FEBRUARY 2012

Executive Office of the President

President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT

ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION 

ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GR ADUATES W ITH 

DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 

ENGINEER ING, AND MATHEMATICS 

FEBRUARY 2012

Executive Office of the President

President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT

ENGAGE TO EXCEL: PRODUCING ONE MILLION

ADDITIONAL COLLEGE GRADUATES WITH

DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 

ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
About the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is an advisory group of the 

nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other 

Federal agencies. PCAST is consulted about and often makes policy recommendations concerning the 

full range of issues where understandings from the domains of science, technology, and innovation 

bear potentially on the policy choices before the President. 

For more information about PCAST, see www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast.
Co-Chairs

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for 

Science and Technology

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Eric Lander

President

Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

The President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology

Vice Chairs 

William Press

Raymer Professor in Computer Science and 

Integrative Biology

University of Texas at Austin

Maxine Savitz

Vice President

National Academy of Engineering

Members

Rosina Bierbaum

Professor of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Policy

School of Natural Resources and Environment 

and School of Public Health

University of Michigan

Christine Cassel

President and CEO

American Board of Internal Medicine

Christopher Chyba

Professor, Astrophysical Sciences and 

International Affairs

Director, Program on Science and Global Security

Princeton University

S. James Gates, Jr.

John S. Toll Professor of Physics

Director, Center for String and Particle Theory

University of Maryland, College Park

Mark Gorenberg 

Managing Director

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

Shirley Ann Jackson

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Richard C. Levin

President

Yale University

Chad Mirkin

Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials 

Science and Engineering, Chemical and 

Biological Engineering and Medicine

Director, International Institute for 

Nanotechnology

Northwestern University

Mario Molina

Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry

University of California, San Diego

Professor, Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Director, Mario Molina Center for Energy and 

Environment, Mexico City
Ernest J. Moniz

Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and 

Engineering Systems

Director, MIT’s Energy Initiative

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig Mundie

Chief Research and Strategy Officer

Microsoft Corporation

Ed Penhoet

Director, Alta Partners

Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public 

Health

University of California, Berkeley

Barbara Schaal

Mary-Dell Chilton Distinguished Professor of 

Biology

Washington University, St. Louis

Vice President, National Academy of Sciences

Eric Schmidt

Executive Chairman

Google, Inc.

Daniel Schrag

Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology

Professor, Environmental Science and 

Engineering

Director, Harvard University Center for the

Environment

Harvard University

David E. Shaw

Chief Scientist, D.E. Shaw Research

Senior Research Fellow, Center for 

Computational Biology and Bioinformatics

Columbia University

Ahmed Zewail

Linus Pauling Professor of Chemistry and Physics

Director, Physical Biology Center

California Institute of Technology

Staff

Deborah Stine

Executive Director

Danielle Evers

AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow

Amber Hartman Scholz

Assistant Executive Director
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

President Barack Obama

The White House 

Washington, D.C. 20502 

Dear Mr. President,

We are pleased to present you with this report, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College 

Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, prepared for you by the 

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). This report provides a strategy for 

improving STEM education during the first two years of college that we believe is responsive to both the 

challenges and the opportunities that this crucial stage in the STEM education pathway presents. 

In preparing this report, PCAST assembled a Working Group of experts in postsecondary STEM teaching, 

learning-science research, curriculum development, higher-education administration, faculty training, 

educational technology, and successful interaction between industry and higher education. The report 

was strengthened by input from additional experts in postsecondary STEM education, STEM practitioners, 

professional societies, private companies, educators, and Federal education officials. 

PCAST found that economic forecasts point to a need for producing, over the next decade, approximately 

1 million more college graduates in STEM fields than expected under current assumptions. Fewer than 

40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree. Merely 

increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would generate three-quarters of the targeted 

1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade.

PCAST identified five overarching recommendations that it believes can achieve this goal: (1) catalyze 

widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices; (2) advocate and provide support 

for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses; (3) launch a national 

experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics-preparation gap; 

(4) encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers; and (5) create a 

Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to 

provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education. 

Implementing these recommendations will help you achieve one of the key STEM goals you stated in 

your address to the National Academy of Sciences in April 2009: “American students will move from the 

middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade. For we know that the nation 

that out-educates us today—will out-compete us tomorrow.” The members of PCAST are grateful for the 

opportunity to provide our input on an issue of such critical importance to the Nation’s future.

Sincerely,

 John P. Holdren

 PCAST Co-Chair

Eric Lander

PCAST Co-Chair

★ i ★

Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional 

College Graduates with Degrees in Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Executive Report

Economic projections point to a need for approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S. 

will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence 

in science and technology. To meet this goal, the United States will need to increase the number of 

students who receive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates.

Currently the United States graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM fields 

annually. Fewer than 40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a 

STEM degree. Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would, alone, generate threequarters of the targeted 1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade. Many of those who 

abandon STEM majors perform well in their introductory courses and would make valuable additions 

to the STEM workforce. Retaining more students in STEM majors is the lowest-cost, fastest policy option 

to providing the STEM professionals that the nation needs for economic and societal well-being, and 

will not require expanding the number or size of introductory courses, which are constrained by space 

and resources at many colleges and universities.

The reasons students give for abandoning STEM majors point to the retention strategies that are 

needed. For example, high-performing students frequently cite uninspiring introductory courses as a 

factor in their choice to switch majors. And low-performing students with a high interest and aptitude 

in STEM careers often have difficulty with the math required in introductory STEM courses with little 

help provided by their universities. Moreover, many students, and particularly members of groups 

underrepresented in STEM fields, cite an unwelcoming atmosphere from faculty in STEM courses as a 

reason for their departure. 

Better teaching methods are needed by university faculty to make courses more inspiring, provide 

more help to students facing mathematical challenges, and to create an atmosphere of a community 

of STEM learners. Traditional teaching methods have trained many STEM professionals, including 

most of the current STEM workforce. But a large and growing body of research indicates that STEM 

education can be substantially improved through a diversification of teaching methods. These data 

show that evidence-based teaching methods are more effective in reaching all students—especially 

the “underrepresented majority”—the women and members of minority groups who now constitute 

approximately 70% of college students while being underrepresented among students who receive 

undergraduate STEM degrees (approximately 45%). This underrepresented majority is a large potential 

source of STEM professionals.
★ ii ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

The Need for an Improved STEM Student Recruitment and Retention 

Strategy for the First Two Years of Postsecondary Education

The first two years of college are the most critical to the retention and recruitment of STEM majors. These 

two years are also a shared feature of all types of 2- and 4-year colleges and universities—community 

colleges, comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, research universities, and minority-serving 

institutions. In addition, STEM courses during the first two years of college have an enormous effect on 

the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of future K-12 teachers. For these reasons, this report focuses on 

actions that will influence the quality of STEM education in the first two years of college.

Based on extensive research about students’ choices, learning processes, and preparation, three imperatives underpin this report:

• Improve the first two years of STEM education in college.

• Provide all students with the tools to excel.

• Diversify pathways to STEM degrees.

Our recommendations, described below, detail how to convert these imperatives into action.

The title of this report, “Engage to Excel,” applies to students, faculty, and leaders in academia, industry, 

and government. Students must be engaged to excel in STEM fields. To excel as teachers, faculty must 

engage in methods of teaching grounded in research about why students excel and persist in college. 

Moreover, success depends on the engagement by great leadership. Leaders, including the President of 

the United States; college, university and business leadership; and others, must encourage and support 

the creation of well-aligned incentives for transforming and sustaining STEM learning. They also must 

encourage and support the establishment of broad-based reliable metrics to measure outcomes in an 

ongoing cycle of improvement.

Transforming STEM education in U.S. colleges and universities is a daunting challenge. The key barriers 

involve faculty awareness and performance, reward and incentive systems, and traditions in higher education. The recommendations in this report address the most significant barriers and use both tangible 

resources and persuasion to inspire and catalyze change. Attacking the issue from numerous angles and 

with various tools is aimed at reaching a point at which the movement will take on a momentum of its 

own and produce sweeping change that is sustainable without further Federal intervention. 

Recommendations

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) proposes five overarching 

recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high 

school to college and during the first two years of undergraduate STEM education:

1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discoverybased research courses.
Executive Report

★ iii ★

3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the 

math preparation gap.

4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.

5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and 

business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable 

change in STEM undergraduate education.

Each of these recommendations will be explained in more detail below.

Recommendation 1.

Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

Learning theory, empirical evidence about how people learn, and assessment of outcomes in STEM classrooms all point to a need to improve teaching methods to enhance learning and student persistence. 

Classroom approaches that engage students in “active learning” improve retention of information and 

critical thinking skills, compared with a sole reliance on lecturing, and increase persistence of students 

in STEM majors. STEM faculty need to adopt teaching methods supported by evidence derived from 

experimental learning research as well as from learning assessment in STEM courses. Evidence-based 

teaching methods have proven effective with a wide range of class sizes and increase learning outcomes 

even as enhancements of traditional lectures.

A significant barrier to broad implementation of evidence-based teaching approaches is that most 

faculty lack experience using these methods and are unfamiliar with the vast body of research indicating 

their impact on learning. The Federal Government could have a major impact by providing substantial 

support for programs that provide training for current and future faculty in evidence-based teaching 

methods and provide materials to support the application of such methods. Established programs 

run by the National Academies and the American Association of Physics Teachers/American Physical 

Society/American Astronomical Society have trained many faculty, and evaluations of these programs 

have demonstrated that they change the participants’ teaching methods and have positive effects on 

student achievement and engagement. These programs provide successful models for replication and 

expansion.

Although evidence-based teaching methods do not necessarily require more resources than traditional 

lectures, the transition requires time and effort that can be costly for colleges and universities. Given the 

Federal Government’s interest in maintaining a strong STEM workforce, Federal support, in partnership 

with private and academic institutional investment, will be needed to initiate these changes, after which 

they can be sustained over the long term without external assistance.

Ongoing change toward the goal described here requires the ability to measure progress. Metrics for 

excellence in undergraduate STEM education would provide tools for institutions, departments, funding 

agencies, external evaluators, accreditation agencies, students choosing where to study STEM subjects, 

and those designing innovative programs. Flexible criteria are needed to account for the wide range of 

institutions and disciplines that will use these tools to direct change.
★ iv ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Actions to achieve Recommendation 1.

1-1 Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal research agencies, academic 

institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations to train current and future faculty in 

evidence-based teaching practices.

Successful programs should be expanded to reach 10% to 20% of the nation’s 230,000 STEM 

faculty over the next five years. The expansion should make training available to faculty from 

diverse backgrounds to provide role models for all students and from all disciplines and types 

of institutions. Based on data from existing teaching training programs, it is reasonable to 

expect trained faculty to influence the teaching of 10 colleagues, making it possible to reach 

a substantial proportion of the STEM faculty through programs targeted at a subset of faculty. 

Moreover, approximately 10% of the STEM faculty teach the introductory courses to first- and 

second-year college students. Therefore, the goal of reaching 10% to 20% of the STEM faculty 

directly could result in training most of those who teach in the first two years of college. 

A total of $10-15 million per year over 5 years will be required for the training of 23,000 to 46,000 

STEM faculty. Funds for this training should be derived from a combination of Federal programs 

academic institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations. To train future faculty, Federal 

research agencies should require all graduate students and postdoctoral fellows supported by 

federal training grants to receive instruction in modern teaching methods. A combination of 

training grant and institutional funds should be dedicated to this training effort.

1-2 Create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program at NSF.

A competitive grants program should be designed to provide incentives for and facilitate 

teaching innovations at 2- and 4-year institutions. Grants should support model programs and 

electronic dissemination of successful practices. The grants program should have funding of 

$20 million per year, to support approximately 100 multi-year projects with average total support of $1 million over a 5-year period. Funding could come from enactment of NSF’s proposed 

Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms (WIDER) program 

at the Presidents’ Fiscal Year 2012 requested level of $20 million annually.

1-3 Request that the National Academies develop metrics to evaluate STEM education.

To evaluate progress toward the goals presented in this report, campuses, funders, students, 

and accreditation agencies need a meaningful set of criteria by which to measure excellence 

in STEM education. NSF and the U.S. Department of Education should request The National 

Academies to lead an effort to develop metrics supported by empirical evidence that encourage 

and assess faculty practices and student learning.

Recommendation 2.

Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based 

research courses.

Traditional introductory laboratory courses generally do not capture the creativity of STEM disciplines. 

They often involve repeating classical experiments to reproduce known results, rather than engaging 
Executive Report

★ v ★

students in experiments with the possibility of true discovery. Students may infer from such courses 

that STEM fields involve repeating what is known to have worked in the past rather than exploring 

the unknown. Engineering curricula in the first two years have long made use of design courses that 

engage student creativity. Recently, research courses in STEM subjects have been implemented at 

diverse institutions, including universities with large introductory course enrollments. These courses 

make individual ownership of projects and discovery feasible in a classroom setting, engaging students 

in authentic STEM experiences and enhancing learning and, therefore, they provide models for what 

should be more widely implemented.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 2.

2-1 Expand the use of scientific research and engineering design courses in the first two years 

through an NSF program.

The National Science Foundation should provide initial funding to replicate and scale-up 

model research or design courses, possibly through the existing Transforming Undergraduate 

Education in STEM (TUES) program or the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Talent Expansion Program (STEP). On the order of 30% of the existing programs across STEM 

disciplines could be focused on funding implemention of research courses at postsecondary 

academic institutions at an annual cost of approximately $12.5 million dollars (based on Fiscal 

Year 2010 funding levels). Based on the range of funding for Type 3 TUES grants and Type 1 

STEP grants, about 10 proposals per year at an average level of $1.2 million could be awarded, 

in order to impact 100 campuses over the next 10 years. 

Colleges and universities should seek to match NSF funding with private and philanthropic sources. Research courses should be an encouraged element of STEM Institutional 

Transformation Awards. Because research courses will replace expensive introductory laboratory 

courses, they should not require ongoing external support once the transition is accomplished. 

2-2 Expand opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories by 

reducing restrictions on Federal research funds and redefining a Department of Education 

program.

Independent research on faculty projects is a direct way for students to experience real discovery 

and innovation and to be inspired by STEM subjects. All relevant Federal agencies should examine their programs which support undergraduate research and where there exists prohibitions, 

either in policy or practice, which would interfere with the recommendations of this report to 

support early engagement of students in research, these should be changed. Federal agencies 

should encourage projects that establish collaborations between research universities and 

community colleges or other institutions that do not have research programs. Cross-institutional 

research opportunities could be funded through redefinition of the Department of Education’s 

$1 billion Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program and by sharpening the focus 

of Federal investments in minority institutions.
★ vi ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Recommendation 3.

Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the 

mathematics-preparation gap.

College-level skills in mathematics and, increasingly, computation are a gateway to other STEM fields. 

Today many students entering college lack these skills and need to learn them if they are to pursue 

STEM majors. In addition, employers in the private sector, government, and military frequently cite that 

they cannot find enough employees with needed levels of mathematics skills. This lack of preparation 

imposes a large burden on higher education and employers. Higher education alone spends at least $2 

billion per year on developmental education to compensate for deficiencies. Also, introductory mathematics courses often leave students with the impression that all STEM fields are dull and unimaginative, which has particularly harmful effects for students who later become K-12 teachers. Reducing or 

eliminating the mathematics-preparation gap is one of the most urgent challenges—and promising 

opportunities—in preparing the workforce of the 21st century.

Closing this gap will require coordinated action on many fronts starting in the earliest grades. PCAST’s 

earlier report on K-12 STEM education, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future, contains several recommendations that involve 

colleges and universities in this effort. In particular, it calls for the Federal Government to establish the 

objective of recruiting, preparing, and providing induction support for at least 100,000 new STEM middle 

and high school teachers who have majors in STEM fields and strong content-specific pedagogical 

preparation. This Administration has embraced this goal, and production of 1 million additional STEM 

graduates over the next decade could contribute substantially to meeting it.

The Federal Government has a critical role in supporting the development of a knowledge base to 

close the mathematics-preparation gap. For example, research into the best ways to teach math to 

older students so they can pursue STEM subjects in the first two years of college is badly needed. Some 

developmental mathematics courses have demonstrated effectiveness in increasing math proficiency 

among those not ready for college-level math and even in encouraging students intending to major 

in STEM subjects to persist to graduation and a STEM degree. Mathematics education research should 

explore the attributes of these successful classes and ways to disseminate best practices.

In the Prepare and Inspire report, PCAST also called for the creation of a mission-driven, Advanced 

Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-Ed) that would propel and support (1) the development 

of innovative technologies and technology platforms for learning, teaching, and assessment across all 

subjects and ages, and (2) the development of effective, integrated, whole-course materials for STEM 

education. Many of these advances would benefit not only K-12 education but also the developmental 

courses that many students need to pursue STEM fields during the first two years of college.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 3.

3-1 Support a national experiment in mathematics undergraduate education at NSF, the 

Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.

The National Science Foundation and the Departments of Labor and Education should support 

a multi-campus 5-year initiative aimed at developing new approaches to remove or reduce the 

mathematics bottleneck that is currently keeping many students from pursuing STEM majors. 
Executive Report

★ vii ★

This national experiment should fund a variety of approaches, including (1) summer and other 

bridge programs for high school students entering college; (2) remedial courses for students 

in college, including approaches that rely on computer technology; (3) college mathematics 

teaching and curricula developed and taught by faculty from mathematics-intensive disciplines 

other than mathematics, including physics, engineering, and computer science; and (4) a new 

pipeline for producing K-12 mathematics teachers from undergraduate and graduate programs 

in mathematics-intensive fields other than mathematics. Diverse institutions should be included 

in the experiment to assess the impact of the intervention on various types of students and 

schools. Outcome evaluations should be designed as a collective effort by the participating 

campuses and funding agencies. 

Approximately 200 experiments at an average level of $500,000 should be funded at institutions 

across the county, at an annual cost of $20 million per year for 5 years. As mathematics preparation issues vary across the postsecondary spectrum, a variety of sources will be needed to fund 

experiments at diverse institution types. Funds for these experiments could be derived from a 

combination of the Department of Education’s proposed First in the World Initiative, possibly 

the Department of Labor’s Career Pathways Innovation Fund or Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Community College and Career Training initiative, and a strategic focus on mathematics of 

NSF’s Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) program or Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) for the next 5 years. 

Recommendation 4.

Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.

To take advantage of the breadth of available talent, non-traditional students should receive special 

attention. Adult and working students and those from backgrounds atypical of traditional STEM students may need alternative pathways to be successful in STEM disciplines. The concept of a “pipeline” 

to STEM competency and accomplishment needs to be superseded by the image of multiple 

pathways to these goals. All colleges and universities, including 2- and 4-year institutions, need 

better connections among themselves and with other institutions to provide more entry points 

and pathways to STEM degrees.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 4.

Establishing and supporting pathways will require a coordinated effort among diverse institutions. The 

Federal Government can lead this effort and encourage the necessary partnerships through strategic 

planning, reallocation of funds, and leadership.

4-1 Sponsor at the Department of Education summer STEM learning programs for high school 

students.

The Department of Education should roll-out the summer learning programs authorized in 

the 2007 America Competes Act (in an amendment introduced by then-Senator Obama) to 

provide mathematics instruction and hands-on STEM experiences for rising high school juniors 

and seniors. The programs should be funded by partnerships among the Federal Government, 

states, local entities, and private industry. Based on the size of National Science Foundation’s 
★ viii ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

former Young Scholars Program for summer institutes, we recommend an investment of $10 

million to fund approximately 100 projects reaching on the order of 5000 students, annually, 

with significant cost sharing with academic institutions and private investors. 

4-2 Encourage pathways from 2- to 4-year institutions through an NSF program and expanded 

definition of a Department of Labor Program.

The mission of the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and 

Career Training initiative should be expanded beyond development of important partnerships 

between community and technical colleges and employers in the private sector to encourage scientific research and engineering design exchanges across two- and four-year institutions. Alternatively, these activities could be funded through a strategic focus of the Department 

of Labor’s Career Pathways Innovation Fund on research partnerships. NSF’s Advancing Technical 

Education program could also be focused on cross institutional collaborations. The bridges 

described here should provide authentic STEM experiences for community college students 

on the four-year campus and allow students to develop relations with faculty and the college or 

university community to ease the potential transition from a 2- to 4-year institution or to provide 

advanced experiences for students who do not pursue a four year degree.

4-3 Establish public-private partnerships to support successful STEM programs.

To enhance students’ STEM readiness, the Federal Government should engage private industry 

and foundations to support successful programs that create bridges between high schools and 

colleges and between 2- and 4-year institutions and ensure that programs incorporate learning 

standards and content consistent with industry-recognized skills.

4-4 Improve data provided by the Department of Education and the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

to STEM students, parents, and the greater community on STEM disciplines and the labor 

market.

To promote pathways to STEM careers for non-traditional students, the Federal Government 

should provide current and comprehensive data on STEM jobs. Today, public and private 

employers of STEM professionals lack data about the skills, choices, and availability of STEM 

workers. To produce needed information, the 1988 cohort and the High School and Beyond cohort 

should be resurveyed; the Department of Education should devote more resources to tracking 

students from high school into their careers; and the Bureau of Labor Statistics should redefine 

employment categories to include in “STEM” the breadth of jobs that require STEM skills, such 

as medical careers and advanced manufacturing professions. 

Recommendation 5.

Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in 

STEM undergraduate education.

The leadership of higher education and STEM-enabled businesses needs to be inspired to generate 

sweeping changes in higher education to produce the workforce America needs. Toward this end, we 

recommend that the President, via Executive Order, form a Presidential Council on STEM Education to 
Executive Report

★ ix ★

provide advice and leadership on postsecondary STEM education. The council should include members 

that represent the breadth of academic institutions, professional societies, businesses, and private foundations involved in the development and use of human capital in STEM fields. Based on the guidance 

provided in this report, the council should make recommendations that advance the quality of postsecondary STEM education through all mechanisms available to the President. The council could provide a 

forum for leaders in the public and private sectors to weigh in on the development and deployment of 

metrics to evaluate STEM departments (Recommendation 1) and to design collaborative coalitions to 

support initiatives in STEM education (Recommendation 4), including expanding internship programs in 

industry and connecting industrial research agendas with research courses (Recommendation 2). In addition, it could provide advice and review for the National Experiment in Math Undergraduate Education 

(Recommendation 3) and could conduct further study of the math education issue, if necessary. 
★ x ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

OVERVIEW OF PCAST RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO ENGAGE AND EXCEL IN UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 

ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) EDUCATION

Recommendation 1: Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching 

practices.

