluation and Research Center.

Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). Special issue: Racial and ethnic minority students’

success in STEM education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 1–140.

National Science Foundation. (2011). Advanced technological education program solicitation (Report No. NSF-11-692).Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=5464&ods_key=nsf11692

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

INNOVATIVE BRIDGE PROGRAMS 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics.

Review of Research in Education, 16, 153–222.

Olson, S., & Labov, J. B. (Eds.). (2012). Community colleges in the evolving STEM education landscape: Summary of a

summit. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Perin, D. (2001). Academic-occupational integration as a reform strategy for the community college: Classroom

perspectives. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 303–335.

Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization. Community College Review, 39(3), 268–295.

Pharo, E. J., Davison, A., Warr, K., Nursey-Bray, M., Beswick, K., Wapstra, E., & Jones, C. (2012). Can teacher

collaboration overcome barriers to interdisciplinary learning in a disciplinary university? A case study using climate

change. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(5), 497–507.

Scott, A. (2010). Dissecting the data: The STEM education opportunity gap in California. San Francisco, CA: Level

Playing Field Institute.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

130 A. C. GOLDFIEN AND N. N. BADWAY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

46 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014