The Importance of Faculty-Student Connections in STEM Disciplines: A Literature Review

AbstractDespite an alarm raised by Seymour and Hewitt (1997) describing science, engineering and mathematics programs as chilly and unwelcoming, students continue to report significant feelings of hostility and a lack of caring when characterizing the professor-student relationship. The negative feelings correlate with poor course performance, lower grade point average, and attrition from the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Micari & Pazos, 2012; Vogt, 2008). A review of the scholarly research may offer educators compelling evidence to change attitudes that are currently characterized, with an expectation of attrition, as a natural and useful action in an environment that places retention responsibility onto students. In contrast, a shift to a professor-student connection featuring a supportive and caring relationship can promote student success. To decrease attrition and meet employer demands for graduates, STEM disciplines must seek a change in academic culture away from survival of the fittest to a nurturing experience that supports achievement.IntroductionWhen Seymour and Hewitt (1997) characterized the climate of the sci- ence, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines as chilly and unwelcoming, many faculty members supported the notion, not because it was true and negative, but was true and appropriate. Science and engi- neering professors commonly see their role as educators aligned with the pro- duction of high guality graduates, promoting the attrition of weaker students (Kokkelenberg, & Sinha, 2010; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Faculty members often consider student withdrawal as a sign of successful instruction, thus eliminating incapable students unfit for the rigors of scientific inguiry.The infamous speech commonly delivered during the first lecture in cal- culus-based physics or organic chemistry courses, instructing students to look to their left and look to their right to identify students who would drop the class, promoted a culture of high standards and high stress that is perceived to ultimately yield excellent scientists and engineers. Professors proclaimed that hard work alone was the key to success (Micari & Pazos, 2012). Students failed and dropped out of their discipline regardless of the actions ofthe educators. Institutions had little impact on persistence.Unfortunately, educators failed to examine and consider the characteris- tics ofthe learners who left the chilly climate disciplines. Faculty members were certain that low performing students dropped out, without analytical evidence. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) were the first to study the exiting group of students, but numerous studies in the decades following their publication have arrived at the same conclusion, high performing students leave the STEM disciplines as freguently as the underprepared or low performers (Eris et al., 2010; Marra, Rodgers, Shen, & Bogue, 2012; Wagner, Christe, & Fernandez, 2012). Faculty members play a significant role in student persistence in their major (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This paper seeks to synthesize and disseminate the factors associated with faculty- student interactions outside ofthe classroom. Simple instructor actions can improve the faculty-student relationship and increase student persistence in STEM disciplines, raising overall degree attainment (Vesilind, 2001; Vogt, 2008). This paper will seek to discuss the myth that attrition is a natural process that eliminates weaker students, supporting the notion that faculty members can take specific actions outside ofthe classroom to promote the retention of good students.Theoretical FoundationsMany theoretical models exist to characterize general student persistence and withdrawal from college.Tinto (1993) suggested a sociological approach to the interpretation of the causes of student leaving. …