1-1 Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal research agencies, academic institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations to train current and future faculty in evidencebased teaching practices.

1-2 Create the “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program at NSF.

1-3 Request that the National Academies develop metrics to evaluate STEM education.

Recommendation 2: Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.

2-1 Expand the use of scientific research and engineering design courses in the first two years of 

postsecondary education through an NSF program.

2-2 Expand opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories by reducing 

restrictions on Federal research funds and redefining a Department of Education program.

Recommendation 3: Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics 

education to address the mathematics-preparation gap.

3-1 Support a national experiment in mathematics undergraduate education at NSF, the 

Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.

Recommendation 4: Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.

4-1 Sponsor at the Department of Education summer STEM learning programs for high school 

students.

4-2 Expand the scope of a Department of Labor Program and focus an NSF program to 

encourage pathways from 2-to 4-year institutions. 

4-3 Establish public-private partnerships to support successful STEM programs.

4-4 Improve data provided by the Department of Education and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 

STEM students, parents, and the greater community on STEM disciplines and the labor market.

Recommendation 5: Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for 

transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.
The President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology 

Engage to Excel: Producing One Million 

Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Working Group Report

★ xiii ★

PCAST STEM Undergraduate 

Education Working Group

Co-Chairs

S. James Gates, Jr.*

John S. Toll Professor of Physics

Director, Center for String and Particle Theory

University of Maryland, College Park

Jo Handelsman

Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor and 

Frederick Phineas Rose Professor, Molecular, 

Cellular and Developmental Biology

Yale University

G. Peter Lepage

Professor of Physics

Harold Tanner Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Cornell University

Chad Mirkin*

Rathmann Professor, Chemistry, Materials 

Science and Engineering, Chemical and 

Biological Engineering and Medicine

Director, International Institute for 

Nanotechnology

Northwestern University

Working Group Members

Joseph G. Altonji

Thomas DeWitt Cuyler Professor of Economics

Yale University

Peter Bruns

Vice President for Grants and Special Programs 

(Retired)

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

Carol Christ

President

Smith College

Isaac Crumbly

Associate Vice President for Career and 

Collaborative Programs

Founder, Cooperative Development Energy 

Program

Fort Valley State University

Emily DeRocco

President

The Manufacturing Institute 

Senior Vice President

National Association of Manufacturers

Brian K. Fitzgerald

Chief Executive Officer

Business Higher Education Forum

Mark Gorenberg*

Managing Director

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

Shirley Ann Jackson*

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Neal Lane

Senior Fellow in Science and Technology Policy

James Baker Institute for Public Policy

Rice University

Tom Luce

Chief Executive Officer

National Math and Science Initiative

Judy Miner

President

Foothill College
★ xiv ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Suzanne Ortega

Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

University of North Carolina

Ed Penhoet*

Director, Alta Partners

Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Public 

Health

University of California, Berkeley

Calvin Phelps

National Chair

National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE)

Daniel Schrag*

Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology

Professor, Environmental Science and 

Engineering

Director, Harvard University Center for 

Environment

Harvard University

Dan Schwartz

Professor

Stanford University School of Education 

Candace Thille

Director of the Open Learning Initiative Carnegie 

Mellon University

Writers

Steve Olson

Science Writer

Donna Gerardi Riordan

Science Writer and Policy Analyst

Staff

Danielle Evers

AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow

Deborah Stine

Executive Director

* PCAST member
★ xv ★

Table of Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Strategies: The First Two Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. Barriers and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

IV. A Multi-Faceted Approach: Reaching A Tipping Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Recommendations:

1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices . . . . . 16

2. Advocate and provide support for replacing traditional lab courses with 

discovery-based research courses 25

3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to 

address the mathematics-preparation gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers 30

5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic 

and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and 

sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

V. Engage to Excel: Summary of Recommendations, Actions, and Estimated Costs . . . . .37

Appendix A: Experts Providing Input to PCAST 39

Appendix B: Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data . . . . 47

Appendix D: Economic Analysis of STEM Workforce Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix E: Evidence of the Mathematics-Preparation Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Appendix F: Efficacy of Various Classroom Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix G: Review of Evidence that Research Experiences have Impacts on Retention . . . 87

Appendix H: Effective Practices to Improve STEM Undergraduate Education 89

Appendix I : References for Tables 2, 3, 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

★ 1 ★

I. Introduction

Importance of STEM

Throughout the 20th century, science, technology, and higher education were drivers of innovation 

in the U.S. economy. The rapid expansion of the research and development enterprise after World 

War II—which was enabled by the growth of higher education and corresponding increases in the 

number of college graduates with expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM)—led to strong economic performance, good jobs, and thriving new industries driven by new 

technologies.

The United States is now putting its future at risk by forfeiting its historical strengths in STEM education. 

The proportion of STEM degrees among all college graduates has been falling for the past decade.1

Without action, it is likely that this proportion will continue to drop as groups that have historically 

earned fewer STEM degrees on average than white men become a larger majority of college students. 2

As has occurred previously—with the 1862 Federal support for the establishment of land grant colleges, 

for example, and almost a century later with the response to the launch of Sputnik—the Nation has 

reached a decision point. The United States could renew its commitment to education—and especially 

STEM education—or it could risk creating a permanent economic gap among American workers at a 

time of dramatic demographic transition and enhanced global economic competition.

The need for STEM knowledge extends to all Americans. The products of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics play a substantial and growing role in the lives of all Americans. A democratic 

society in which large numbers of people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with scientific and technological advances faces a great economic disadvantage in globalized competition. Achieving scientific and 

technological literacy among our citizenry is a complex topic that differs in important ways from the 

challenge of training STEM professionals and is beyond the scope of this report; we hope that this topic 

will become the focus of future study. Nevertheless, the actions we recommend, though not specifically targeted at achieving broad STEM literacy, will affect STEM literacy among the college-educated 

citizenry.

One million additional college graduates with STEM degrees

Several analyses point to the need to add to the American workforce over the next decade approximately 

1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S. will produce at current rates.3

,

4,5 The exact projections 

vary somewhat depending on the job definitions and assumptions embodied in the models, but the 

1. See Appendix C.

2. See Appendix D.

3. Lacey, T. A. and B. Wright. (2009). “Occupational employment projections to 2018.” Monthly Labor Review

132(11):82-123.

4. See Appendix D.

5. Langdon, D., G. McKittrick, D. Beede, B. Khan, and M. Doms. (2011). “STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future.” 

ESA Issue Brief #03-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
★ 2 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

studies produce results on the same order of magnitude. For example, one analysis by the Center on 

Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University shows that between 2008 and 2018, STEM 

occupations will increase from 5.0% of the jobs in the U.S to 5.3%, an increase that is equivalent to 

1 million jobs6 and that 92% of STEM jobs by 2018 will require at least some postsecondary education 

and training.7 This projection also aligns with the President’s goal of the United States regaining its lead 

in the world in the number of young people graduating from college. If the STEM fields are going to take 

part in this growth of college-educated Americans, the number of STEM degrees earned must increase 

by about 1 million over the next decade.

In the past, the United States has relied on foreign-born STEM professionals to satisfy unmet workforce demands, and these employees have made important contributions to the U.S. economy. But 

the U.S. is not guaranteed a continuing future supply of international workers in STEM fields because 

education and employment opportunities are increasing in numbers elsewhere. Reliance on foreign 

nationals makes our security and economy vulnerable as their home countries become more attractive 

and their STEM-trained workers return from the U.S. to serve the needs of their homelands. Moreover, 

STEM-related jobs are among the best our economy offers, as evidenced by their high wages and lower 

unemployment rates than in other sectors.8

,

9

,

10 The increased supply of jobs in these fields will offer an 

opportunity to reduce income inequality in the United States.11,12 This opportunity can be captured 

only by increasing the number of U.S.-born college graduates with training in STEM fields from all 

demographic sectors of U.S. society.

The U.S. currently graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM fields annually;13

thus, between 2012 and 2022, the U.S. can be expected to produce approximately 3 million STEM 

degrees. To meet the goal of an additional 1 million STEM college graduates in the next decade, we would 

need to graduate an additional 100,000 per year, representing an approximately 33% increase over 

current production rates. This goal is justified and will be feasible with strategic actions. (See Appendix 

D for a more extensive analysis of the need for 1 million additional STEM workers.)

6. Carnevale, A.P., N.Smith, and J. Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements 

through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

7. Carnevale, A.P, N. Smith, and M. Melton. (2011). STEM. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on 

Education and the Workforce. 

8. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2005). Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. Washington, DC.

9. Langdon, et al. (2011), op. cit.

10. Scott, J. and A. Balakrishnan. “STEM Workforce Trends, Projections, and Skills Assessments.” Unpublished 

analysis for PCAST Working Group on Postsecondary STEM Education, May 9, 2011. Washington, DC: IDA Science and 

Technology Policy Institute. 

11. Carnevale, A. P., and S. J. Rose. (2011). The Undereducated American. Washington, DC: Georgetown University 

Center on Education and the Workforce.

12. Goldin, C., and L.F. Katz. (2008). The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press.

13. Radford, A.W., L. Berkner, S.D. Wheeless, and B. Shepherd. (2010). “Persistence and Attainment of 2003– 04 

Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years (NCES 2011-151).” U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. Accessible at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 
I. Introduction

★ 3 ★

Beyond STEM professionals

In this report, STEM professionals are defined as those with degrees in STEM areas who are trained 

and work as STEM practitioners. In addition to the need for more STEM professionals, there is also a 

national need for more workers with some STEM training. These “STEM-capable” workers are able to 

use knowledge and skills from STEM fields but work in areas that are traditionally considered non-STEM 

fields. The ranks of the STEM-capable workforce are expanding as this skill set comes to represent an 

increasingly valued commodity in many fields. For example, physicians, nurses, and other health workers and advanced manufacturing professionals generally are not categorized as “STEM professionals,” 

yet many of these jobs draw heavily on STEM knowledge and skills, and represent some of the most 

rapidly growing or wealth producing sectors of the U.S. economy. Another group that is not counted in 

economic projections as STEM professionals are K-12 teachers with strong STEM skills, whose shortage 

has become a national crisis. (See Appendix D for further description of STEM skills categories).

Since none of these substantial groups is counted among the needed STEM professionals in the economic projections we cite here, the size of the future workforce needing STEM training may substantially 

exceed the addition of the estimated 1 million STEM professionals. The recommendations we present 

should affect the college-educated population generally by increasing interest in and knowledge of 

STEM subjects among graduates of diverse fields, thereby broadening the impact of the recommended 

actions beyond STEM professionals.

Engage to Excel

The themes guiding this report have broad application to leaders, faculty, and students in academia, 

industry, and government.

The title of this report, “Engage to Excel,” applies to individuals across these groups. Students must be 

engaged to excel in STEM fields. To excel as teachers, faculty must engage in methods of teaching 

grounded in research about why students excel and persist in college. Moreover, success depends on the 

engagement by great leadership. Leaders, including the President of the United States, college, university 

and business leadership, and others, must encourage and support the creation of well-aligned incentives 

for transforming and sustaining STEM learning. They also must encourage and support the establishment 

of broad-based reliable metrics to measure outcomes in an ongoing cycle of improvement.

★ 5 ★

II. Strategies: The First Two Years

How to fill the need?

In the United States, fewer than 40% of the students who enter college with the intention of majoring 

in a STEM field complete a STEM degree. Most of the students who leave STEM fields switch to nonSTEM majors after taking introductory science, math, and engineering courses.14 Many of the students 

who leave STEM majors are capable of the work, making the retention of students who express initial 

interest in STEM subjects an excellent group from which to draw some of the additional one million 

STEM graduates. Research on the exodus from STEM disciplines shows that many students who transfer 

out of STEM majors perform well, but they describe the teaching methods and atmosphere in introductory STEM classes as ineffective and uninspiring.15,

16 Others do not perform well despite interest 

and aptitude and would benefit from alternative teaching methods, tutoring, or other experiences 

demonstrated to improve performance in STEM subjects. Merely increasing retention from 40% to 50% 

would translate to an additional 72,500 STEM degrees per year, comprising almost three-quarters of the 

1 million additional STEM graduates needed over the next decade.

Although women and members of minority groups now constitute approximately 70% of college students, they are underrepresented among students receiving undergraduate degrees in STEM subjects 

(approximately 45 percent). These students are an “underrepresented majority” that must be part of the 

route to excellence.17 Members of this group leave STEM majors at higher rates than others and offer 

an expanding pool of untapped talent. Some campuses have shown that differences in performance 

and retention between traditional STEM majors and members of the underrepresented majority can be 

reduced substantially by several simple changes in campus or classroom practices (e.g., see Appendices 

F and G).18,19,20,21 The underrepresented majority is a large underutilized source of potential STEM professionals and deserves special attention.

The current system of STEM education has effectively trained many STEM workers, including most of 

the current STEM workforce. However, its longevity is not evidence that it cannot be improved or that 

this system will be successful with today’s student body. Indeed, extensive evidence points to a need to 

14. See Appendix C.

15. Seymour, E. and N. M. Hewitt. (1997). Talking about leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

16. Brainard, S. and L. Carlin. (1998). “A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and 

science.” Journal of Engineering Education 87(4):), 369-375.

17. The concept of the “underrepresented majority” has particularly been championed by Shirley Jackson, 

president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. For example: Jackson, Shirley. (2004). “The Perfect Storm: A Weather 

Forecast.” Address to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, WA.

18. Felder, R. M., G.N. Felder, and E.J. Dietz. (1998). “A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and 

retention v. comparisons with traditionally-taught students.” Journal of Engineering Education 87(4): 469-480.

19. Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen. (2011). “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health 

Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331(6023): 1447-1451.

20. Nagda, B. A., S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty 

research partnerships affect student retention.” The Review of Higher Education 22: 55-72.

21. Ohland, M. W., C.E. Brawner, M.M. Camacho, R.A. Layton, R.A. Long, S.M. Lord, and M.H. Wasburn. (2011). “Race, 

gender, and measures of success in engineering education.” Journal of Engineering Education 100: 225-252.
★ 6 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

do better. STEM disciplines have substantially lower rates of retention than do the social sciences and 

humanities. 22,23,24 Furthermore, many of those who leave STEM majors express dissatisfaction with the 

teaching of STEM classes.25,26 This should be seen as a national crisis of STEM teaching, yet many STEM 

faculty members believe that this “weeding out” process is in the best interest of their disciplines and 

the larger national interest. If many of those who leave performed well in introductory STEM courses, 

and many others could be helped to succeed, then it is unreasonable to conclude that this attrition 

represents an effective selection process that is maximally beneficial to STEM fields.27

The first two years of college are the most critical to retention and recruitment of STEM majors. The 

STEM courses in these years are also a shared feature of all types of 2- and 4-year colleges and universities—community colleges, comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, research universities, and 

minority-serving institutions. In addition, STEM courses in the first two years are all the STEM courses 

that most future K-12 teachers are going to experience in college. The amount they learn, the models 

of STEM teaching, and their attitudes towards STEM disciplines will have an enormous impact on their 

future teaching. For all these reasons, a focus on improving STEM courses taken early in college offers 

potentially enormous benefits to STEM fields. Therefore, this report focuses on actions that will influence 

the quality of STEM education in the first two years of college.

Persistence of students in STEM majors

Research indicates that student persistence in a STEM degree is associated primarily with three aspects 

of their experience. The first concerns intellectual engagement and achievement. Compared with students 

in traditional lectures, students who play an active role in the pursuit of scientific knowledge learn more 

and develop more confidence in their abilities, thereby increasing their persistence in STEM majors. This 

engagement can be accomplished in both the classroom and research lab. Many types of classroom 

instruction that engage students in thinking or problem-solving increase learning and enhance attitudes 

toward STEM fields. These gains translate into better retention of students in STEM majors. For example, 

students in traditional lecture courses were twice as likely to leave engineering and three times as likely 

to drop out of college entirely compared with students taught using techniques that engaged them 

actively in class.28 In a randomized trial at the University of Michigan, students who engaged in sophomore research with a professor were much less likely to leave STEM majors than those who did not. The 

effects were observed among all groups, including white, African American, and Hispanic students.29

22. The National Academies (2010). Expanding Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the 

Crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

23. See Appendix C. 

24. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

25. Seymour and Hewitt. (1997). op. cit.

26. Tobias. (1990). op. cit.

27. Sevo, R. (2009). “The Talent Crisis in Science and Engineering.” In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Applying Research to 

Practice (ARP) Resources. Accessible at http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPResources.aspx.

28. Felder, R. M., G.N. Felder, and E.J. Dietz. (1998). “A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and 

retention v. comparisons with traditionally-taught students.” Journal of Engineering Education 87(4): 469-480.

29. Nagda, B. A., S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty 

research partnerships affect student retention.” The Review of Higher Education 22: 55-72.
II. Strategies: The First Two Years

★ 7 ★

The second aspect of a student’s experience that affects persistence is motivation. Motivation is partially 

intrinsic but also is modulated by the college environment. A key in maintaining student motivation is 

having role models. The majority of U.S. STEM faculty are white, male, able-bodied, and middle class and 

have had many role models with whom to identify. Role models who are women and ethnic minorities 

increase the performance and retention of students in those same groups.30,31,32 Financial concerns,33 lack 

of encouragement from family members,34 and a deficit of peers from similar backgrounds can erode 

self-confidence and the will to remain in STEM majors.35

A student’s belief about barriers or pathways to success in an academic field also influences motivation. For example, students who believe that hard work is the key element in success are more likely to 

interpret negative feedback as guidance for improvement, whereas students who believe that intrinsic 

ability determines a person’s success are more likely to take negative feedback as a negative assessment 

of their ability to perform.36 Courses that have very low average grades on exams can differentially 

discourage the latter group of students from continuing in STEM majors.37

Some simple experiences have been shown to have large effects on performance and persistence. In 

one study, female subjects instructed to focus on the similarities between men and women performed 

better on a math exam and expressed less preference for typically feminine careers than students who 

received instructions that were not directed at gender.38 A dramatic effect was achieved in performance 

on physics exams by having students write for 15 minutes about their values. This exercise only affected 

the women, thereby closing a rather substantial achievement gap between men and women in the 

class.39 A recent paper reported a study of students who experienced a one-time intervention in which 

they were asked to read a short article about adversity in college and then write an essay and speak 

about it. Over a 3-year period, the African American students who experienced the intervention had 

grade point averages a full grade higher than those who did not experience the session, had fewer 

health problems, and had a greater sense of well-being than African American students in the control 

30. Marx, D. M. and J. S. Roman. (2002). “Female Role Models: Protecting Women’s Math Test Performance.” 

Personality and Social Pychology Bulletin 28: 1183-1193.

31. Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same-gender role models?” 

Psychology of Women Quarterly 30(1): 36-46.

32. Cheryan, S., J.O. Siy, M. Vichayapai, B.J. Drury and S. Kim. (2011). “Do Female and Male Role Models Who 

Embody STEM Stereotypes Hinder Women’s Anticipated Success in STEM?” Social Psychological and Personality Science 2: 

656-664.

33. The National Academies. (2010). op. cit.

34. Sy, S. R. and J. Romero. (2008). “Family Responsibilities Among Latina College Students From Immigrant 

Families.” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 7(3): 212-227.

35. Ethier, K. A. and K. Deaux. (1994). “Negotiating Social Identity When Contexts Change—Maintaining 

Identification And Responding To Threat.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 243-251.

36. Aronson, J. M. (Ed.) (2002). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors in education. San 

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

37. Byars-Winston, A., Y. Estrada, C. Howard, D. Davis, J. Zalapa. (2010). “Influence of social cognitive and ethnic 

variables on academic goals of underrepresented students in science and engineering: A multiple-groups analysis.” 

Journal of Counseling Psychology 57: 205-218.

38. Rosenthal, H.E. and R.J. Crisp. (2006). “Reducing stereotype threat by blurring intergroup boundaries.” 

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 501–511.

39. Kost-Smith, L. E., S.J. Pollock, N.S. Finkelstein, G.L. Cohen, T.A. Ito, and A. Miyake. (2011). “Replicating a SelfAffirmation Intervention to Address Gender Differences: Successes and Challenges.” Research paper. Boulder, CO: Physics 

Education Research @ Colorado.
★ 8 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

group.40 In addition, many studies show that participation in research improves motivation and active 

participation in subsequent courses for all students.41

The third aspect of a student’s experience that affects persistence is identification with a STEM field. Recent 

work suggests that identification with a group or community of STEM professionals may overshadow 

many other factors in determining persistence.42,43,44 Developing meaningful relationships with peers and 

instructors, involvement in study groups, and participation in a research laboratory all are associated with 

reduced departures from STEM fields.45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54 Interventions to enhance minority students’ 

identification with a field equalize retention between minority and majority students,55 indicating the 

need for more focused programs that emphasize student engagement as part of a STEM community.

Strategies to achieve engagement and excellence in STEM learning

All three of the aspects of student experience discussed above must be addressed to increase retention 

among STEM students. The key strategies that we propose in this report fall into three broad categories:

1. Adopt STEM teaching strategies that emphasize student engagement. The lecture has 

been a mainstay of higher education since the word “lecture” was created in the 14th century, 

and today most introductory STEM courses are taught largely through lectures. Extensive 

40. Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen (2011). “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health 

Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331(6023): 1447-1451.

41. Lopatto, D. (2007). “Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning.” 

CBE Life Sciences Education 6: 297-306.

42. Bartlett, K. (2003). “Towards a true community of scholars: undergraduate research in the modern university.” 

Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 666-667: 707-711.

43. Espinosa, L. L. (2011). “Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM Majors and the College 

Experiences That Contribute to Persistence.” Harvard Educational Review 81(2): 209-240.

44. Estrada, M., A. Woodcock, P.R. Hernandez, and P. Schultz, and P.W. Schultz. (2011). “Toward a model of social 

influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community.” Journal of Educational Psychology

103(1): 206-222. 

45. Anaya, G. (2001). “Correlates of performance on the MCAT: an examination of the influence of college 

environments and experiences on student learning.” Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory and Practice 6: 179-191.

46. Gregerman, S. R. (1999). “Improving the Academic Success of Diverse Students Through Undergraduate 

Research.” Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly.

47. Hathaway, R., B.A. Nagda, and S. Gregerman. (2002). “The relationship of undergraduate research participation 

to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study.” Journal of College Student Development 43(5): 614631.

48. Bartlett. (2003). op. cit.

49. Kight, S.L., J.J. Gaynor, and S.D. Adams. (2006). “Undergraduate Research Communities: A Powerful Approach to 

Research Training.” Journal of College Science Teaching July/August, 34-39.

50. Kinkel, D. H. and S. E. Henke (2006). “Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance, educational 

planning, and career development.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 35: 194-201.

51. Hunter, A-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. (2007). “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in 

students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.” Science Education 91: 36-74.

52. Russell, S. H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. (2007 ). “The pipeline: Benefits of undergraduate research 

experiences.” Science 316: 548-549.

53. Junge, B., C. Quiñones, J. Kakietek, D. Teodorescu, and P. Marsteller. (2010). “Promoting Undergraduate 

Interest, Preparedness, and Professional Pursuit in the Sciences: An Outcomes Evaluation of the SURE Program at Emory 

University.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 9(2): 119-132.

54. Espinosa. (2011). op. cit.

55. The National Academies. (2010). op. cit.
II. Strategies: The First Two Years

★ 9 ★

research on how the human brain learns indicates that diversifying teaching methods enhances 

critical thinking skills, long-term retention of information, and student retention in STEM 

majors.56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64 Moreover, these active learning techniques benefit all students and can 

close the achievement gap between ethnic groups and men and women. We therefore recommend that STEM faculty learn how to use and incorporate highly effective teaching methods 

into their introductory STEM courses, including the opportunity to generate knowledge through 

research. These methods should include research courses, other forms of active student engagement, and learning assessment as part of a continued cycle of improvement in STEM education.

2. Provide all students with the tools to excel. Many students arrive in college without sufficient 

study skills, math proficiency, or identification as a scientist, engineer, or mathematician. These 

three contributors to success in STEM disciplines also are distributed differentially among ethnic 

and socioeconomic groups as well as between men and women. These are key foci for change 

that will reduce the achievement gap and increase retention of students in STEM courses. 

We therefore recommend high school to college bridge programs and other mechanisms to 

improve study skills, identification with STEM fields, and particularly math preparation. The 

POSSE foundation65 provides a model from which key features can be used as a gold standard 

for bridge programs:

− A rigorous selection process for students with academic excellence, leadership potential, 

and interest in STEM fields.

− Enrichment programs and cohort events to build community and a support network for 

students

− Academic programs during the summer after high school to enable college readiness

− Mentoring, advising, and tutoring at college, including assistance finding a research 

laboratory

3. Diversify pathways to STEM degrees. There was a time when most people who attended 

college were single white men, had high school diplomas, started college at age 18, graduated 

56. Conway, M. A. and S. J. Anderson. (1994). “The formation of flashbulb memories.” Memory & Cognition 22: 326.

57. Weigel, R. H. (1975). “The impact of cooperative learning experiences on cross-ethnic relations and attitudes.” 

Journal of Social Issues 31: 219-244.

58. Schwartz, D. L. and J.D. Bransford (1998). “A time for telling.” Cognition & Instruction 16: 475-522.

59. Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan. (1999). “Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in 

science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.

60. Rivard, L. P. and S. B. Straw. (2000). “The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.” 

Science Education 84: 566-593.

61. Callender, A. A. and M. A. McDaniel. (2007). “The Benefits of Embedded Question Adjuncts for Low and High 

Structure Builders.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 339-348.

62. Chen, J. Y. (2011). “Problem-based learning: Developing resilience in nursing students.” Kaohsiung Journal of 

Medical Sciences 27(6): 230-233.

63. Morgan, R. L., J. E. Whorton, and C. Gunsalas. (2000). “A comparison of short term and long term retention: 

lecture combined with discussion versus cooperative learning.” Journal of Instructional Psychology 27: 53-58.

64. National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press.

65. See The Posse Foundation: http://www.possefoundation.org/.
★ 10 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

in 4 years, had all the academic preparation needed to succeed, and had few family responsibilities. In the 21st century, this is not true. Today, students come from diverse backgrounds, have 

widely divergent levels of preparation, may be returning to college after years in the workforce 

or serving in the U.S. military, and often are employed while in college to support themselves 

and families. Higher education needs to acknowledge these differences among students and 

work to accommodate them by creating more entry points and pathways to STEM degrees. At 

the beginning of the 21st Century, the concept of a “pipeline” to STEM competency and accomplishment needs to be replaced by a system of multiple pathways to these goals.
★ 11 ★

III. Barriers and Challenges

Institutional and individual barriers demand a multifaceted approach to 

catalyzing change

The strategies introduced in the previous section have the potential to transform undergraduate STEM 

education, but change in academia is slow and hard. The status quo is favored for many reasons, such as 

existing incentive structures and traditional practices. In this chapter of the report, we describe the most 

significant barriers to implementing the three strategies to achieve excellence and engagement. The 

next chapter presents a multifaceted set of actions that the Federal Government can take to encourage 

change and reduce or circumvent the barriers.

Faculty lack knowledge of evidence-based teaching

Despite what is a now vast body of research about how people learn and which teaching methods 

are most effective at transmitting knowledge and building critical thinking skills, most STEM faculty 

members have neither the time nor the incentives to find, read, and evaluate the literature or the teaching 

methods derived from it. Most teach using methods by which they were taught. Access to and implementation of modern assessment of learning is similarly distant from and inaccessible to the typical faculty 

member. Few opportunities for formal training in STEM teaching and assessment exist, and those that 

do are hard to find.

Lack of facilitation and rewards for good teaching

Instituting more effective institutional approaches than lecturing will require convincing a large segment 

of those teaching STEM courses that they can teach more effectively while still meeting all of their 

professional obligations (including teaching multiple courses, conducting research, and serving their 

institutions and disciplines). Today, faculty members still face several major obstacles to changing their 

teaching practices:

• Insufficient time to acquire the latest information on the most effective evidence-based teaching practices,

• lack of individual rewards for teaching, even at liberal arts colleges, where salaries and advancement more closely correlate with publication rate than teaching quality,

• lack of departmental rewards and expectations for good teaching.

The current incentive system for most STEM faculty is focused on research and not teaching. It therefore 

discourages the expenditures of time and effort required to surmount the obstacles cited above. As things 

stand, it seems untenable to expect faculty to become proficient practitioners of a research field as well 

as experts on the literature on effective evidence-based teaching practices. They need to be provided 

with tools and information that they can readily use in their teaching.
★ 12 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

To increase recognition of the importance of teaching in research institutions, it will be critical to 

have leadership from presidents and provosts to galvanize faculty through resources and rewards. 

Department chairs are critical to that effort because they have the most direct impact on teaching in 

STEM departments. Some of the changes are easy and inexpensive. For example, a department’s webpage might simply provide a set of learning goals for students in their major; the process of agreeing 

on these learning goals would immediately elevate the visibility and importance of teaching and likely 

improve it as well. A department’s website might also list faculty members who are outstanding teachers and provide evidence for their excellence. Some changes will be harder. Adding a requirement for 

teaching excellence to tenure guidelines has been accomplished at many research universities,66,67 but 

will be highly controversial at others. Some changes will require new resources. Revamping courses 

and curricula is difficult and requires time that must be subsidized. Resources can be used to influence 

how faculty spend their time and will be essential to seed transformation and institutionalization of 

improved STEM teaching. 

Limited resources

Most universities have felt the economic realities of the last few years. Some struggle to provide the 

most basic elements of their curricula, so the idea of putting time and resources into new teaching 

approaches and programs may seem unrealistic. Leadership will need to address this issue through 

reallocation of existing resources, strategic fundraising, and securing financial assistance from private 

funders and State and Federal grants. However, the strategies proposed here require little expansion of 

the introductory courses. Increasing retention of students beyond the introductory courses will generate 

most of the new STEM majors.

Grading and workload across majors

Some students avoid or abandon STEM majors because they believe that their GPAs are likely to be lower 

in STEM courses than in humanities, business and management, or social sciences and that the workload 

is greater. They are correct at most universities. However, faculty can make it known that they are available to help students learn to ensure that they do as well as possible in their courses. STEM faculty also 

can make their courses so engaging that students will be inspired by STEM fields and persist in STEM 

majors despite the workload. Most students who intend to major in a STEM field have an intrinsic interest 

in STEM subjects that can compensate for the differences between STEM and other courses. Arbitrary 

depression of grading scales in STEM courses should be discontinued. These practices artificially reward 

students for majoring in non-STEM disciplines, especially for students who feel pressure from financial 

aid, GPA requirements, or graduate school admissions. 

66. Anderson W.A., U. Banerjee, C.L.Drennan, S.C. Elgin, I.R. Epstein, J. Handelsman, G.F. Hatfull, R. Losick, D.K. 

O’Dowd, B.M. Olivera, S.A. Strobel, G.C. Walker, and I.M.Warner. (2011). “Science education. Changing the culture of 

science education at research universities.” Science 331(6014):152-3.

67. See, for example, University of Wisconsin-Madison website for the Secretary of the Faculty: 

http://www.secfac.wisc.edu.
III. Barriers and Challenges

★ 13 ★

Institutional isolation

Many two-year and non-research institutions do not have the programs or resources to offer students a 

full suite of research opportunities. Addressing this will require collaborations among academic institutions as well as between academia and industry to expand the opportunities for students beyond their 

own institution.

Challenge of change

People are usually resistant to change. One reason that many faculty may maintain traditional teaching 

practices is that they have been successful in their fields and therefore assume that the educational 

approaches that taught them so effectively are appropriate for all students. But resistance to change 

is human and has been confronted successfully in numerous other settings. The study of individual, 

organizational, and cultural change is a sophisticated field that can inform the design of transformation 

strategies for STEM education in the first two years of college.

The fact that lecturing remains the overwhelmingly predominant form of instruction at the postsecondary level when there are hundreds of papers showing better ways to teach indicates that more 

than inertia is at work. The incentives for both the academic department and the individual faculty 

member at research universities are focused on maximizing research success, and this system has worked 

extremely well to maintain a powerful research engine in higher education. However, there are few, if 

any, counter-balancing incentives linked to desired educational outcomes, and there are often disincentives. One that exerts an overwhelming influence on junior faculty is the current tenure decision system. 

Though increased attention is now being paid to teaching effectiveness, tenure decision processes still 

push mainly in the opposite direction. Even if junior faculty come to an institution with the passion and 

determination to achieve teaching excellence, they can easily feel, and are often advised by their more 

senior colleagues, that teaching innovations should wait until after they have achieved tenure.

Effective incentives require good metrics for measuring accomplishment—metrics by which departments and individual faculty members can be compared and held accountable. Although research will 

always be the hallmark of the research university and must be valued and rewarded, the ideal faculty 

incentive system is based on both teaching and research accomplishments. For the incentive system 

to be meaningful, metrics for teaching quality must be credible.

To achieve the goals presented in this report, colleges and universities need to change their institutional 

and reward structures. In the last few decades, some extraordinary, sweeping changes have been deliberately instigated and studied in other societal areas. For example, the nearly universal familiarity in the 

United States with the idea of a “designated driver,” previously unknown in our society, was achieved in 

three years because of one person’s vision and action. Such campaigns provide guidance for designing 

similarly transformative initiatives.
★ 14 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table 1. Actions to induce cultural change

•	 Create a sense of urgency

•	 Identify credible guiding teams

•	 Create vision

•	 Communicate vision and progress

•	 Facilitate change/remove obstacles

•	 Generate belief in successful movement

•	 Reward change

•	 Ensure repeated exposure to message

•	 Provide checklists to measure progress

•	 Create community for transformation leaders

•	 Use diverse, concerted drivers to generate a 

tipping point

Sources:

Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Co.;

Heath, C. and D. Heath (2010). Switch. New York, NY: Broadway Books. 

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Shapiro, A. (2003). Creating Contagious Commitment: Applying the Tipping Point to Organizational Change. Hillsborough, NC: Strategy 

Perspective.

Based on the theory and practice of cultural change, a number of steps must be accomplished to effect 

lasting change for STEM education (Table 1). Key elements to be addressed include human tendencies 

such as resistance to change, complacency, and cynicism; practical obstacles such as lack of resources 

and know-how; communication challenges including lack of awareness of the problem or successful 

solutions; and lack of reinforcements to foster change among individuals and institutions. The recommendations we make in the next chapter are focused on addressing the challenges, generating an 

environment, and establishing processes that will induce and sustain transformative change.
★ 15 ★

IV. A Multi-Facted Approach: 

Reaching the Tipping Point

No single strategy will generate 1 million additional undergraduate STEM degrees over the next decade, 

because the challenge has many dimensions. It entwines facts and logic with academic culture, incentives, and belief systems. Therefore the recommendations presented here address various stakeholders 

and use both tangible resources and persuasion to inspire and catalyze change in undergraduate STEM 

education. By attacking the issue from a number of angles with various tools, including public exhortation, faculty incentives, resources, information, and institutional connections, the concerted forces can 

reach a point at which the movement takes on a momentum of its own and leads to sweeping change. 

Barriers to change vary with institution type and context. Some institutions may respond to a desire to 

be on the cutting edge of education, some to new resources, and others to the desire to maintain funding for and prestige of their graduate programs. Some faculty will be interested in change but will not 

know how to accomplish it; others will be waiting to hear from their administrations that this change is 

important and will be rewarded. Some students might benefit most from engaging in research, while 

others might be more in need of bolstering their math skills. Therefore, we propose promoting change 

with actions that address diverse students, faculty, departments, institutional leadership, industrial 

interests, and professional societies.68 Our recommendations aim to overcome many barriers, from lack 

of faculty time for studying the education literature to the inability of students to re-enter college after 

they take a break from their education.

A number of steps must be accomplished to effect lasting change. Needed elements include a combination of rational thinking, a sense of urgency, community facilitation, cooperative action among key 

players, individual and group rewards, and visible success stories.

When the point is reached where ongoing change no longer depends on interventions by the Federal 

Government, the importance of engagement and excellence in STEM education will be part of the 

academic lexicon on every institution’s agenda, and will be widely accepted as beneficial to students, 

faculty, and society. When this point is reached, resources for the recommendations below will be 

incorporated into the base budgets of many institutions, graduate students will not remember a time 

when science was taught by lectures alone, and having metrics to evaluate excellence in STEM education will be routine.

68. Kezar, A. J. and P. D. Eckel. (2002). ” The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education: 

Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts?” Journal of Higher Education 73(4): 435-460.
★ 16 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Recommendations

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) proposes five overarching 

recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high 

school to college, and during the first two years of undergraduate STEM education:

1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discoverybased research courses.

3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the 

mathematics preparation gap.

4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.

5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and 

business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable 

change in STEM undergraduate education.

Each of these recommendations will be explained in more detail below.

Recommendation I.

Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

Rationale for Recommendation 1.

Evidence-Based Teaching

Thinking like a STEM professional requires acquisition of information, habits of mind, skills, and an identity embedded in a STEM discipline.69 Such diverse attributes are unlikely to be learned most effectively 

through one mode of teaching. Yet most introductory STEM courses taken in the first two years of college 

are dominated by lectures and multiple choice tests. A substantial empirical literature has demonstrated 

that alternative models of instruction can achieve many important learning outcomes more effectively 

than current practice (Table 2). (For a discussion of the learning literature, see Appendix F.) STEM educators can take a more scientific approach to teaching by basing classroom choices on research evidence 

rather than habits and traditions.

 “Evidence-based” teaching, also known as “scientific teaching”,70 has two features. First, it involves choosing teaching methods based on research about how people learn and on proven teaching methods. 

Second, it involves using assessment of learning to determine whether students are meeting stated 

learning goals. Generally, approaches that most effectively transmit information and build critical 

thinking skills require that students are actively engaged in the process of and receive feedback while 

learning.71

69. National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press.

70. J. Handelsman, et al.D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, 

S.Tilghman, W. Wood. (2004). “Scientific Teaching.” Science 304(5670), 521–522.

71. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 

Kluwer Academic Publishers.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 17 ★

Table 2. Types of active learning that have been demonstrated to enhance learning. 

Types of active learning with feedback Examples of studies that demonstrate enhanced learning

Small group discussion and 

peer instruction

Anderson et al. (2005); Armbruster et al. (2009); Armstrong et al. (2007); 

Beichner et al. (1999); Born et al. (2002); Crouch and Mazur (2001); Fagen 

(2002); Lasry et al. (2008); Lewis and Lewis (2005); McDaniel (2007a, 

2007b); Rivard and Straw (2000); Tessier (2004 and 2007); Tien et al. (2002)

Testing Steele (2003)

One-minute papers Almer et al. (1998); Chizmar and Ostrosky (1998); Rivard and Straw (2000)

Clickers Smith et al. (2009, 2011) 

Problem-based learning Capon and Kuhn (2004); Preszler et al. (2007)

Case Studies Preszler (2009) 

Analytical challenge before lecture Schwartz and Bransford (1998)

Group tests Cortright et al. (2003); Klappa (2009)

Problem sets in groups Cortright et al. (2005)

Concept mapping Foncesca et al. (2004); Prezler (2004); Yarden et al. (2004) 

Writing with peer review Pelaez (2002)

Computer simulations and games Harris et al. (2009); McDaniel et al. (2007); Traver et al. (2001)

Combination of active learning 

methods Freeman et al. (2007); O’Sullivan and Cooper (2003)

Note: All studies cited compare treatment and control groups. Full references are found in Appendix I.

Classroom approaches that engage students actively have been shown to increase retention of information, build critical thinking skills, induce more positive attitudes toward STEM disciplines, and increase 

retention of students in STEM majors.72,73 Diverse methods that engage students in “active learning” have 

been successfully implemented in a large range of classroom sizes and can be done with an increase, 

not a decrease, in coverage of content. Most surprisingly to many instructors is the increase in retention 

of information, deep understanding, and student attendance and enthusiasm in class that result from 

a diversification of teaching approaches beyond lectures (see Table 2 for references).

Three types of research studies demonstrate the effects of evidence-based teaching methods on learning and retention in STEM degrees.

72. Peckham, J., P. Stephenson, J-Y Hervé, R. Hutt, and Miguel Encarnação. (2007). “Increasing student retention in 

computer science through research programs for undergraduates.” SIGCSE ’07: Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical 

Symposium on Computer Science Education 39(1): 124–128.

73. McClanahan, E. B. and L. L. McClanahan. (2002). “Active Learning in a Non-Majors Biology Class.” College 

Teaching 50: 92-96.
★ 18 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

The field of cognitive psychology has constructed a substantial literature of randomized trials with 

carefully controlled variables in which different types of teaching are used and learning is measured 

with a single instrument. These studies consistently show that learning and retention of knowledge as 

well as acquisition of higher order thinking and reasoning skills are better with many types of active 

learning than lectures alone.74,75

• Designed experiments that compare learning between two STEM courses in which the material is presented with active or passive (largely traditional) means show that the introduction of 

active learning into STEM courses of all sizes and disciplines induces more learning than lectures 

alone.76,77,78 In some of these experiments the instructor is the same in both classes, and in some 

the instructors differ.

• Retrospective analyses of student performance in courses or curricula, which resemble epidemiological studies in human health, also demonstrate more learning with active than passive 

methods.79

While each of these lines of evidence has limitations, together they create a compelling body of research 

indicating that student learning can be enhanced by any of a large number of interventions that induce 

active engagement of students in the course material. A more extensive discussion of this research, a 

summary of more than 100 papers in the field, and a discussion of the experimental approaches used 

to avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of this type of research are presented in Appendix F.80

Technology to improve learning

Technology can be used in far more meaningful ways than is currently typical in STEM classrooms. In 

addition to its use to save cost and time (e.g., putting a textbook, lecture, or assessment on-line) and 

disseminate learning and assessment materials (e.g., portals that enable educators to search for lessons 

online), far more dramatic change in education can be achieved with technologies that create a “cycle of 

innovation.” Globally available and shared assessment tools can evaluate student learning and feed learning data into central databases for researchers as well as learners and teachers, leading to continuous 

improvement of teaching and learning. As knowledge about learning evolves, this cycle of innovation 

can provide a natural route for continuous experimentation, with immediate feedback for many different 

types of classrooms and the provision of information to teachers about which methods are successful 

in particular settings. This process also can aid in providing researchers in the cognitive sciences with 

the data to develop generalizable principles about learning. Teachers will be able to adapt teaching 

74. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). “The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.” 

Science Education 84 (5): 566-593.

75. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). “A Time for telling.” Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.

76. Schwartz, D.L., C. Chase, C. Chin, M. Oppezzo, H. Kwong, S. Okita, G. Biswas, R.D. Roscoe, H. Jeong, and J.D. 

Wagster. (2007). “Interactive metacognition: Monitoring and regulating a teachable agent.” In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, 

and A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition and Education. New York: Routledge.

77. Roy, H. (2003). “Studio vs interactive lecture demonstration—effects on student learning.” Journal of College 

Biology Teaching 29 (1): 3-6. 

78. Knight, J. K. and W.B. Wood, W. B. (2005). “Teaching more by lecturing less.” Cell Biology Education 4, 298-310. 

79. Hake, R. R. (1998). “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of 

mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.” American Journal of Physics 66: 64-74.

80. See also: http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Active%20learning%20research%20table%2012-27-11_0.pdf.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 19 ★

methods to maximize learning based on both specific data about their current students and research 

conducted across many classrooms. Expansive use of this innovation model, facilitated through use of 

technology, will provide ongoing improvement based on evidence, much like the software industry 

provides product updates based on user reports and patterns of use.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 1.

1-1 Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal research agencies, academic 

institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations to train current and future faculty in 

evidence-based teaching practices.

Federal agencies, in particular NSF, should fund expansion of existing programs designed to 

train current faculty in effective college teaching methods and provide materials to support the 

application of such methods. These efforts should be undertaken in partnership with disciplinary societies and foundations, and with matching funds for faculty participation contributed 

by academic institutions. The expansion should make training available to faculty from diverse 

backgrounds to provide role models81 for all students and from all disciplines and types of institutions. Examples of model programs include the National Academies’ Summer Institutes for 

Undergraduate Education in Biology82 and the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)/

American Physical Society (APS)/American Astronomical Society’s (AAS) Physics and Astronomy 

New Faculty Workshop and the Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group 

on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) Symposium.83,84

Key elements of the National Academies’ Summer Institutes that could be shared as best practices include:

− demonstrate evidence-based teaching methods and engage participants in them as both 

teachers and learners;

− provide an understanding of the evidence supporting these methods;

− teach participants to use assessment effectively to increase learning and improve teaching;

− provide participants with an opportunity to develop new teaching materials with critical 

peer review and feedback;

− teach participants how to change their teaching and extend change beyond their own 

classrooms to foster institutional transformation on their campuses and discipline-wide 

transformation through their professional societies.

For change in STEM education to become pervasive and propagate independently, a substantial 

segment of the community needs to be trained so that the language and practice of evidencebased teaching is familiar and embedded in the habits of mind of STEM faculty. Successful 

81. The National Academies (2010). Expanding Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the 

Crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

82. Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, K., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Ebert-May, D., et al. (2009). “Summer Institute to Improve 

University Science Teaching.” Science 324(5926): 470-471.

83. See AAPT/APS/AAS Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop: 

http://www.aapt.org/Conferences/newfaculty/nfw.cfm

84. Henderson, C. (2008). American Journal of Physics 76 (2), 179-187. http://www.sigcse.org/events/symposia
★ 20 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

programs should be expanded to reach 10-20% of the nation’s 230,000 STEM faculty over the 

next five years. Based on existing teaching training programs, it is reasonable to expect trained 

faculty to influence the teaching of about 10 colleagues, making it possible to reach a substantial 

proportion of the STEM faculty through programs targeted at a subset of faculty. Moreover a 

group consisting of 10-20% of a STEM department’s faculty is large enough to become selfsustaining. Such a group is also large enough to handle much or most of the introductory 

teaching. Therefore, the goal of reaching 10-20% of the STEM faculty directly could result in 

training most of those who teach in the first two years of college.

A total of $10-15 million per year over 5 years will be required for the training of 23,000 to 46,000 

STEM faculty. Funds for this training should be derived from a combination of Federal programs, 

academic institutions, disciplinary societies, and foundations. For example, funds from NSF’s 

Advanced Technical Education could be used to support training for community college faculty. 

One possibility is that institutions and private donors could be exhorted to provide funds for 

this effort through capital campaigns with the theme “building the faculty of the future.”

To train future faculty, Federal agencies should require all graduate students and postdoctoral 

fellows supported by institutional training grants to receive instruction in modern teaching practices. The competencies for postdoctoral researchers developed by the National Postdoctoral 

Association should receive particular attention.85 Training could borrow models of success 

from, for example CIRTL,86 an NSF-funded program that has created a national network of 

research campuses that train graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in evidence-based 

teaching across STEM disciplines. The National Academies Summer Institute model also could 

be integrated with the CIRTL model, whereby either trainees could attend regional training 

workshops or directors of campus training programs could be trained centrally and then return 

to campus to deliver independent teaching workshops. Between 2 and 5% of training grant 

funds should be set aside, or a supplement of this amount should be added to grants, to provide 

this instruction.

Using the lever of training grant funding to induce adoption of this training has two important 

outcomes beyond the students directly affected by the requirement. First, the training is likely 

to spread beyond the graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are supported by the 

training grant. Many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are eager for this training and 

will take advantage of it when it is available. Precedent for this is found in the requirement for 

ethics training instituted by NIH, which rapidly included most graduate students, independent 

of funding source, at many universities. The second key outcome is that the graduate students 

at research universities, many of whom are recipients of training grant support, are the future 

faculty at all types of institutions of higher education. They will therefore become the ambassadors for evidence-based teaching to a wide expanse of colleges and universities.

85. See The NPA Postdoctoral Core Competencies: http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/publications/competencies. 

86. See The CIRTL Network: http://www.cirtl.net. http://www.cirtl.net/.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 21 ★

1-2 Create the “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program.

NSF should institute a competitive grants program designed to provide incentives for and facilitate transformational, sustainable innovations in the teaching and learning of STEM subjects at 

two-and four-year colleges. This program could be based on the NSF’s ADVANCE Program for 

increasing the participation of women in STEM87 or on NSF’s Alliances for Graduate Education 

and the Professoriate, which was designed to increase the participation of minorities. Grants 

from each of these programs have been successful in effecting transformative change, as established by extensive national studies.88,

89,90 These programs provide the best existing models for 

institutional level change, which has not historically been a target for Federal funding.

The key to these projects is that they focus on institutional change and the barriers to it. The 

interventions developed by each campus should be locally tested but transferrable. The 

model of the ADVANCE program indicates that a set of model campuses (approximately 100 

for ADVANCE) can influence practices at many other campuses by setting an example of successful practices and providing materials that aid other campuses in implementation of similar 

practices. All ADVANCE projects constructed websites that provided information about program 

design, data on program impact, and transferrable materials that could be adapted by other 

campuses. Similarly, a plan to affect other institutions should be part of every STEM Institutional 

Transformation Award.

The key elements of the award program should include:

− A STEM department’s plan to improve education of students in the first two years according 

to features shown to be important to success of STEM students (see, for example, Table 3)

− Efforts to effect change at the department and institution level

− Sound evaluation to determine whether the interventions have influenced faculty practice 

and student persistence and performance

− Plan for sustaining programs beyond the duration of the grant

− Evidence of campus commitment to the project through matching institutional funds or 

other means

− Dissemination of materials to other campuses through websites and publications

Grants also should support putting into practice the large body of existing research on teaching 

and learning in STEM disciplines by creating incentives for individual departments or entire 

institutions to adopt or adapt evidence-based methods to improve STEM teaching and learn87. See ADVANCE program page: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/index.jsp.

88. Stewart, A., J. Malley, and D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.). (2007). Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing 

Academic Women. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

89. Sheridan, J.T., E. Fine, C.M. Pribbenow, J. Handelsman, and M. Carnes. (2010). “Searching for excellence & 

diversity: Increasing the hiring of women faculty at one academic medical center.“ Academic Medicine 85(6): 999-1007.

90. Bilimore, D. (2011). Gender Equity in Science and Engineering:  Advancing Change in Higher Education. New York, 

NY: Routledge Publishing Co.
★ 22 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

ing. The projects should focus on both faculty and department-level reward systems to induce 

sustainable change.

The grants program should allocate $20 million per year over 5 years to fund a total of approximately 100 projects at around $1 million (scaled to the appropriate funding level based on institution type and size). This level of funding would provide sufficient funding for a campus to hire, 

for example, a teaching expert to assist in development of teaching materials, an evaluator to 

study faculty behavioral change and effects on student persistence, and a part-time web expert 

to provide an interface with the central website designed to disseminate materials developed 

as part of the project. The funding could also be used, in part, to pay for faculty training such 

as that recommended above. The five-year duration is intended to provide sufficient time to 

observe change in practices by early adopters, extension of that change to other departments 

at their institutions, and sharing of progress across institutions through websites and publications. Based on the wildly different capacities and needs at different institution types, grants 

should be separately considered from community and technical colleges, 4-year colleges, and 

research institutions. Grants should be awarded based on how proposals address the specific 

needs of the STEM department or institution and proposed actions that will have the greatest 

impact on improving student learning and achievement. 

Funding could come from enactment of NSF’s proposed Widening Implementation and 

Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms (WIDER) program at the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 

requested level of $20 million annually.

Project evaluation should focus on changed faculty habits and implementation of evidencebased teaching. In addition, the impacts of teaching practices on retention and on the performance of students in STEM majors should be measured. Granting agencies should not, 

however, focus on reporting of the effects of interventions on student learning. Assessment of 

learning is a standard part of teaching plans, and student persistence and performance (courses 

taken, grades, time to graduation) should be evaluated, but these measurements should be 

distinguished from experiments to compare student learning with lectures alone versus with 

evidence-based methods. The rationale for this is that evidence-based methods are predicated 

on research using randomized controlled trials comparing various teaching methods and we 

do not expect every faculty member teaching an introductory STEM course to perform sophisticated learning science experiments. It is far more important to document whether and how 

faculty are implementing the methods. Other sources of funding (such as NSF’s Research and 

Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering program) could be used to support sound 

experiments to continue to advance evidence-based learning.

Findings about changed faculty habits and student persistence and performance should be 

publishable, and materials that are developed should be shared with the academic community 

through web sites and other means. The grants should transform the campuses receiving them; 

in turn, these campuses should provide others with models and specific mechanisms for change. 

The sustainability of change should be planned and evaluated as part of the grant process.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 23 ★

The unique power of educational technology should be harnessed to this end twofold: (1) to 

embed assessment into instructional activity and use the data gathered to create a virtuous 

cycle of innovation, sharing, evaluation, and improvement and (2) to disseminate information 

that can advance the transformation of other instructors, departments, and institutions. To the 

latter point, the Department of Education, through the First in the World Initiative or ARPA-Ed 

(described below under recommendation 2), should issue a request for proposals to produce an 

interactive, online presence to collect and share data on institutional change and improvement 

of postsecondary STEM education. Grantees funded by the STEM Institutional Transformation 

Grants should be required to post their curricula and methods to an online resource.

1-3 Request the National Academies develop metrics to evaluate STEM education.

To evaluate progress toward the goals presented in this report, campuses, funders, students, 

and accreditation agencies need a meaningful set of criteria by which to measure excellence 

in STEM teaching among instructors, departments, and institutions. Sufficient research now 

supports the elements presented here to provide a valid basis for evaluation and benchmarking. The National Science Foundation and Department of Education should provide funding 

to the National Academies to develop criteria for STEM evaluation based on the partial list 

provided in Table 3. Key among these criteria are the capacity to collect, analyze, and use data 

about teaching and learning; inclusion of effective programs to enhance participation by 

underrepresented students; incorporation of active student engagement in learning; provision 

of research experiences in the first two years of college; retention of students in STEM majors; 

clear demonstration that learning goals guide development of courses and curricula; training 

in teaching practices for current and future faculty; and evaluation of programs and instructors 

based on meeting learning goals.

These metrics could be adopted by independent organizations, including accreditation agencies, the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land Grant 

Universities (APLU), the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), or U.S. News and 

World Report, as a way of meaningfully evaluating the quality and success of STEM programs. 

This effort could be coordinated with ongoing work by AAU91 to develop a “STEM Certification” 

that would be granted to departments that provide outstanding STEM education based on 

the criteria developed by the National Academies. The inclusion of a STEM education criterion 

in evaluation of academic departments and institutions will enable prospective faculty and 

students to make informed judgments and faculty and administrators to benchmark their 

own progress toward building outstanding STEM undergraduate programs. When the National 

Academies develop the undergraduate STEM teaching and learning metrics, they might also 

consider options for collecting these data, such as the possibility of requiring institutions or 

STEM departments receiving Federal research funding to report on them. In this case, the 

responsibility for reporting would be that of the institution or STEM department, not the individual investigator. 

91. See Association of American Universities Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative: 

http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588.
★ 24 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table 3. Elements of Successful STEM Education Programs

Program Focus Evidence and Resources

Intellectually engage students

Teach science with evidence-based methods that engage 

students in creating and integrating knowledge Springer, Stanne et al. (1999); AAAS (2011)

Focus on learning goals that involve both the process and 

content of STEM-related activities AAAS (2011)

Involve students in research early, preferably as freshmen

Bartlett (2003); Carter, Mandell et al. (2009) Hathaway, 

Nagda et al. (2002); Hunter, Laursen et al. (2007); Kight, 

Gaynor et al. (2006); Kinkel and Henke (2006); Lopatto, 

Alvarez et al. (2008); Russell, Hancock et al. (2007) 

Build alliances between community colleges and research 

universities to enhance the availability of research experiences to 

students at community colleges

Shaffer, Alvarez et al. (2010); Wei and Woodin (2011)

Facilitate study group formation and other structures that enable 

group learning Burstyn, Sellers et al. (2004); Springer, Stanne et al. (1999)

Personally engage students

Show relevance of STEM subjects to human and planetary problems Donofrio, Russell et al. (2007); Buckley, Kershner, et al. 

(2004) 

Provide role models of diverse backgrounds and life choices to 

inspire diverse students

Lockwood (2006); Stout. Nilanjana et al. (2011); Walton 

and Cohen (2011)

Provide opportunities for students to become part of STEM 

communities in classes, research laboratories, and STEM-related 

extracurricular activities

Kight, Gaynor et al. (2006); Peckham, Stephenson, et al. 

(2007) 

Show students the diversity of careers in science Campbell, Fuller et al. (2005)

Provide mentoring and tutoring to help students excel in STEM 

subjects 

Muller (1997); Summers and Hrabowski (2006); Gilmer 

(2007)

Engage students’ families in STEM-related academic experiences Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito et al. (2000); Ong, Phinney et 

al. (2006); Sy (2008)

Provide students with sufficient resources, including employment 

in laboratories and scholarships, to enable them to engage fully in 

academic life and the science and technology community

Barlow and Villarejo (2004)

Provide students with critical feedback and encouragement to give 

them realistic assessment of their performance in STEM subjects Ovando (1994)

Build classroom communities in which students feel that they are 

being groomed for STEM fields rather than weeded out Gainen (1995)

Build connections between higher education and industry to 

provide students with internships and exposure to potential career 

options

 Gilmer (2007); Turner, Petzold, et al. (2011) 

Provide undergraduate STEM pathways with access to role models 

by linking graduate training programs with undergraduate research 

programs

May and Chubin (2003)

Accommodate the needs of non-traditional students Barlow and Villarejo (2004)

Educate faculty

Provide faculty with training in teaching through campus programs, 

summer institutes, and programs organized by professional societies Pfund, Miller et al. (2009); Yoon, Duncan et al. (2007)

Provide graduate students and postdocs with training in teaching 

through training grants and professional societies

University of Texas at Austin (2008); Bouwma-Gearhart 

(2007); Connolly (2008); Miller, Pfund et al. (2008)

Provide faculty with databases of learning tools and technology University of Texas at Austin (2011)

Assess outcomes

Assess understanding through diverse means, and articulate 

assessment with learning goals Haudek, Kaplan et al. (2011)

Assess student retention in major Wild and Ebbers (2002)

Measure achievement gap between various segments of student 

body and assess impact of interventions on gap Haak, HilleRisLambers et al. (2011)

Evaluate teaching in terms of learning goals and how they are 

assessed and met Felder, Rugarcia et al. (2000)

Improve learning assessment through technology development Beatty (2004); Caldwell (2007)

Notes: See Appendix I for full references.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 25 ★

Recommendation 2.

Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with 

discovery-based research courses.

Rationale for Recommendation 2.

If we taught young people baseball history, statistics, and rules for years before we let them watch or 

play a game of baseball, how many would become fans or players? Probably few.92 But in STEM fields, 

most students must wait until they are quite far along in their studies before then can experience the 

excitement of scientific research. Solving real-world problems is far more inspiring and instructive than 

most of the STEM instruction that occurs in the first two years of college. Research experiences in the 

first two years of college enable students to choose majors based on the best and most creative aspects 

of STEM fields rather than on courses that do not reflect the nature of inquiry.

Every college student should be given the opportunity to generate scientific knowledge through 

research. Research experiences in the first two years increase retention of students in STEM majors and 

improve students’ attitudes toward STEM fields.93,94,95 The effects of research experiences are quite positive for all students but have especially high impact for women and members of other groups currently 

underrepresented in STEM disciplines (Table 4).

Table 4. Impact of student research experience on students in STEM

Effect Examples of studies demonstrating effect

Higher grades Barlow and Villarejo (2004); Junge, Quiñones et al. (2010); Kinkel and Henke (2006)

Identification as a scientist 

or engineer Hunter (2007)

Persistence in a STEM major Barlow and Villarejo (2004); Carter, Mandell et al. (2009); Gilmer (2007); Kinkel and 

Henke (2006); Summers and Hrabowski (2006)

Shorter time to degree Kinkel and Henke (2006)

Interest in post graduate 

education

Foertsch, Alexanmder et al. (1997); Hathaway, Nagda et al. (2002); Kight, Gaynor et 

al. (2006); Kinkel and Henke (2006); Lopatto (2004); Russell, Hancock at al. (2007)

Notes: See Appendix I for full references.

Not all college students can do research in faculty laboratories. Therefore, we propose the extensive use 

of research courses, which have been successfully implemented and rigorously studied at both large 

92. Alison Gopnik. (1999). Small Wonders. The New York Review of Books.

93. Nagda, B. A., S. R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner. (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty 

research partnerships affect student retention.” The Review of Higher Education 22: 55-72.

94. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M.P., and J. McCullough. (2007 ). op. cit.

95. Carter, F. D., M. Mandell, and K.I. Maton. (2009). “The Influence of On-Campus, Academic Year Undergraduate 

Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program.” Educational Evaluation and 

Policy Analysis 31(4): 441-462.
★ 26 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

and small institutions and have been proven to increase student knowledge of, enthusiasm for, and 

retention in STEM (e.g., see Appendix G).96,97

Two strategies to engage students in research in their first two years are necessary: (i) widespread 

integration of research courses into the introductory STEM curricula, and (ii) increased opportunities 

for students to participate in faculty research programs in the first two years.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 2.

2-1 Expand the use of scientific research and engineering design courses in the first two years 

of postsecondary education through an NSF program.

All available data show that traditional cookbook, introductory laboratory courses which often 

involve repeating classical experiment to reproduce known results, rather than engaging students in experiments with the possibility of true discovery produce less learning, inspiration, 

and retention in STEM disciplines than do research courses. The data suggest that approaches 

to the development and scale-up of research courses should be made available through current 

and future faculty training programs and centralized websites and could be an important component of STEM Institutional Transformation Awards and STEM Certification (Recommendation 

1-2). Research courses can act as training for subsequent participation in research in faculty or 

industry laboratories, improving the skills that students bring to those positions. 

The National Science Foundation should provide initial funding to replicate and scale-up 

model research or design courses, possibly through the existing Transforming Undergraduate 

Education in STEM (TUES) program or the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Talent Expansion Program (STEP). On the order of thirty percent of the existing programs across 

STEM disciplines could be focused on funding for implementing research courses at postsecondary academic institutions at an annual cost of approximately $12.5 million dollars, annually 

(based on Fiscal Year 2010 funding levels). Based on the range of funding for Type 3 TUES grants 

and Type 1 STEP grants, about 10 proposals per year at an average level of $1.2 million could be 

awarded, in order to impact 100 campuses over the next 10 years. 

Colleges and universities should seek to match NSF funding with private and philanthropic 

sources. Because research courses will replace expensive introductory laboratory courses, they 

should not require ongoing external support once the transition is accomplished.

2-2 Expand opportunities for student research and design in faculty research laboratories by 

reducing restrictions on Federal research funds and redefining a Department of Education 

program.

Independent research on faculty projects is a direct way for students to experience real discovery 

and innovation and to be inspired by STEM subjects. All relevant Federal agencies should rigor96. Bednarksi, A.E., Elgin, S.C.R., and H.B. Pakrasi. (2005) “An Inquiry into Protein Structure and Genetic Disease: 

Introducing Undergraduates to Bioinformatics in a Large Introductory Course.” Cell Biology Education Fall 2005.

97. Pope, W. H., D. Jacobs-Sera, et al. (2011). “Expanding the diversity of mycobacteriophages: insights into genome 

architecture and evolution.” PLoS One 6(1): e16329.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 27 ★

ously examine their programs which support undergraduate research and where there exists 

prohibitions, either in policy or practice, which would interfere with the recommendations of 

this report to support early engagement of students in research, these should be changed. 

Novel opportunities for research areas—for example, in theoretical areas without laboratories 

—should also be supported as arenas for involvement by students in the first two years.

Federal agencies should give special consideration to proposals for Federal training grants 

that establish collaborations between research universities and community colleges or other 

institutions that lack faculty research programs, including minority serving institutions that fall 

into this category. In these programs, graduate students supported on training grants would 

learn to be effective research mentors and have the opportunity to work with undergraduates 

from other institutions.

Potential sources of funding include redefinition of the Department of Education’s $1 billion 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program when it comes up for reauthorization; 

specific focusing of Federal (NASA, Energy, Education, and USDA) investments in historically 

black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges for building 

institutional capacity; and NSF’s Broadening Participation at the Core on supporting early 

research and building cross-institutional collaborations in undergraduate research.

Recommendation 3.

Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address 

the mathematics-preparation gap.

Rationale for Recommendation 3.

Students need mathematical and, increasingly, computational competency at a college level to succeed 

in STEM majors and jobs. This makes mathematics distinct from other disciplines, as it is a gateway to 

other STEM fields.

 Mathematics instruction credit hours, particularly in the first two years, are dominated by “service 

courses”—mathematics courses that are taken because they are required by another major that uses 

mathematics in the discipline. This content is fundamentally different from how a pure mathematician 

thinks about mathematics or knows how to use it, which is problematic for teaching students the skills 

they need. Discipline-based education on effective undergraduate mathematics teaching also appears 

less developed when compared with other STEM fields.

Today, many students entering college do not meet the necessary mathematics standards. Among students who take the ACT entrance examination for college, just 43% achieve the ACT College Readiness 

Benchmark in math.98 Because of inadequate preparation, many students need to take developmental 

classes in mathematics when they get to college. In addition, employers in the private sector, government, and military frequently need employees with a level of mathematics preparation that is hard to 

98. The benchmarks specify the minimum scores needed on each ACT subject-area test to indicate that a student 

has a 50 percent chance of earning a grade of B or higher or about a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher in 

a typical credit-bearing first-year college course in that subject area. ACT. (2011). The Condition of College & Career 

Readiness 2011. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
★ 28 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

find, placing the burden on employers to provide or obtain remedial education. This deficiency in mathematics skills imposes a burden on students, higher education, the military, and employers through the 

developmental education and worker training needed to produce a STEM competent workforce. Higher 

education alone spends at least $2 billion dollars per year on developmental education.99 This high cost 

for remediation is coupled to reported low effectiveness. Of those students who took remedial courses, 

less than 30% complete a bachelor’s degree within eight years as compared to nearly 60% of students 

who required no remediation.100 Additionally, a study of community college students reported that 

60-70% of students who were placed in remedial mathematics never completed the required mathematics sequence and, therefore, never graduated.101 Reducing or eliminating the need for remedial 

mathematics classes or improving their cost and effectiveness is one of the most urgent challenges—and 

promising opportunities—in preparing the STEM workforce of the 21st century.

Undergraduate mathematics education in the U.S. is often below what is considered the appropriate 

university level in many countries. In 2005, 57% of the students enrolled in 4-year colleges and universities were enrolled in pre-college algebra, trigonometry, or other pre-calculus courses; the proportion 

is higher for 2-year institutions. Most U.S postsecondary students terminate their college mathematics 

education at a pre-calculus course that is typically a review of high school algebra, trigonometry, and 

sometimes functions. Many students in these courses have seen 90% of the material in high school but 

are advised to take this course to make the transition to college easier.102 Such courses are frequently 

uninspiring, relying on memorization and rote learning while avoiding richer mathematical ideas.

As this is the last mathematics course for many college students, they often are left with the impression 

that the field is dull and unimaginative, and they can extend this judgment to all STEM disciplines. This 

is particularly harmful for students who later become K-12 STEM teachers. A focus on improving this 

particular type of course offers potentially enormous benefits.

Closing the mathematics-preparation gap would enable many more students to pursue STEM degrees in 

college. About 15% of 12th graders are interested in STEM fields but not proficient in mathematics, with 

women slightly more common in this category. Many of these students are not far from mathematics 

proficiency (see Appendix E). If the preparation of these students in mathematics could be enhanced, 

either before college enrollment or through improved remediation, many more students could be 

prepared to pursue STEM fields in college.

This problem is a complex one that has resisted the efforts of many dedicated people over a considerable period of time. Closing the mathematics-preparation gap requires coordinated action on many 

fronts starting in the earliest grades.103 PCAST’s report on K-12 STEM Education (“Prepare and Inspire”104) 

contains several recommendations that involve colleges and universities in this effort. In particular, 

99. Strong American Schools. (2008). Diploma to Nowhere. Washington, DC.

100. Strong American Schools. (2008). op. cit.

101. Bryk, A. S. and U. Triesman. (2010). “Make Math a Gateway, not a Gatekeeper.” Washington, DC: The Chronicle of 

Higher Education. 

102. Lutzer, D. J., S. B. Rodi, E. E. Kirkman, and J.W. Maxwell. (2007). Statistical Abstract of Undergraduate Programs in 

the Mathematical Science in the United States: Fall 2005 CBMS Survey. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

103. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for Success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education.

104. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010) Report to the President: Prepare and 

Improve K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Washington, DC: PCAST. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf. 
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 29 ★

it calls for the Federal Government to establish the objective of recruiting, preparing, and providing 

induction support for at least 100,000 new middle and high school STEM teachers who have majors in 

STEM fields and strong content-specific pedagogical preparation. This Administration has embraced this 

goal, and the production of 1 million additional STEM graduates over the next decade could contribute 

substantially to meeting it.

Secondly, the Federal Government has a critical role in supporting the development of a knowledge 

base to close the mathematics-preparation gap. For example, research into the best ways to teach 

mathematics to college students so they can pursue STEM subjects in the first two years of college 

is badly needed. Some developmental mathematics courses have demonstrated effectiveness in 

increasing mathematics proficiency among those not ready for college-level mathematics and even in 

encouraging students intending to major in STEM subjects to persist to graduation and a STEM degree.105

Mathematics education research should explore the attributes of these successful classes and ways to 

disseminate best practices.

Mathematics education research also could lead to innovative and effective ways to teach the subject— 

for example, through the use of games, simulations, and other technologies. Emerging computer-based 

technologies—intelligent tutors—based on the latest learning science hold promise for accelerating 

mathematics learning and achieving mathematics proficiency at less cost than current approaches (see 

Appendix E, Box E-1). Preliminary research suggests that intelligent tutors can increase mathematics 

test scores on the order of one to two standard deviations. Further development and broad diffusion 

of these tools can provide effective, low-cost strategies for accelerating mathematics learning among 

STEM-interested students.

In the Prepare and Inspire report, PCAST called for the creation of a mission-driven, advanced research 

projects agency for education (ARPA-Ed) that would propel and support (1) the development of innovative technologies and technology platforms for learning, teaching, and assessment across all subjects 

and ages, and (2) the development of effective, integrated, whole-course materials for STEM education. 

Many of these advances would benefit not only K-12 education but also the developmental courses that 

many students need to pursue STEM fields during the first two years of college.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 3.

3-1 Support a national experiment in mathematics undergraduate education at NSF, the 

Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.

The National Science Foundation and the Departments of Labor and Education should support a 

multi-campus five-year initiative aimed at developing new approaches to remove or reduce the 

mathematics bottleneck that is currently keeping many students from pursuing STEM majors. 

This national experiment should fund a variety of approaches, including (1) summer and other 

bridge programs for high school students entering college; (2) remedial courses for students 

in college, including approaches that rely on computer technology; (3) college mathematics 

105. Bettinger E. and B. Long, B. (2009). “Addressing the Needs of Underprepared Students in Higher Education: 

Does College Remediation Work?” Journal of Human Resources 44(3): 736–771.
★ 30 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

teaching and curricula developed and taught by faculty from mathematics-intensive disciplines 

other than mathematics, including physics, engineering, and computer science; and (4) a new 

pathway for producing K-12 mathematics teachers from undergraduate and graduate programs 

in mathematics-intensive fields other than mathematics. Diverse institutions should be included 

in the experiment to assess the impact of the intervention on various types of students and 

schools. Outcome evaluations should be designed as a collective effort by the participating 

campuses and funding agencies. 

Approximately 200 experiments at an average level of $500,000 should be funded at institutions across the county, at an annual cost of $20 million per year for five years. As mathematics 

preparation issues vary across the postsecondary spectrum, a variety of sources will be needed 

to fund experiments at diverse institution types. Funds for these experiments could be derived 

from a combination of the Department of Education’s proposed First in the World Initiative, possibly the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career 

Training initiative or Career Pathways Innovation Fund, and a strategic focus on mathematics of 

NSF’s Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) program or Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) for the next five years. 

Recommendation 4. 

Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM 

careers.

Rationale for Recommendation 4.

Besides increasing student persistence in STEM education, more students need to be attracted to STEM 

disciplines to produce 1 million additional college graduates over the next decade. To take advantage 

of the breadth of talent in STEM fields, students who need non-traditional pathways to STEM degrees 

require special attention. Adult and working students and those from backgrounds atypical of traditional 

STEM students, including returning veterans, may need alternative pathways to be successful in STEM 

disciplines. 

New STEM pathways need to offer nationally portable, industry recognized credentials that are integrated 

into for-credit academic degree programs. These programs provide bridges from high school to community colleges, from community colleges to 4-year institutions, and from all institution types to STEM jobs.

The sizeable group of high school dropouts who return to study for General Education Development 

(GED) tests offers a largely untapped source of students who could be interested in careers involving 

STEM fields. Some community colleges have begun offering programs that combine preparation for the 

GED tests with college courses that could serve as a gateway to further STEM courses and STEM-related 

careers. Adult students and those returning to college after time away, especially U.S. military veterans, 

also often have high levels of motivation and a focus on careers that could be channeled in the direction 

of STEM-related jobs. 

Educators concerned with increasing the number of students in STEM disciplines have given much 

attention to “off-ramps”, the drop-out and attrition patterns in high school, community colleges, and 
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 31 ★

four-year institutions. Equal attention should be given to on-ramps, multiple routes to enter or re-enter 

STEM education. Rather than a single pipeline that is prone to leakage, or a ladder where any missed 

step makes the next step too hard to reach, educators and policymakers should think of a network of 

pathways along which students can take different routes to STEM readiness and competency. If students 

have exited this network of pathways, they need accessible and cost-effective ways to get back on.

Many types of partnerships could aid in designing pathways to STEM training that would capture a 

broader portion of society. These partnerships can smooth the way from high school to college, link 

students at community and technical colleges with high-skill STEM jobs, enable students at two-year 

colleges to transfer and earn four-year degrees, provide research experiences to students at institutions 

without research programs, and offer students insight into the careers and opportunities for STEM practitioners in industry. These partnerships will enable the academic advancement of all types of students, 

but they will be particularly advantageous for students traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields. 

Partnerships between high school and college.

To encourage the underrepresented majority to pursue STEM degrees, better integration between high 

school and college is needed. High schools and colleges could collaborate on development of bridge 

programs that would prepare students for college during the summer between high school and college 

(e.g., Appendix H, Box H-1 and H-2). Typically, high school juniors and seniors in these programs live on 

campus and receive classroom instruction, research experience, career counseling, SAT and ACT prep 

classes, and mentoring from students and faculty.

Most of these programs, such as Carnegie Mellon University’s Summer Academy for Mathematics and 

Science106 and the California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science,107 are open to high 

school students statewide or nationwide. Some are aimed at the underrepresented majority to provide 

incoming students with the intellectual, personal, and social supports they will need to excel.

The majority of partnerships between high schools and colleges and universities that aim to increase 

the number of students entering STEM pathways do so indirectly by providing better teacher training 

and support, which in turn can lead to more students interested in STEM disciplines and better prepared 

to enter college. Such programs can train high school teachers to use new tools for active learning that 

engage students in hands-on STEM activities. These programs also can provide on-site coaching and 

leadership development for principals and other administrators. 

Partnerships between two- and four-year institutions.

Two-year colleges are both a major source of STEM degrees and a conduit into STEM fields for many 

students, including many members of the underrepresented majority.108 In many cases, 2-year colleges 

106. See Carnagie Melon University’s website: 

http://www.cmu.edu/enrollment/summerprogramsfordiversity/sams.html. 

107. See California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science: 

http://www.ucop.edu/cosmos/.

108. Chen, G. (2009) The Minority Report: How Minority Students are Really Faring at Community Colleges. Community 

College Review: http://www.communitycollegereview.com/articles/202.
★ 32 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

are geographically closer to students who would have difficulty attending a four-year school. They also 

are typically less costly than 4-year institutions.109

The transition from a 2-to 4-year college can be difficult, especially for members of groups underrepresented in STEM fields. For example, through a combination of bridge programs, building a community 

of support for STEM students, increasing student research opportunities, and reevaluating teaching 

and research practices,110 the University of Texas-El Paso boosted graduation rates in STEM disciplines 

by nearly 50% from 2000 to 2006 and more than doubled the number of STEM baccalaureate degrees 

awarded to Hispanics,111 transforming it into the largest producer of Mexican-American STEM graduates 

in the Nation. 112, 113 

Collaborative partnerships between 2-year colleges and 4-year institutions would provide greater access 

to and opportunities for advanced STEM education (see Appendix H, Box H-4) and advanced training 

for those students who do not pursue a 4-year degree. Large state systems, such as the University of 

California and California State University systems, have long-standing programs like MESA (Mathematics, 

Engineering, Science Achievement) that create partnerships between 4-year universities and neighboring 2-year colleges to align curricula and work with students to ensure that they are well-prepared for the 

transition to bachelor’s degree programs in STEM disciplines. Courses at the community college vetted 

by university faculty not only provide the necessary intellectual rigor but also allow students to develop 

relationships with faculty prior to transferring. In addition, students enrolled in these programs can be 

granted access to libraries and can be provided with opportunities to participate in cultural and athletic 

events at the university, helping them more easily integrate into campus life upon successful transfer.

Partnerships involving minority-serving Institutions.

Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) can serve as key intermediaries to improve the numbers, preparation, and diversity of students interested in STEM fields.114,

115 For example, through a combination of bridge 

programs, building a community of support for STEM students, increasing student research opportunities, and 

reevaluating teaching and research practices, the University of Texas-El Paso has boosted graduation rates 

in STEM disciplines by nearly 50%, transforming it into the largest producer of Mexican-American STEM 

graduates in the Nation.116 Several White House initiatives have directed funds to MSIs to increase the 

109. Phillippe, K.A. and L. Gonzalez Sullivan. (2005). National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends & Statistics.

American Association of Community Colleges. Washington DC: Community College Press.

110. Brown, S. (2009). “Making the Next Generation our Greatest Resource” in Latinos and the Nation’s Future, H. 

Cisneros and J. Rosales (eds.) Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.

111. http://step.utep.edu./ The calculation of the six-year graduation rate considers only first-time full-time (FTFT) 

fall-entering students. The rate is defined as the fraction of a FTFT fall-entering student cohort that graduated six years 

after being admitted.

112. Rodriguez, C., R. Kirshstein, M. Hale, (2005). “Creating and Maintaining Excellence: The Model Institutions for 

Excellence Program “, prepared for The National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. 

113. This version includes some changes that clarify ambiguities in an earlier draft.

114. Cullinane, J. and L. H. Leegwater. (2009). Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: The Model Replication Institutions 

Program. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

115. Southern Education Foundation. (2005). Igniting Potential: Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Atlanta, GA.

116. Brown, S. (2009). “Making the Next Generation our Greatest Resource” in Latinos and the Nation’s Future, H. 

Cisneros and J. Rosales (eds.) Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 33 ★

number of minority students who not only start but finish STEM degree programs.117 Collaborative 

efforts between MSIs and other colleges and universities could greatly improve educational experiences 

in STEM disciplines. Programs that enhance STEM curricula at MSIs and that focus on improving the 

readiness of first-year students, often through summer research experiences and laboratory experiences at partnering research universities, have shown marked success at both increasing enrollment 

and retention of students in STEM disciplines (see Appendix H, Box H-5).

Partnerships between the private sector and undergraduate STEM education.

Many U.S. businesses are active supporters of STEM efforts in high schools, colleges, and universities. 

Recently, however, the U.S. business community has recognized that its traditional role of partnering 

with existing institutions to promote best practices, provide resources, and involve corporate supporters 

offers some aid but is not likely to produce the radical change needed to meet future STEM workforce 

needs.118 Providing mentoring for promising STEM students through cooperative education, learn and 

earn, and internship programs is an important and proven avenue by which businesses can both recruit 

future workers and help students complete their studies.Not only do cooperative education experiences 

provide the kind of hands-on training shown to increase student retention in STEM programs, but they 

also produce students who more quickly integrate into the workplace and express higher rates of job 

satisfaction (e.g., Appendix H, Boxes H-6 and H-7). 

There are several ongoing efforts in this area at the Federal level focused on distinct aspects of the 

STEM workforce, and these should be incorporated into a broader strategy for partnerships between 

industry and institutions of higher education to improve engagement and training of undergraduate 

students in STEM disciplines. For example, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness119 has 

set a goal to double internship offerings from partnering businesses to increase the supply of qualified 

and trained American engineers.120 In addition, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership,121 launched 

by President Obama in June 2011 in response to recommendations from a PCAST report on the topic,122

has a workstream on education and workforce demand that is exploring opportunities for partnerships 

between employers and educational institutions, with a particular focus on community colleges but 

also including high schools and universities. 

An untraditional avenue by which businesses can partner with universities to bolster pathways to STEM 

careers is to help transitioning employees become STEM educators. IBM launched such a program in 

2005123 and has helped over 100 employees start new careers in teaching. The program works with 

117. See White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-index.html.

118. Hess, F.M., A.P. Kelly, and O. Meeks. (2011). The Case for Being Bold: A New Agenda for Business in Improving STEM 

Education. Washington, DC: Institute for a Competitive Workforce.

119. See President’s Council on Jobs and Competiveness website: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council.

120. See Jobs Council Internship Commitment Announcement. http://energy.gov/articles/president-s-counciljobs-and-competitiveness-announces-industry-leaders-commitment-double.

121. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/amp.

122. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2011). Report to the President on Ensuring 

American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. Washington, DC: PCAST. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

microsites/ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-june2011.pdf.

123. See IBM’s ‘IBM “Transition to Teaching”Teaching’ Program: 

http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/teaching.shtml.
★ 34 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

university partners to provide employees who have engineering, health, computing, and science backgrounds with the resources needed to custom-tailor their own teacher preparation through on-line and 

traditional classes while retaining their jobs at IBM until their training is complete.

Actions to Achieve Recommendation 4.

Increasing the number and strength of pathways to STEM fields during the first two years of college 

requires a coordinated strategy involving not just the Federal Government but K-12 education, higher 

education, businesses, and the nonprofit sector, including foundations. Still, the Federal Government 

can lead this effort through strategic planning, reallocation of funding, and strong leadership.

4-1 Sponsor at the Department of Education summer STEM learning programs for high school 

students.

The Department of Education should roll out the summer learning programs authorized in the 

2007 America Competes Act (in an amendment introduced by then-Senator Obama), funded 

in part by the Federal Government, in partnership with state and local entities. To cover the full 

costs of such programs, state and local entities should recruit institutions of higher education 

and private industry as partners. As an expansion of the original proposal, these programs should 

be focused on mathematics, engineering, and science for high school students. In particular, 

these programs should provide mathematics instruction to prepare students to be college- and 

career-ready and provide hands-on STEM experiences. Based on the size of National Science 

Foundation’s former Young Scholars Program for summer institutes, we recommend investment of $10 million to fund approximately 100 projects reaching on the order of 5000 students, 

annually, including significant cost-sharing with academic institutions and private investors. 

In addition, as authorized in the law, the Department of Education should establish a “Summer 

Learning Grants Website” that would provide information for students, parents, and educators 

on successful programs, curricula, and best practices for summer learning opportunities. 

4-2 Expand a Department of Labor Program scope to encourage pathways from two-year to 

four-year institutions. 

The mission of the Department of Labor’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College 

and Career Training initiative should be expanded beyond development of important partnerships between community and technical colleges and employers in the private sector to 

encourage scientific research and engineering design exchanges across 2- and 4-year institutions. Alternatively, these activities could be funded through a strategic focus of the Department 

of Labor’s Career Pathways Innovation Fund on research partnerships. NSF’s Advancing Technical 

Education program could also be focused on cross institutional collaborations. The bridges 

described here should provide authentic STEM experiences for community college students on 

the 4-year campus and allow them to develop relations with faculty and the college or university 

community to ease the potential transition from a 2- to 4-year institution or to provide advanced 

experiences and inspiration for students who do not pursue a 4-year degree.
IV. A Multi - Facted Approach: Reaching the Tipping Point

★ 35 ★

4-3 Establish public-private partnerships to support successful STEM programs.

To enhance students’ STEM readiness, the Federal Government should engage private industry 

and foundations to support successful programs that create bridges between high schools and 

colleges and between 2- and 4-year institutions and ensure that programs incorporate learning 

standards and content consistent with industry-recognized skills. In the model of Change the 

Equation, for which business leaders stood with President Obama and committed financial 

investment in strategies that work in K-12 STEM education, the President should call on foundations and private industry to commit to improving recruitment and retention in undergraduate STEM education and to partner with Federal agencies to expand education technologies, 

provide internships to students in the first two years of college, and invest in programs with 

proven success (such as cohort programs, bridge programs, and certification programs linking 

community college and technical education to industry-recognized standards). 

Particular attention should be paid to U.S. military veterans who often have exceptional levels 

of motivation, maturity, and focus along with STEM skills gained during their service. Defenserelated industries should consider partnerships with the Department of Defense and Veterans 

Affairs to support efforts to train and certify veterans for careers in STEM and STEM-capable fields. 

This commitment could involve industry offering internships and learn and earn programs to 

veterans who enroll in college to enhance their workplace experience and improve their jobreadiness upon graduation. 

4-4 Improve data provided by the Department of Education and the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

to STEM students, parents, and the greater community on STEM disciplines and the labor 

market.

The private sector and the Federal agencies that run laboratories and employ STEM professionals and the STEM-capable workforce have a vested interest in high-quality information about 

effective STEM education and relevant data about workforce supply, demand, and skill levels. 

Current data sources, however, limit their ability to answer important questions about the skills 

and choices of workers and about trends in the supply of and demand for a STEM and STEMcapable workforce. One way to help mitigate this data gap would be to resurvey members of 

cohorts followed in the High School and Beyond and National Education Longitudinal studies. 

Also, the National Center for Education Statistics within the Department of Education’s Institute 

of Education Sciences should facilitate the enhancement of state student unit record systems 

to permit matching to postsecondary school data and labor market outcomes.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics should redefine employment categories around STEM jobs to 

reflect the breadth of jobs that require STEM skills, including STEM-capable jobs, such as medical 

and advanced manufacturing professionals and K-12 STEM educators.
★ 36 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Recommendation 5.

Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the 

academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for 

transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.

Rationale for Recommendation 5.

The leadership of higher education and STEM-dependent industries needs to be inspired to generate sweeping change in higher education to produce the workforce America needs. The leaders in these sectors need 

to be challenged by the country’s political leaders to think creatively, design and implement programs, to 

challenge existing reward structures, and to raise money from private donors to benefit STEM education. 

The White House should add its voice to this cause to help these leaders take charge of STEM education in 

their institutions and lead the way to new levels of achievement in STEM education.

Actions to achieve Recommendation 5.

The leadership of higher education and STEM-enabled businesses needs to be inspired to generate sweeping 

changes in higher education to produce the workforce America needs. Toward this end, we recommend that 

the President, via Executive Order, form a Presidential Council on STEM Education to provide advice and 

leadership on postsecondary STEM education. The council should include members that represent the 

breadth of academic institutions, professional societies, businesses, and private foundations involved 

in the development and use of human capital in STEM fields. Based on the guidance provided in this 

report, the council should make recommendations that advance the quality of postsecondary STEM 

education through all mechanisms available to the President. The council could provide a forum for 

leaders in the public and private sectors to weigh in on the development and deployment of metrics 

to evaluate STEM departments (Recommendation 1) and to design collaborative coalitions to support 

initiatives in STEM education (Recommendation 4), including expanding internship programs in industry 

and connecting industrial research agendas with research courses (Recommendation 2). In addition, it 

could provide advice and review for the National Experiment in Mathematics Undergraduate Education 

(Recommendation 3) and could conduct further study of the mathematics education issue, if necessary. 
★ 37 ★

V. Engage to Excel: 

Summary of Recommendations, 

Actions, and Estimated Costs
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 38 ★

Table 5: Engage to Excel: Summary of Recommendations, Actions, and Estimated Costs

1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

Action Agency and Estimated Cost

Establish discipline-focused programs funded by Federal 

agencies, academic institutions, professional societies, 

and foundations to train (1) current and (2) future faculty 

in evidence-based teaching practices.

1. NSF and other agencies should partner with foundations and 

disciplinary societies to expand existing teacher training programs 

($10-$15 M per year over five years to train 23,000 to 46,000 STEM 

faculty). 

2. All agencies that provide training grants for graduate students and 

postdocs, through a combination of training grants and institutional 

funds.

(1) Create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” 

competitive grants program at NSF.

(2) Develop an online presence to share data and best 

practices.

1. NSF’s proposed Widening Implementation and Demonstration of 

Evidence-based Reforms (WIDER) program. $20 M per year over five 

years to fund 100 multi-year projects.

2. Education through proposed First in the World Initiative or ARPA-Ed.

Request that the National Academies develop metrics to 

evaluate STEM education. NSF and Education to request this study, with cost to be determined.

2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.

Action Agency and Estimated Cost

Expand the use of scientific research and engineering 

design courses in the first two years through an NSF 

program.

NSF, with initial funding possibly through Transforming Undergraduate 

Education in Science (TUES) or Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) at $12.5 M, annually 

(i.e. 10 Type 3 TUES or Type 1 STEP proposals per year at an average of 

$1.2M).

Expand opportunities for student research in faculty 

laboratories by (1) reducing restrictions on Federal 

research funds, (2) giving special consideration to 

training grants that establish collaborations between 

research universities and other institutions, and (3) 

redefining a Department of Education program.

1. All Federal agencies should make it possible to use undergraduate 

research program funds for first- and second-year students. 

2. Federal agencies that fund programs for minority institutions could 

encourage cross-institution research partnerships. 

3. Include research opportunities as technical education, such as that 

supported by the Department of Education’s Carl D. Perkins CTE 

program.

3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics-preparation gap.

Action Agency and Estimated Cost

Support a national experiment in mathematics 

undergraduate education focused on: (1) summer 

programs; (2) remedial courses including use of 

technology; (3) discipline-based mathematics instruction, 

and (4) new pathways for K-12 mathematics teachers.

Fund 200 sites at an average of $500,000 over five years, or $20 M 

per year for five years, with funds from: NSF’s TUES or STEP programs, 

DOL’s Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career 

Training (TAACCCT) Grant Program or Career Pathways Innovation 

Fund, and Education’s proposed First in the World Initiative.

4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.

Action Agency and Estimated Cost

Sponsor summer STEM learning programs for high 

school students.

Education as authorized in the America Competes Act ($10m to fund 

about 100 projects reaching on the order of 5000 students, annually).

Expand the scope of a DOL program and focus an 

NSF program to encourage pathways from 2-4 year 

institutions.

DOL’s TAACCCT Grant Program initiative or Career Pathways Innovation 

Fund or NSF’s Advancing Technical Education program to support 

community college-university or college research and design 

partnerships.

Establish public-private Agency-Institution-Industry 

partnerships to support successful STEM programs. All STEM and education-focused Federal agencies. 

Improve data provided to STEM students, parents, and 

the greater community on STEM education disciplines 

and the labor market. 

Department of Education should devote more resources to tracking 

students from high school into their careers. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics should redefine employment categories to 

include in “STEM” the breadth of jobs that require STEM skills.

5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to 

provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education. 
★ 39 ★

Appendix A: 

Experts Providing Input to PCAST

PCAST and its STEM Undergraduate Education Working Group express gratitude to the following individuals, who contributed input by attending meetings or by responding to requests for information: 

Joann Boughman

Chief Executive Officer

American Society of Human Genetics

David Burgess

Professor of Biology

Boston College 

Board Member, Treasurer, and Past-President 

Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and 

Native Americans in Science

Ashwin Ram

Director, Cognitive Computing Lab and Associate 

Professor, College of Computing 

Georgia Tech

Founder

Enkia Corporation

Cliff Adelman

Senior Associate

Institute for Higher Education Policy

Bruce Alberts

Editor-in-Chief

Science

Mary Ann Rankin

Dean, College of Natural Sciences 

University of Texas at Austin

Joseph Aoun

President

Northeastern University

David Asai

Director of the Precollege and Undergraduate 

Science Education Programs

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Margaret Ashida

Project Director

Empire State STEM Education Initiative

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

Debbie Bial

President

The Posse Foundation

Board on Science Education (BOSE)

Division of Behavioral and Social Science and 

Education, National Research Council 

The National Academies

Kenneth Boutte, Sr.

Professor of Biology and Associate Dean of 

Summer Programs and External Initiatives

Xavier University of Louisiana

Michelle Cahill

Vice President for National Programs

Carnegie Corporation of New York

Anthony Carnevale

Research Professor and Director, Georgetown 

University Center on Education and the 

Workforce

Georgetown University

Julie Carruthers

Senior Science and Technology Advisor

Office of the Deputy Director of Science 

Programs 

U.S. Department of Energy

David Conley

Professor of Educational Policy and Leaders, 

College of Education

University of Oregon
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 40 ★

Sandra Everett

Technical Projects and Training Manager

Lorain County Community College

Nord Advanced Technology Center

John Ewing

President

Math for America

Joan Ferrini-Mundy

Assistant Director for Education and Human 

Resources

National Science Foundation

Norman Fortenberry

Executive Director

American Society for Engineering Education

Richard Freeman

Herbert Ascherman Chair of Economics

Harvard University

Jeff Froyd

Director of Academic Development, Dwight Look 

College of Engineering

Project Director, NSF Foundation Coalition

Texas A&M University

William Gary

Vice President for Workforce Development

Northern Virginia Community College

Marybeth Gasman

Professor

University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of 

Education

Howard Gobstein

Executive Vice President for Research, Innovation, 

and STEM Education

Association of Public and Land Grant Universities

Co-Director

Science and Mathematics Teaching Imperative

William Goggin

Executive Director

Federal Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance

U.S. Department of Education

Gary Green

President

Forsyth Technical Community College

Peter Henderson

Director 

Board on Higher Education and Workforce 

National Research Council

The National Academies

Gary Hoachlander

President

ConnectEd: The California Center for College 

and Career

Freeman Hrabowski

President

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Raynard Kington

President

Grinnell College

Kate Kirby

Executive Officer

American Physical Society

Mary Kirchhoff

Director

American Chemical Society Education Division

Ken Koedinger

Director

Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center 

Professor

Human-Computer Interaction Institute

Carnegie Mellon University
Appendix A: Experts Providing Input to P CA S T 

★ 41 ★

Dennis Kox

Manager

Advanced Manufacturing 

Raytheon Missile Systems

Michael Lach‡

Special Assistant

U.S. Department of Education

Alan Leshner

Chief Executive Officer

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science

Executive Publisher

Science

James Lightbourne

Senior Advisor

Directorate for Education and Human Resources

National Science Foundation

Anne MacLoughlin

Senior Researcher

Center for Studies in Higher Education

University of California, Berkeley

Cathy Manduca

Director

Science Education Resource Center 

Carleton College

Robert Mathieu

Professor of Astronomy

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Director

Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, 

and Learning (CIRTL)

Krish Mathur

STEM Liason

Office of Post Secondary Education

Program Officer

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education

U.S. Department of Education

Irving McPhail

President and CEO

National Action Council for Minorities in 

Education

Harris Miller

CEO and President

Association of Private Sector Colleges and 

Universities (APSCU)

Mitzi Montoya

Vice Provost and Dean, College of Technology & 

Innovation

Chair

Department of Technological Entrepreneurship & 

Innovation Management 

Arizona State University

Jeanne Narum

Director 

Independent Colleges Office

Founding Director

Project Kaleidoscope

Patrick Natale

Executive Director, Chief Staff Officer and 

Secretary

American Society of Civil Engineers

Ben Noel

President and Chief Executive Officer

360Ed

Willard Nott

Vice President for Public Awareness

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Jane Oates

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training

U.S. Department of Labor

Eduardo Ochoa

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

U.S. Department of Education
★ 42 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Michael Pearson

Associate Executive Director

Mathematical Association of America

Jan Plass

Co-Director

NYU Games for Learning Institute (G4LI)

Founding Director

CREATE 

Professor of Educational Communication and 

Technology

New York University

Clifton Poodry

Director

Division of Minority Opportunities in Research

National Institutes of Health

Samuel Rankin, III

Associate Executive Director

American Mathematical Society

Mark Regets

Senior Program Officer

Board on Higher Education Workforce (BHEW) 

National Research Council

The National Academies Senior Analyst

Science and Engineering Indicators Program 

Division of Science Resources Statistics

National Science Foundation 

Linda Roberts

Former Director

Office of Education Technology

U.S. Department of Education

Steven Robinson

Special Assistant

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

White House Domestic Policy Council

Deborah Santiago

Co-founder and Vice-President for Policy and 

Research

Excelencia in Education

Victor Santiago

Deputy Division Director

Division of Human Resource Development

National Science Foundation

Martin Scaglione

President and COO

Workforce Development Division

ACT, Inc. 

Mel Schiavelli

President

Harrisburg University of Science & Technology

Betty Shanahan

Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer

Society of Women Engineers

Tobin Smith

Vice President for Policy

Association of American Universities 

Blair Smith

Dean

College of Information Systems and Technology 

University of Phoenix

Michael Staton

Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder

Inigral, Inc.

Martin Storksdieck

Director

Board on Science Education

National Research Council

The National Academies

Vincent Tinto

Distinguished University Professor

Former Chair 

Higher Education Program

Syracuse University

Mark Tomlinson

Executive Director and General Manager

Society of Manufacturing Engineers
Appendix A: Experts Providing Input to P CA S T 

★ 43 ★

Josh Trapani

Senior Policy Analyst

Association of American Universities

Uri Treisman

Professor of Mathematics and Public Affairs

University of Texas at Austin

Founder and Director

Charles A. Dana Center

Jodi Wesemann

Treasurer and Member of the Board

Association for Women in Science

John Wilson

Executive Director

White House Initiative on Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities

Michael Wolf

Supervisory Economist

Employment Projections Program

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Bill Wood

Co-Director

National Academies Summer Institute on 

Undergraduate Education in Biology

Professor, Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental 

Biology

University of Colorado at Boulder

Frederico Zaragoza

Vice Chancellor of Economic and Workforce 

Development

Alamo Colleges

Rodney Ulane

NIH Training Officer

Director, Division of Scientific Programs

Office of Extramural Research

National Institutes of Health

‡ As of November 2011, Michael Lach serves as Director of STEM Education at the Urban Education Institute, 

 University of Chicago.

★ 45 ★

Appendix B: 

Acknowledgements

PCAST wishes to express gratitude to the following individuals who contributed in various ways to the 

preparation of this report:

Asha Balakrishnan

Research Staff Member

Science and Technology Policy Institute

Greg Gershuny ‡

Confidential Assistant

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

Michelle Costanzo

Student Volunteer

PCAST

Michael Feder

Policy Analyst

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

Dara Fisher

Student Volunteer

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

Kumar Garg

Policy Analyst

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

Gera Jochum

Policy Analyst

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

Thomas Kalil

Deputy Director for Policy

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

Brandon Ledford

Student Volunteer

PCAST

Elizabeth Lee

Research Assistant

Science and Technology Policy Institute

Justin Scott

Research Staff Member

Science and Technology Policy Institute

Sam Thomas

Research Assistant

Science and Technology Policy Institute

Maya Uppaluru

Student Volunteer

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy 

Carl Wieman

Associate Director for Science

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy

‡ Greg Gershuny left OSTP to join the White House Office of Presidential Personnel as the Energy and

 Environment Director in October 2011.

★ 47 ★

Appendix C: 

STEM Higher Education Enrollment, 

Persistence, and Completion Data

Appendix C describes data regarding the STEM enrollment, persistence and completion for students 

studying at post-secondary institutions. This appendix is the result of work done by Institute for Defense 

Analyses’ (IDA) Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI).

Figure C-1. Number of Institutions by Sector, 1994 to 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure C-2. Number of Institutions by Sector Breakdown, 2009 49

Figure C-3. Total Undergraduate Enrollments in all Fields by Institutional Sector, 

1999 to 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure C-4. Total Undergraduate Enrollments Breakdown (in thousands), 2008 . . . . . . 50

Table C-1. Distribution of Gender by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 2003-04 . . .51

Table C-2. Enrolled Major by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Figure C-5. Percentage of Institutional Sector Enrollments by Field, 2003-04 . . . . . . . 53

Figure C-6. Distribution of Race/Ethnicity by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 

2003-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure C-7. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure C-8. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table C-3. Persistence in Enrolled Majors Between 2003-04 and 2009 Among 

Bachelor’s Degree Attainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table C-4. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2003-04 . . . . . .58

Figure C-9. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2009 . . . . . . . 59

Table C-5. 2009 Attainment Level by Major When First Enrolled in 2003-04 60
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 48 ★

Table C-6. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Major Field of Study in 2003-04 61

Table C-7. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Demographic Characteristics 62

Figure C-10. STEM and Total Degrees Conferred, 2001-009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

Figure C-11 STEM Degrees as a Percentage of Total Degrees Conferred, 2001-2009 . . . . . 63

Figure C-12 STEM, Health, and Social Science Bachelor’s Degrees, 1995-2009 . . . . . . . 64

Figure C-13 STEM, Health, and Social Science Associate’s Degrees 1995-2009 . . . . . . . 65

Table C-8. Percentage of Degrees Conferred by Race/ Ethnicity, 2009 . . . . . . . . . .66
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 49 ★

Derived from: IPEDS, National Center for Education Statistics Derived from: IPEDS, National Center for Education Statistics

Figure C-1. Number of Institutions by Sector, 

1994 to 2009

Figure C-2. Number of Institutions by 

Sector Breakdown, 2009

Definitions of Institution Type and Institutional Control:

Public 4-year and above Public institutions that have at least one-degree program that confers 4-year 

degrees; yet not all degrees conferred are 4-year degrees

Not-for-profit 4 year and above Not-for-profit institutions that have at least one-degree program that confers 

4-year degrees; yet not all degrees conferred are 4-year degrees

For-profit 4-year and above For-profit institutions that have at least one-degree program that confers 4-year 

degrees; yet not all degrees conferred are 4-year degrees

Public 2-year

Public institutions that confer 2-year degrees; Often referred to as Community 

Colleges

Not-for-profit 2-year Not-for-profit institutions that confer 2-year degrees

For-profit 2-year For-profit institutions that confer 2-year degrees

Key Points (Figure C-1 and Figure C-2):

• Overall, the number of higher education institutions has remained steady over the past five years.

• There has been an increase in the number of for-profit institutions, and a slight decline in the number 

of not-for-profit institutions in the past decade.
★ 50 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Derived from: IPEDS, WebCASPAR Derived from: IPEDS, WebCASPAR

Figure C-3. Total Undergraduate Enrollments in all 

Fields by Institutional Sector, 1999 to 2008

Figure C-4. Total Undergraduate Enrollments 

Breakdown (in thousands), 2008

Key Points (Figure C-3 and Figure C-4):

• Four-year and above not-for-profit institutions outnumber the other institutions sectors.

• Enrollments at all institution types have been increasing steadily over the past decade.

• Public 4-year and 2-year institutions have larger enrollments than the other institution types.
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 51 ★

Table C-1. Distribution of Gender by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 2003-04

Gender

Estimates (%) Male Female Total

Total 42.5 57.5 100

First institution sector (level and control) 2003-04

Public 4-year 44.8 55.2 100

Not-for-profit 4-year 43.9 56.1 100

For-profit 4-year 40.3 59.7 100

Public 2-year 43.4 56.6 100

Not-for-profit 2-year 42.5 57.5 100

For-profit 2-year 44.6 55.4 100

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09)

Key Points (Table C-1):

• The ratio of male students to female students across all institution sectors is fairly equal, with 

females representing about 55-60% of the student population.
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 52 ★

Table C-2. Enrolled Major by Gender

Major When First Enrolled in 2003-04

STEM Majors

Estimates 

(%)

STEM 

Total Life Sci Phys Sci Math Comp/ Info Sci Engineering/ Eng Tech Science Tech Health Professions Social Sci Other Non-STEM Undeclared Total

Total 12.4 3.0 0.7 0.4 3.8 4.4 0.1 13.4 4.7 37.2 32.3 100GenderMale 20.6 3.3 0.8 0.3 6.9 9.1 0.2 ! 4.5 4.2 36.2 34.5 100Female 6.3 2.7 0.6 0.4 1.5 1.0 0.1 ! 19.9 5.1 38.0 30.7 100

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).Notes: Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because 

the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate. These data represent the percentage of students majoring in various disciplines when first enrolled at post-secondary institutions. However, these data do not represent the fields in which these students received degrees.

Key Points (Table C-2):

• Of those enrolled at postsecondary institutions, 12.4% of all students first enroll in a STEM discipline.• Of males enrolled at postsecondary institutions, 20.6% first enroll in a STEM discipline.• Of females enrolled at postsecondary institutions, 6.3% first enroll in a STEM discipline.
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 53 ★

Figure C-5. Percentage of Institutional Sector Enrollments by Field, 2003-04

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Notes: For-Profit 4-year Health Professions, Not-for-Profit 2-year STEM and Health Professions, For-Profit 2-year STEM and Health Professions 

data should be interpreted with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the 

estimate.

Key Points (Figure C-5):

• Of all students enrolled in STEM fields, 41.6% are enrolled at public 4-year institutions, 31.0% 

are enrolled in public 2-year institutions and 14.9% are enrolled in not-for-profit institutions.
★ 54 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Notes: Asian/ Pacific Islander For-Profit 4-year/2-year data should be interpreted with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error 

represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. American Indian/ Alaska Native For-Profit 4-year/2-year data should be interpreted 

with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

Key Points (Figure C-6):

• Of those first enrolled across all disciplines at 4-year public or not-for profit institutions, 69.9% 

are white, 9.8% are black/African American and 9.7% are Hispanic/Latino. 

• Of those first enrolled at the 2-year institutions, the percentage of whites is lower, and the percentages of underrepresented minorities are higher.

Figure C-6. Distribution of Race/Ethnicity by Institutional Sector When First Enrolled, 2003-04
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 55 ★

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Notes: These data represent the type of field in which a student was last enrolled during the longitudinal survey follow up in 2009. This 

includes students who may have dropped out as it represents “field when last enrolled”—not taking into account whether or not the 

student completed a degree, was still enrolled or dropped out.

Key Points (Table C-7):

• During the second follow-up in 2009, 23.6% of male students when last enrolled at postsecondary institutions were enrolled in STEM fields.

• During the second follow-up in 2009, 9.2% of female students when last enrolled at postsecondary institutions were enrolled in STEM fields.

Figure C-7. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Gender
★ 56 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Notes: American Indian/ Alaska Native STEM and Health Professions data should be interpreted with caution. Estimate is unstable because 

the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate.

Key Points (Figure C-8):

• During the second follow-up in 2009, 26.0% of Asians and 15.9% of Whites were last enrolled 

in a STEM field, while 9.8-11.9% of underrepresented minority groups were last enrolled in a 

STEM field.

Figure C-8. Estimates of Enrolled Field by Race/Ethnicity
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 57 ★

Table C-3. Persistence in Enrolled Majors Between 2003-04 and 2009 Among Bachelor’s Degree Attainers

Major When Last Enrolled 2009

STEM

Estimates (%) Life Sci Phys Sci Math

Comp/ 

Info Sci

Engineering/ 

Eng Tech Sci Tech Social Sci

Health 

Profes-sions

Other 

Non-STEM Un-declared Total

Total 7.9 1.8 1.3 2.5 6 0.0 !! 17.3 6.5 56.5 0.2 !! 100

Major when first enrolled in 2003-04Life Sci 56.5 4.3 ! 0.8 !! 0 1.6 ! 0 10.5 5.4 20.9 0 100

Phys Sci 23.1 35.4 3.6 !! 0 3.8 !! 0 13.5 ! 2.6 !! 18.0 ! 0 100Math 2.3 !! 2.3!! 54.9 1.4 !! 4.3 !! 0 15.3 ! 0 19.5 ! 0 100Comp/Info Sci 1.2 !! 0 2.6 ! 48.1 4.3 ! 0 11.4 0 32 0.4 !! 100

Engineering/ Eng Tech 4.6 ! 1.3 ! 2.2 ! 4.2 ! 65.1 0 3.3 ! 0.7 !! 17.8 0.9 !! 100Social Sci 2.5 ! 0.3 !! 0.3 0.1 !! 1.3 !! 0 65.7 1.2 !! 28.6 0 100

Sci Tech ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 100Health Professions 13.8 1.2 ! 0 1.1 !! 0.7 !! 0 7.8 43 32.4 0 100Other Non-STEM 1.8 0.3 ! 0.9 ! 1 0.9 0 9.3 2.9 82.9 0 100Undeclared 7.8 2.6 0.7 ! 1.9 ! 3.1 0.0 !! 22.7 5.1 55.5 0.5 !! 100

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).Notes: ‡ Reporting standards not met. ! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. !! Interpret data with 

caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

Key Points (Table C-3):

• Among students first enrolled in Life Sciences in 2003-04, 56.5% attained a bachelor’s degree in Life Sciences by 2009.• Among STEM fields, bachelor’s degree attainment within the field of original enrollment was highest among engineering and 

engineering technician enrollees at 65.1%.
★ 58 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table C-4. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2003-04

Attainment or level at last institution enrolled through 2009

Completers Persisters Leavers

Estimates 

(%)

Attained 

bachelor’s 

degree

Attained 

associate’s 

degree

Attained 

certificate

No 

degree, 

enrolled 

at 4-year

No 

degree, 

enrolled 

at lessthan-4-

year

No degree, 

not 

enrolled Total

Total 30.7 9.3 9.4 7.1 7.9 35.5 100

Field when First Enrolled in 2003-04

STEM 40.8 10.0 3.7 8.6 5.5 31.5 100

Non-STEM 30.0 10.2 10.6 6.8 7.6 34.8 100

Undeclared 28.1 7.6 9.7 6.9 9.5 38.2 100

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Key Points (Table C-4):

• Students first enrolled in STEM fields have a higher degree of postsecondary degree attainment 

than students first enrolled in other fields. 

• 40.8% of students first enrolled in a STEM field attained a bachelor’s degree in any field, while 

30.0% of students in a non-STEM field and 28.8% of students who were first undeclared attained 

a bachelor’s degree.
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 59 ★

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Notes: The attainment levels are aggregated into three higher-level categories: completers, persisters, and leavers.

Key Points (Figure C-9):

• Overall, 31.5% of students first enrolled in STEM had no degree and were no longer enrolled 

after the 6 year follow-up, while 34.8% of non-STEM students and 38.2% of undeclared students 

had dropped out.

Figure C-9. 2009 Attainment Level by Discipline When First Enrolled in 2009
★ 60 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table C-5. 2009 Attainment Level by Major When First Enrolled in 2003-04

Attainment or level at last institution enrolled through 2009

Completers Persisters Leavers

Estimates (%)

Attained 

bachelor’s 

degree

Attained 

associate’s 

degree

Attained

certificate

No 

degree, 

enrolled at 

4-year

No 

degree, 

enrolled at 

less-than4-year

No 

degree, 

not 

enrolled Total

Total 30.7 9.3 9.4 7.1 7.9 35.5 100

Major when first enrolled in 2003-04

Life Sci 56.7 8.6 1.8 ! 9.3 4.0 19.5 100

Physical Sci 57.9 6.1 !! 3.7 ! 8.7 ! 4.6 ! 18.9 100

Math 54.6 7.4 ! 4.1 ! 0.0 1.7 !! 32.3 100

Comp/ Info Sci 20.6 15.6 3.8 8.6 7.4 44.0 100

Engineering/ 

Eng Tech 44.6 8.0 4.6 ! 8.8 5.7 28.3 100

Science Tech 35.9 ! 11.8 !! 1.8 !! 4.3 !! 19.4 !! 26.9 ! 100

Social Sci 50.7 6.7 1.4 8.0 8.6 24.5 100

Health 

Professions 17.7 11.6 19.3 4.8 9.7 37.0 100

Other 

Non-STEM 31.7 10.1 8.7 7.4 6.6 35.6 100

Undeclared 28.1 7.6 9.7 6.9 9.5 38.2 100

Derived from: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Notes: ! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 30 percent of the estimate. 

!! Interpret data with caution. Estimate is unstable because the standard error represents more than 50 percent of the estimate.

Key Points (Table C-5):

• Students first enrolled in life sciences or physical sciences are more likely to attain bachelor’s 

degrees in any field (not necessarily a STEM field) than students first enrolled in non-STEM fields.
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 61 ★

Table C-6. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Major Field of Study in 2003-04

Degree Attainment and Persistence as of 2009

Completers Persisters Leavers

Estimates (%)

Attained 

a STEM 

degree

Attained 

non-STEM 

degree

No degree; 

enrolled in a 

STEM field

No degree; 

enrolled in 

a non-STEM 

field

Left 

postsecondary 

education 

without a 

degree Total

Total 8.1 42.2 1.8 13.5 34.5 100

Major field of study in 2003-04

STEM 35.1 21.6 5.7 8.9 28.7 100

•	 Math 40.3 27.3 0.0 1.9 !! 30.5 ! 100

•	 Life Sci 37.8 31.9 3.7 9.7 16.8 100

•	 Physical Sci 41.3 28.1 2.1 !! 11.5 ! 16.9 100

•	 Eng/ Eng 

Tech 41.8 16.9 7.2 7.9 26.2 100

•	 Comp/ Info 

Sci 24.6 16.7 6.6 ! 9.3 42.7 100

•	 Science 

Tech ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 100

Non-STEM 3.1 48.7 1.0 13.6 33.6 100

Undeclared 6.1 39.1 1.6 15.0 38.3 100

Derived from: Preliminary Estimate - U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Key Points (Table C-6):

• Among students first enrolled in STEM fields, 35.1% of students attained a STEM degree. 

• Among the STEM fields, students first enrolled in physical science and engineering/engineering technology had the highest percentage of degree attainment within a STEM field at above 

40% while computer science had the lowest at 24.6%.
★ 62 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table C-7. STEM and Non-STEM Attainment by Demographic Characteristics

Persistence in STEM field (excl social/behavioral sci) as of 2009

Completers Persisters Leavers

Estimates (%)

Attained 

a STEM 

degree

Attained 

non-STEM 

degree

No degree; 

enrolled in a 

STEM field

No degree; 

enrolled in 

a non-STEM 

field

Left without a 

degree Total

Total 8.1 42.2 1.8 13.5 34.5 100

Gender

Male 12.1 35.3 3.2 13.2 36.1 100

Female 5.1 47.3 0.7 13.6 33.3 100

Race/ethnicity

White 9.3 46.2 1.8 10.9 31.9 100

Black/ African 

American 4.1 32.6 1.2 19.5 42.7 100

Hispanic/ 

Latino 4.8 36.9 1.6 15.3 41.3 100

Asian 15.9 40.6 3.7 ! 17.6 22.2 100

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

5.7 !! 25.5 0.3 !! 26.0 ! 42.6 100

Native 

Hawaiian/ 

other Pacific 

Islander

4.9 !! 36.9 ! 0 22.7 !! 35.5 ! 100

Other 7.9 ! 37.8 1.4 !! 21.1 31.7 100

More than 

one race

7.0 37.5 2.7 ! 16.8 36 100

Derived from: Preliminary Estimate - U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09).

Key Points (Table C-7):

• Overall, 8.1% of who entered postsecondary education in 2004/5 had attained a STEM degree 

by 2009.

• Among male and female students who entered postsecondary education in 2004/5, 

12.1% and 5.1% attained a STEM degree, respectively.

• Asian and White students had the highest percent of degree attainment within a STEM field 

at approximately 16% and 9%, respectively, while a distribution of 4-6% of underrepresented 

minorities attained STEM degrees within their race/ethnicity groups.
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 63 ★

Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR

Figure C-10. STEM and Total Bachelor’s and Associate’s 

Degrees Conferred, 2001-2009

Figure C-11. STEM Bachelor’s and Associate’s 

Degrees as a Percentage of Total Degrees 

Conferred, 2001-2009

Key Points (Figure C-10 and Figure C-11): 

• A greater number of bachelor’s degrees are conferred than associate’s degrees.

• A greater percentage of bachelor’s degrees than associate’s degrees are conferred in STEM fields.

• STEM degrees as a percentage of all degrees conferred has declined since 2001 at both the 

bachelor’s and associate’s degree levels.

• The percentage of STEM associate’s degrees conferred decreased sharply between 2003 and 

2005, but has since leveled off. This trend is mostly due to the rise in associate’s degrees in health 

professions and the decrease in associate’s degrees in computer/information sciences.
★ 64 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR

Key Points (Figure C-12):

• Computer/information science bachelor’s degrees increased from 2000 to 2004, but reverted 

back to 2000 levels from 2005 to 2009.

• Engineering/engineering technologies bachelor’s degrees have remained steady over the past 

decade. 

Figure C-12. STEM, Health, and Social Science Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred, 1995-2009
Appendix C: STEM Higher Education Enrollment, Persistence, and Completion Data

★ 65 ★

Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR

Key Points (Figure C-13):

• Compared to conferred bachelor’s degrees, a greater proportion of associate’s degrees are 

conferred in health professions and computer/ information sciences.

Figure C-13. STEM, Health, and Social Science Associate’s Degrees Conferred, 1995-2009
★ 66 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table C-8. Percentage of Degrees Conferred by Race/ Ethnicity, 2009

Percentage of Degrees Conferred in 2009

STEM Majors

Race/Ethnicity

STEM 

Total Life Sci

Physical 

Sci Math

Comp/ 

Info Sci

Engineering/ 

Eng Tech Sci Tech Social Sci

Health 

Professions

Other 

NonSTEM Total

White 14.4 4.9 1.1 0.7 2.7 5.0 0.1 9.7 12.3 63.5 100Black 10.6 2.9 0.6 0.4 3.4 3.3 0.1 10.2 13.9 65.3 100Hispanic 11.9 3.4 0.7 0.5 2.6 4.7 0.1 10.5 10.8 66.8 100Asian/ Pacific Islander 23.0 10.0 1.7 1.1 3.0 7.1 0.1 12.5 11.0 53.5 100American Indian/ Alaska Native 13.1 4.9 1.0 0.4 2.6 4.1 0.1 9.6 12.6 64.7 100Derived from: NCES, IPEDS, WebCASPAR

Key Points (Table C-8):

• Among all White students who received degrees in 2009, 14.4% obtained degrees in a STEM field.• Across all race/ ethnicity categories, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students obtained STEM degrees at the highest percentages at 14% 

and 23%, respectively. That is, among the Asians who earned degrees in 2009, 23.0% of the degrees are in STEM. Among underrepresented minorities, 10.6% of Blacks and 11.9% of Hispanics earned degrees in STEM.
★ 67 ★

Appendix D: Economic Analysis 

of STEM Workforce Need

Appendix D describes data regarding the demand for STEM workers and the anticipated supply of STEM 

undergraduates from post-secondary higher education institutions. This appendix is the result of work 

done by IDA’s Science and Technology Policy Institute. 

Figure D-1. Estimated Percentages of Females in STEM Occupational Groups, 

 2001, 2005, and 2009 (Data Labels Indicate 2009 Values) . . . . . . . . . . 68 

Table D-1. Estimated Number of Employed Persons and Percentage of Unemployed 

 (Compared to Entire Labor Force), 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table D-2. Fastest Growing Jobs as Reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

 2008–2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Figure D-2. Estimated Race/Ethnicity of Labor Force in All STEM Occupations,

 2001, 2005, and 2009 72

Figure D-3. Historical and Projected Educational Attainment in STEM Occupations,

 Various Years from 1983 through 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Figure D-4. New and Replacement Job Openings and Occupational Distribution 

 between 2008 and 2018 74

Table D-3. Percent of Labor Force with Bachelor’s STEM Degrees (Columns) in 

 Corresponding STEM Occupations (Rows) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure D-5. Total Job Openings and the Distribution of Educational Demand 

 within Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure D-6. Projected Job Openings in STEM Occupations, 2008–2018 78
★ 68 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Figure D-1: STEM Workforce Definition 

Note: The categories of jobs that require STEM skills and understandings are expanding, generating 

additional demand for workers with STEM degrees.

• STEM Professionals. Workers who regularly draw on their expertise in STEM fields—including 

scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and technicians in STEM occupations—make up a relatively small but essential fraction of the U.S. workforce. They advance the frontiers of knowledge 

in industry, government, and academia, generating the new ideas and technologies that can 

transform entire industries and sectors of society. In colleges and universities, they also educate 

future generations of scientists, engineers, technicians, and mathematicians along with other 

students who will draw on STEM knowledge throughout their lives.

• The STEM-Capable Workforce. A much larger group of workers, whom we categorize in this report 

as the STEM-capable workforce, routinely use knowledge and skills developed in STEM fields 

as part of their jobs. Many of these people have STEM degrees or certificates but are working 

in jobs that would not be formally categorized as STEM occupations. At one end this group 

shades into the ranks of STEM professionals who develop and apply new knowledge. At the 

other end it shades into workers in all professions who use information and capabilities derived 

from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to analyze, communicate, innovate, 

manage, and strategize. For example, physicians, nurses and other health workers generally 

are not categorized as STEM professionals, yet many of these individuals draw heavily on STEM 

knowledge and skills in their jobs. As another example, the advanced manufacturing workforce 

requires proficiency in math, technology, and engineering principles to succeed in their jobs, 

from entry-level workers through graduate-degreed engineers.
★ 69 ★

APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED

• Non-STEM Workers Who Draw on STEM Skills. Many occupations today require higher levels of 

familiarity with STEM subjects than they did in the past.124 A proxy for these increased demands 

is the increasing level of education required for many jobs. Between 1973 and 2008, the share 

of jobs in the U.S. economy that required postsecondary education increased from 28% to 59%, 

and this percentage is projected to continue to increase.125 While college provides knowledge 

and skills other than STEM capabilities, the prominence of STEM subjects in higher education 

suggests that at least part of what employers are seeking is greater familiarity with STEM concepts and skills and STEM-derived technologies. One of many examples would be a market 

researcher who uses statistical techniques to draw conclusions; such a worker might fall into 

either this category or the previous category depending on the exact nature of the job.

• Non-STEM Workers Who Do Not Draw on STEM Skills. Many jobs in the economy do not draw 

directly on STEM skills. To again cite a specific example, athletes, singers, actors, and other entertainers typically do not draw on STEM subjects to do their jobs. However, even these individuals 

may need to master specific STEM content—for example, to devise a training regimen, or to 

create or disseminate artistic materials using new technologies.

In general, no job is completely isolated from the influence of new technologies and new ideas. All 

Americans regularly encounter the products of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in 

their jobs and in their daily lives, though they may not recognize the connection with STEM subjects. The 

decisions individuals make in supermarkets, doctors’ offices, and voting booths often depend at least 

in part on ideas drawn from STEM fields. To the extent that people are comfortable and familiar with 

STEM concepts, they are better able to take advantage of new opportunities and make good decisions 

on STEM-related issues. In doing so, they help create a cultural environment that is conducive to STEM 

endeavors and to the benefits those endeavors can produce.

124. Bresnahan, Timothy F., Erik Brynjolfsson, and Lorin M. Hitt. (2002). “Information Technology, Workplace 

Organization and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 339-376. For a 

contrasting view, see: Michael J. Handel. (2005). “Worker Skills and Job Requirements: Is There a Mismatch?” Washington, 

DC: Economic Policy Institute.

125. Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. (2010). “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education 

Requirements through 2018.” Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
★ 70 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Table D-1. Estimated Number of Employed Persons and Percentage of Unemployed (Compared to Entire Labor Force), 2005-2009

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Occupation Employed

%Un

emp.* Employed

%Un

emp.* Employed

%Un

emp.* Employed

%Un

emp.* Employed

%Un

emp.*

All Occupations 137,147,492 6.9% 142,545,193 6.4% 143,630,939 6.3% 147,486,711 6.3% 141,932,926 9.8%

All STEM Occupations 7,112,960 3.3% 7,347,542 2.6% 7,369,304 2.5% 7744152 2.6% 7,498,307 5.2%

All STEM Managers 548,618 2.9% 581,833 2.0% 602,188 1.7% 645,681 2.4% 635,896 4.6%All Computer Occupations 2,996,823 4.0% 3,110,616 2.9% 3,164,358 2.9% 3,297,403 2.8% 3,315,697 5.2%All Mathematical Occupations 162,123 2.1% 163,212 2.1% 168,721 2.6% 178,357 1.5% 187,337 3.4%

All Engineers 1,833,225 2.6% 1,854,730 1.9% 1,837,649 1.7% 1,906,983 1.9% 1,777,445 4.4%All Engineering Technicians 686,259 4.0% 710,790 4.0% 728,494 3.4% 767,355 4.0% 650,708 9.5%

All Life and Physical Scientists 382,472 2.7% 394,300 2.3% 423,308 2.2% 430,841 2.3% 625,330 3.0%

All Life Scientists 232,008 1.5% 254,607 1.3% 239,823 2.0% 285,454 2.0% 266,868 2.0%

 All Physical Scientists 346,370 2.5% 357,387 1.8% 326,480 2.4% 360,300 2.3% 358,462 3.8%

All Science Technicians 307,534 4.4% 314,367 4.5% 301,591 4.6% 302,619 4.6% 305,894 6.9%

Derived from: American Community Survey one-year estimates, Census Bureau; data retrieved from IPUMS-USA database. Note: * %Unemp. indicates percentage of labor force that is unemployed.

Key Points (Table D-1):

• STEM occupations make up approximately 5.6% of the employed labor force in the United States.• From 2005 through 2009, STEM occupations fared well compared to the general workforce; the total unemployment percentage for all 

STEM jobs was typically about half of that for the entire occupational labor force.

• Overall, the number of STEM workers in the labor force grew from 7.5 million in 2005 to over 7.9 million in 2009.
★ 71 ★

APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED

Table D-2. Fastest Growing Jobs as Reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008–2018

Occupation

Percent 

Change

Number of New 

Jobs

Median Annual 

Wage

(May 2008)

Biomedical Engineers 72 11,600 $77,400

Network Systems and Data Communications 

Analysts 53 155,800 $71,100

Home Health Aides 50 460,900 $20,460

Personal and Home Care Aides 46 375,800 $19,180

Financial Examiners 41 11,100 $70,930

Medical Scientists 

(Except Epidemiologists) 40 44,200 $72,590

Physicians Assistants 39 29,200 $81,230

Skin Care Specialists 38 14,700 $28,730

Biochemists and Biophysicists 37 8,700 $82,840

Athletic Trainers 37 6,000 $39,640

Derived from: Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics and Division of Occupational Outlook.

Note: Highlighted rows indicate STEM-related occupations.

Key Points (Table D-2):

• Though the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not have an official STEM designation for categorizing occupations, those commonly labeled as STEM in other research appear as some of the 

fastest growing in the most recent employment projections.

• While the absolute number of new jobs being created for biomedical engineers as well as biochemists and biophysicists remains relatively low compared to others on this list, the median 

wages earned by all of the fastest growing STEM occupations are some of the highest among 

all occupations.
★ 72 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Derived from: American Community Survey of The Census Bureau, 2001, 2005, 2009 (one-year estimates); data retrieved from IPUMS-USA 

database.

Key Points (Figure D-2):

• Overall, the average percentage of females in all STEM occupations in 2009 (25%) was the same 

as in 2001.

• The ratio of female to male workers remains low despite large numbers of women entering 

selected occupational fields (e.g., life sciences) over the past decade.

• The number of women in STEM occupations in 2009 ranged from as low as 9% in some engineering fields to upwards of 46% in mathematical occupations.

Figure D-2. Estimated Percentages of Females in STEM Occupational Groups, 

2001, 2005, and 2009 (Data Labels Indicate 2009 Values)
★ 73 ★

APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED

Derived from: American Community Survey of The Census Bureau, 2001, 2005, 2009 (one-year estimates); data retrieved from IPUMS-USA 

database. 

Note: Detailed data for all ethnicities and STEM occupational groups are available in Appendix C. 

Key Points (Figure D-3):

• The percentage of various race/ethnicities across STEM occupations has remained stable from 

2001 through 2009. One exception is Asians, who have moved from 10.6% of all STEM occupations in 2001 to 13.7% in 2009.

• The trends in race/ethnicity vary when looking at specific occupational groups. For example, in 

the life sciences (not shown), the percentage of Whites has decreased significantly from 2001 

to 2009, and much of that employment has shifted to Asians.

Figure D-3. Estimated Race/Ethnicity of Labor Force in All STEM Occupations, 

2001, 2005, and 2009
★ 74 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Derived from: Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements 

through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. 

Note: The definition of STEM used here includes the following occupations and corresponding standard occupational classifications (SOC): 

computer and mathematical science occupations (SOC 15-1011-SOC 15-2099), architecture and architectural technician occupations 

(SOC 17-1011-SOC 17-1022; SOC 17-3012-SOC 17-3019; SOC 17-3031); engineers and engineering technician occupations (SOC 

17-2011-SOC 17-2199; SOC 17-3021-SOC17-3031); life and physical sciences occupations (SOC 19-1011-SOC19-2099; SOC 19-4011SOC 19-4099); social sciences occupations (SOC 19-3011-SOC19-3099).

Key Points (Figure D-4):

• Based on the Center on Education and the Workforce’s projections and a historical analysis of 

BLS data, the authors revealed a trend through 2018 that more STEM occupations will demand 

education that includes at least some college.

• Over time, the population of STEM workers that are high school dropouts or high school graduates decreases to 8.8% by 2018, thus indicating that 91.2% of STEM workers will need at least 

some post-secondary education.

Figure D-4. Historical and Projected Educational Attainment in STEM Occupations, 

Various Years from 1983 through 2018
★ 75 ★

APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED

Table D-3. Percent of Labor Force with Bachelor’s STEM Degrees (Columns) in Corresponding STEM Occupations (Rows)

STEM Bachelor’s Degrees

All Comp 

& Info Sys

All 

Mathematics

All 

Engineering

All 

Eng 

Techs

All Life 

Sciences

All Phys 

Sciences

All 

Science 

Techs

All STEM 

Education

Eng and 

Industrial 

Mgmt

Multidisciplinary 

or General 

Science 

% of 

Corresponding 

Labor Force 

with any STEM

Bachelor’s Degree

STEM Occupations

All Computer Occupations 18.8% 3.1% 12.3% 0.9% 1.7% 2.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.7% 40.0%All Mathematical Occupations

5.9% 16.0% 6.0% 0.4% 3.4% 2.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.8% 35.5%

All Engineers 1.2% 0.7% 43.1% 2.0% 1.4% 1.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 50.9%All Engineering Technicians

0.5% 0.2% 4.9% 1.2% 1.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 9.4%

All Life Scientists 0.5% 0.7% 4.1% 0.1% 51.7% 9.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.9% 68.5%All Physical Scientists 1.5% 1.8% 9.8% 0.3% 27.0% 35.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 2.1% 78.5%All Science Technicians 0.5% 0.4% 2.8% 0.2% 15.0% 5.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 25.1%All STEM Managers 12.3% 2.8% 22.4% 1.4% 2.8% 2.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 45.3%All STEM Occupations 9.9% 2.3% 18.8% 1.1% 5.2% 3.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.7% 42.3%

Derived from: American Community Survey of the Census Bureau, 2009. Data retrieved from IPUMS-USA database. Note: This table excludes social scientists from disciplines and occupations; a complete listing of the columnar degree field groups and the corresponding detailed degree fields is detailed 

below; occupations follow the CPST conventions of ~50 detailed occupations aggregated into eight groups but excluding those occupations in the social sciences.

Key Points: (Table D-3):

• This table illustrates the difficulty in tracking the STEM workforce due to the number of possible occupational paths that a STEM graduate may take; 

only the options categorized as STEM occupations are shown here but many more STEM enabled occupations exist.

• Across all education levels, 42.3 percent of individuals in the STEM labor force have a bachelor’s degree that was received in a STEM field while 64.4 

percent of individuals in the STEM labor force with a bachelor’s degree or above received their bachelor’s in a STEM field (data not shown).

• Life science occupations have the highest proportion of bachelor’s degrees from the identical discipline of life sciences with 51.7% working in the 

same field they studied. The two groups with the lowest number of workers who have a matching degree and occupational field are engineering technicians and science technicians. 

• Of the estimated 11.4 million individuals with STEM bachelor’s degrees in the entire workforce in 2009, only 3.3 million or 29.3 percent of them were 

in STEM occupations.
★ 76 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Figure D-5. New and Replacement Job Openings and Occupational Distribution 

between 2008 and 2018

Source: Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education 

Requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. p. 27. 

Reprinted with permission.

Key Points (Figure D-5):

• Based on Carnevale et al. (2010), net new STEM jobs and STEM replacement jobs due to retirement are projected to be about 2.77 million between 2008 and 2018.
★ 77 ★

APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF STEM WORKFORCE NEED

Figure D-6. Total Job Openings and the Distribution of 

Educational Demand within Occupations

Source: Carnevale, Anthony, Nichole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education 

Requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. p. 28. 

Reprinted with permission.

Key Points (Figure D-6):

• 83% of these jobs require an associate’s degree or above.

• The projected total number of new and replacement STEM jobs between 2008 and 2018 requiring an associate’s degree or above is 2.3 million.
★ 78 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Figure D-7. Projected Job Openings in STEM Occupations, 2008–2018

Derived from: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Key Points (Figure D-7):

• The number of job openings projected in 2018 is delineated here as growth versus replacement needs. Job growth includes the creation of new jobs while replacement needs are those 

that result from workers retiring or permanently leaving a position. Together, these categories 

indicate the minimum number of workers who will need to be trained for the given occupation.

• In terms of total number of job openings, computer specialists are projected to require more 

than 1.3 million workers as a result of job growth and replacement needs.

• Engineers are the next most required STEM occupation with 531,300 job openings projected 

through 2018.
★ 79 ★

Appendix E: Evidence of the 

Mathematics Preparation Gap

Today, many students enter college not prepared for college level mathematics. Among students who 

take the ACT entrance examination, just 43 percent achieve the ACT College Readiness Benchmark in 

mathematics.126 Because of inadequate preparation, many students need to take developmental classes 

in mathematics when they get to college. This poses a burden on students, institutions of higher education, the military, and employers in the form of developmental education and worker training. Higher 

education alone spends at least two billion dollars on developmental education per year.127

Figure E-1. 12th Grade Student STEM Interest and Mathematics Proficiency

Source: The Business-Higher Education Forum. (2011). The STEM interest and proficiency challenge: Creating the workforce 

of the future. Washington, DC.

Key Points (Figure E-1)

• Among high school seniors who have taken the series of exams offered by the ACT in eighth, 

tenth, and twelfth grades, about one in six is both proficient in mathematics and interested in 

STEM fields. 

• Closing the mathematics-preparation gap would enable many more students to pursue STEM 

degrees in college. About 15% of 12th graders are interested in STEM fields but not proficient 

in math, with women slightly more common in this category (Figure E-1). Furthermore, many 

members of this group are not far from math proficiency. More than half of white and AsianAmerican students, more than 40% of Hispanic/Latino and American Indian students, and 

almost one third of African-American students who are interested in STEM fields are within 

four points on the ACT exam of the cutoff for math proficiency (Figure E-2). If the preparation of 

these students in math could be enhanced, many more students could be prepared to pursue 

STEM fields in college.

126. The benchmarks specify the minimum scores needed on each ACT subject-area test to indicate that a 

student has a 50 percent chance of earning a grade of B or higher or about a 75 percent chance of earning a C or higher 

in a typical credit-bearing first-year college course in that subject area. ACT. (2011). The Condition of College & Career 

Readiness 2011. Iowa City, IA: ACT.

127. Strong American Schools. (2008). Diploma to Nowhere. Washington, DC.
★ 80 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Figure E-2. High School Student Performance on ACT Math Exam

Source: ACT. (2011). The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2011. Iowa City, IA: ACT. 

Note: Students who score a 22 or higher on the mathematics portion of the ACT exam are considered math proficient and 

have a high probability of college success. 

Key Points (Figure E-2)

• Large numbers of students who take the ACT exam in twelfth grade, including many students 

from groups underrepresented in STEM fields, are within a few points on the exam of mathematical proficiency. 

• One idea to improve and decrease the high cost of math remediation is to make widespread 

availability of the resources the Federal government has developed for its use in training the 

U.S. military (See, for example, Box E-1). 
Appendix E: Evidence of the Mathematics Preparation Gap

★ 81 ★

BOX E-1: USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO BRIDGE THE MATHEMATICSPREPARATION GAP

The Office of Naval Research (ONR), the science and technology provider for the U.S. Navy and Marine 

Corps, has supported academic research in cognitive learning science for more than two decades. For 

example, the Cognitive Science of Learning program has supported the development of computer-based 

learning tools, including a 3-D video game developed by ONR, that permit recruits to learn at-sea safety, 

ship handling, and electronics maintenance during on-shore training. Recruits who use the safety video 

game make 50 percent fewer errors and locate ship or submarine compartments in 50 percent less time 

than others. In a study measuring how much information recruits remember, game-playing recruits 

retained 83 percent of their reading gains, almost four times more than their counterparts.a

ONR is now developing artificially intelligent STEM tutors to help high school students increase their 

proficiency in STEM subjects. ONR-sponsored researchers at Arizona State University have demonstrated 

the success of digital tutors among algebra students, raising student grade levels by up to 20 percent--the 

equivalent of increasing going from “Cs” to “As.”b The success of these intelligent tutors has led the Chief of 

Naval Research to sponsor a multi-million dollar “grand challenge” to adapt the technology for use in STEM 

education projects.

Sources: 

a. Murphy, C. (In Press). Why Games Work—The Science of Learning. Modsim World 2011, Virginia Beach, VA, October 2011. 

Accesible from http://www.goodgamesbydesign.com/?p=59. 

b. Barrus, A. K. Sabo, S. Joseph, R. Atkinson, and R. Perez. (In Press). Evaluating Adaptive, Computer-Based Mathematics 

Tutoring Systems: A Math Improvement Feasibilty Study. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

★ 83 ★

Appendix F: Efficacy of Various 

Classroom Methods

Thinking like a scientist requires acquisition of information, habits of mind, skills, and a scientific identity.128 It seems unlikely that such diverse attributes would all be learned most effectively through one 

mode of teaching. Indeed they are not. Yet most introductory STEM courses taken in the first two years 

of college are in the same format: lectures, followed by practice problem sets, followed by multiple 

choice or word-problem tests. A single model of instruction cannot achieve all the significant learning 

goals of science instruction, nor can a single form of assessment detect all the consequential outcomes. 

To create vibrant science classrooms that effectively transmit knowledge and develop the intellectual 

attributes of scientists, college faculty must overcome the inertia of the historical habits passed from 

generation to generation.

A substantial empirical literature demonstrates that alternative models of instruction can achieve many 

important learning outcomes more effectively than current practice and without added time or cost 

(for one example, see Box F-1). These studies address learning in many fields of science as we well as 

engineering and math. Many of the alternatives include lectures, but they also include two key elements: 

(1) Students are actively engaged in the process of learning compared to solely following a lecture and 

then executing what they have been told; and (2) Students receive feedback while learning, which is 

usually inherent in activities that engage students’ minds.

Two types of studies demonstrate the impact of active learning on comprehension of concepts and 

retention of information. The first are randomized, controlled studies conducted under experimental 

laboratory conditions in which students are taught the same material in different ways. One study 

determined that either writing or talking about material increased comprehension and learning over a 

control group, and both talking and writing had a more substantial effect on comprehension and also 

increased long-term retention of knowledge.129 Similar studies replicate this effect on humans, and one 

even suggests that active engagement enhances learning in rhesus monkeys.130

The second type of study involves comparison of real classrooms. Because randomized, controlled 

studies are challenging with real students and teachers, many designs have been used. Some compare 

student performance in courses that are taught traditionally for many years with the same instructor 

using the same exams, with the only change the introduction of active exercises.131 Others have used 

parallel sections of the same course,132 and others have randomly introduced active learning into some 

128. National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press.

129. Rivard, L.P. and S.B. Straw. (2000). “The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.” 

Science Education 84: 566-593.

130. Kornell, N. and H.S. Terrace. (2007). “The generation effect in monkeys.” Psychological Science 18(8): 682-685.

131. Woods, D., A. Hrymak, R. Marshall, P. Wood, C. Crowe, and T. Hoffman (1997). “Developing problem solving 

skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program.” Journal of Engineering Education, April, 75-91.

132. Deslauriers, L., E. Schelew, and C. Wieman (2011). “Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.” 

Science 332(6031): 862-4.
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 84 ★

class sessions and not others within a single course and analyzed student performance on exam questions on topics taught with active or traditional methods.133 Numerous studies in chemistry, physics, 

biology, math, and engineering courses show that students learn, perform, and develop higher order 

thinking skills in active settings better than in passive ones (Table F-2). In almost any research study on 

humans in real world settings, concern arises that other factors co-vary with the variable of interest. 

Many studies control for these confounding variables as indicated below (Table F-1). Given the size of 

the body of peer-reviewed research about active learning; the variation in experimental design among 

the studies; the diverse settings and subjects used; the consistency of findings across many STEM disciplines; and the concordance between studies of subjects under experimental conditions and studies 

of real STEM classes, the conclusion is convincing: teaching methods that require active engagement 

of the mind lead to more learning than does lecturing alone.

Table F-1 Controls for Confounding Variables in Classroom Learning Studies

Confounding Variable Approach that Avoid this Problem

Better students in the active learning 

cohort

•	 Randomize the students in the active learning and comparison groups 

•	 Use matched groups with similar grades in previous courses

Instructor aims to prove that active 

learning is more effective 

•	 Compare a traditional course taught to one by an outstanding instructor 

aiming to prove that active methods are not better than lectures alone

Active learning professor “teaches to 

the exam”

•	 Use standardized national test

•	 Have students interviewed about the course content by a colleague 

who does not know which students received which treatment and who 

had not attended either course

•	 Test students’ ability to pose good scientific questions as judged by 

blind reviewers

The Evidence Summarized

Today, hundreds of papers have documented the scientific evidence regarding effective teaching,134

including examples of large studies with robust findings in this field. A meta-analysis of 62 physics 

courses (14 traditional, 48 active) taught across the U.S. showed that among a total of 6,000 students, 

performance on a common test was higher among those who were taught with active methods.135

Another study analyzed 39 studies of small-group learning and showed that it enhanced academic 

erformance, attitudes toward learning, and persistence in STEM.136 In chemistry, a meta-analysis of controlled studies of high school chemistry, college introductory chemistry, and organic chemistry reported 

133. Smith, M.K, W.B. Wood, K. Krauter, and J.K Knight. (2011). “Combining peer discussion with instructor 

explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions.” CBE Life Sciences Education 10: 55-63.

134. A general survey of promising practices in undergraduate STEM education, with an emphasis on the extent 

to which the practices have been validated by research, is the white paper “Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM 

Education” (2008) by J. E. Froyd. Available at 

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Froyd_Promising_Practices_CommissionedPaper.pdf. See also Baldwin, Roger 

G., ed. (2009). Improving the Climate for Undergraduate Teaching and Learning in STEM Fields. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

135. Hake, R.R. (1998). “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of 

mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.” American Journal of Physics 66(1): 64.

136. Springer, L., M.E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan (1999). “Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in 

science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational Research 69(1): 21-51.
Appendix F: Efficacy of Various Classroom Methods

★ 85 ★

that nearly all of 37 studies involving 3,500 students showed statistically significant positive effects of 

active learning, and the average effect of active learning across all studies would move a student from 

the 50th percentile to the 70th percentile.137 Among the 37 research studies reviewed, 11 also showed 

improvement of student attitudes toward science and 9 showed an average 22 percent higher retention 

of students in STEM after an active learning chemistry course than a traditional one.138

In the 1990s, many medical schools changed from a traditional style of delivery to problem-based learning 

in courses for medical students. University of Missouri-Columbia studied the impact of this change on 

student performance on the national Medical Licensing Examination. They found a significant improvement of scores associated with the change. For example, among the classes in 1995 and 1996, who were 

taught in the traditional courses, an average of 8 students per year scored in the 90th percentile. In contrast, 

in 1997-2000, an average of 21 students per year scored in the 90th percentile. Performance improved 

over time, apparently due to increased faculty experience in teaching with the problem-based style, so 

that by 2000, 29 students scored in the 90th percentile, representing a greater than three-fold increase 

compared with the traditional curriculum.139 Subsequent studies showed that the students taught by 

problem-based learning methods received better evaluations from residency directors.140

In addition to experimental and classroom data, the enhancement of learning in active settings is supported by neurobiology and common experience. The current understanding of knowledge acquisition, 

short-term and long-term memory, and brain development indicate that learning changes the brain 

and that is accomplished by an active process of building neural connections. These are constructed 

through active processing. 

The research indicates that many different types of active engagement can accomplish learning gains. 

Introduction of clickers into a lecture,141 having students solve a problem before attending a lecture,142

use of group discussion,143 problem-solving,144 individual writing or “one-minute papers,”145 taking a 

test,146 conducting an inquiry-based lab,147 and combinations of these activities all have had significant 

impacts in improving learning. Therefore, the support for using evidence-based teaching methods 

137. Bowen, C.W. (2000). “A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and 

college chemistry achievement.” Journal of Chemical Education 77(1): 116.

138. Ibid.

139. Hoffman, K., M. Hosokawa, R. Blake, L. Headrick, and G. Johnson. (2006). “Problem-based learning outcomes: 

ten years of experience at the University-Columbia School of Medicine.” Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of 

American Medical Colleges 81(7): 617-25.

140. Ibid. 

141. Smith, M., W. Wood, W. Adams, C. Wieman, J. Knight, N. Guild. (2009). “Why peer discussion improves student 

performance in class.” Science 323: 122-124.

142. Schwartz, D.L. and J.D. Bransford. (1998). “A time for telling.” Cognition and Instruction 16(4): 475-522.

143. Buck, J.R. and K.E. Wage. (2005). “Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses.” IEEE Signal 

Processing Magazine 22(2): 76-81.

144. Capon, N. and D. Kuhn (2004). “What’s so good about problem-based learning.” Cognition and Instruction 22(1): 

61-79.

145. Almer, E., Jones, K., and Moeckel, C. (1998). The impact of one-minute papers on learning in an introductory 

accounting course. Issues in Accounting Education 13(3): 485-495.

146. McDaniel, M., J. Anderson, M. Derbish, and N. Morrisette (2007). “Testing the testing effect in the classroom.” 

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19(4): 494-513.

147. Brickman, P., C. Gormally, N. Armstrong, and B. Hallar. (2009). “Effects of Inquiry-based Learning on Students’ 

Science Literacy Skills and Confidence.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
★ 86 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

presented in this report is not advancing a single type of teaching. Instead, based on the numerous data 

points available, we posit that the key change is to bring to STEM classrooms various approaches that 

truly engage students intellectually and involve thinking, problem-solving, questioning, or analyzing 

information. Based on the weight and variety of the research evidence, it is reasonable to say that if one 

active-learning event in which students engaged and received feedback were incorporated into each 

classroom session of every introductory college class in the United States, science education would 

likely be transformed.

BOX F-1: ENHANCED LEARNING IN A LARGE PHYSICS CLASS

A recent experiment at the University of British Columbia demonstrated the feasibility of using active learning 

to greatly enhance student learning in large classes at no additional cost.

In the second term of a first-year Electricity and Magnetism course, one group of students was taught in three 

hours of lecture by an experienced instructor, while another group received the same material through three 

hours of interactive learning. Altogether, 267 students heard lectures, while 271 students were taught with a 

method known as “deliberate practice” based on recent findings in cognitive psychology and physics education. The instructor for the experimental group began by giving students a multiple-choice question on a 

particular concept. The students discussed the question in small groups and answered electronically, revealing 

their understanding or lack of understanding of a topic. The instructor took this feedback into account during a 

discussion of the topic before repeating the process with the next concept. The goal was for students to spend 

as little time as possible passively listening and as much time as possible making and testing predictions and 

arguments, solving problems, and critiquing their reasoning and that of others.

In the non-traditional class, attendance grew from 57 to 75 percent, engagement rose from 45 to 85 percent, 

and the students learned twice as much based on test results as the students in the traditional section (see 

figure). In the traditional section, attendance and engagement remained unchanged.

In a survey afterwards, 90 percent of students in the experimental group agreed that they enjoyed the interactive teaching technique. The technique did not require additional staff or small or specialized classrooms.

Source: Deslauriers, L., E. Schelew, and C. Wieman. (2011). “Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class.” Science 332: 862-864.”
Appendix G: Review of Evidence that Research Experiences have Impacts on Retention

★ 87 ★

Appendix G: Review of Evidence 

that Research Experiences have 

Impacts on Retention

One way to engage and, therefore, retain students in STEM subjects is to involve them in contemporary, 

authentic research during the first two years of college (see Box G-1). For example, in a randomized 

trial at the University of Michigan, students who engaged in research with a professor as sophomores 

were much less likely to leave science majors than those who did not. Though the numbers of students 

involved were relatively small, the results were dramatic for all ethnic groups: attrition rates dropping 

from 20% to 11% for black students, from 14% to 0% for Hispanic students, and from 5.5% to 1.4% for 

white students.148 A nationwide assessment of 4,500 students involved in undergraduate research found 

that the research experience clarified students’ interests and increased their confidence.149 Close to 70% 

of those surveyed said that their interest in a STEM career increased due to their experience, and about 

30% of the students who had never considered earning a PhD now expected to do so. The surveys did 

not detect significant differences between students based on gender or demographic group. The conclusion of the researchers was that “the inculcation of enthusiasm is the key element—and the earlier 

the better.” Additionally, an intervention of early research experience at UC-Davis showed improved 

grades across STEM courses and improved retention in STEM majors for students who are given rigorous 

academic program during their first two years of college, are funded to work in research laboratories 

during their sophomore year, and are provided personal support and guidance (see Box G-2). 

148. Nagda, B. A., S.R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, W. von Hippel, and J.S. Lerner (1998). “Undergraduate student-faculty 

research partnerships affect student retention.” Review of Higher Education 22(1), 55-72.

149. Russell, S.H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. (2007). “Benefits of undergraduate research experience.” Science 

316: 548-9.
★ 88 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

BOX G-1: THE FRESHMAN RESEARCH INITIATIVE AT UT AUSTIN

The Freshman Research Initiative at the University of Texas, Austin, enrolls 25 percent of the freshman class in the 

College of Natural Sciences in three-semester-long laboratory courses based on faculty research programs. The 

program offers first-year students the opportunity to do cutting-edge, original, publishable research in chemistry, biochemistry, nanotechnology, molecular biology, physics, astronomy, or computer science.

The faculty member leading the course provides the overall direction for the research. Postdoctoral “Research 

Educators” (REs) organize the entering students’ laboratory work and curricula. Mentoring includes help with 

presentations, data collection and analysis, and placement after the three-semester “research stream.”

Early results suggest that student retention in STEM programs is 30 to 35 percent higher for students in the 

initiative. The program also has formal ways to help students continue in research in faculty laboratories, 

research abroad, or industry internships.

A key feature of the Freshman Research Initiative is the autonomy of the REs to work directly with students 

and shape their experience and motivation. The REs are stakeholders in the institute’s success and make it a 

hotbed for innovation in teaching. 

Source: University of Texas at Austin website: http://fri.cns.utexas.edu/about-fri.

BOX G-2: PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH IMPROVES STEM PERSISTENCE AND 

PERFORMANCE

The UC-Davis Biology Undergraduate Scholars Program (BUSP) Program is an intensive enrichment program 

for undergraduate students who have a strong interest in life science fields. BUSP, sponsored by the College of 

Biological Sciences at UC-Davis, enriches the undergraduate experience by providing exciting and challenging opportunities to learn about and participate in the biological sciences. BUSP students enroll in a specially 

designed, rigorous academic program during their first two years of college, are funded to work in a biology 

research laboratory during their sophomore year, and meet regularly with skilled advisers who offer academic 

guidance and personal support. The Table below summarizes BUSP students’ persistence and performance 

in STEM foundation courses, such as chemistry and calculus, for students of the underrepresented minority 

(URM) who participated in the BUSP program (URM-BUST) as compared to students of the underrepresented 

minority, generally (URM comparison), or white and Asian students.

Source: Villarejo, M., A. Barlow, D. Kogan, B.D. Veazey, and J. Sweeney (2008). “Encouraging Minority Undergraduates to Choose Science 

Careers: Career Paths Survey Results.” CBE-Life Sciences Education 7(4): 1-16.
★ 89 ★

Appendix H: Effective Programs to Improve 

STEM Undergraduate Education

Building STEM Communities

Many programs have proven effective at addressing issues of retention and completion in STEM majors 

by focusing on building a community of STEM scholars, including the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the 

University of Maryland, Baltimore County (see Box H-1), the Science Posse program that is beginning in 

several universities (see Box H-2), and the Louisiana Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics 

(LA-STEM) Research Scholars Program.150 Common to all these programs is a mentoring community in 

which upper-division students work with beginning students to provide guidance and model success; 

access to research groups early in the undergraduate experience; bridge programs to prepare students 

for the intellectual content of the first year; and group recognition of the need to succeed in introductory and gateway courses. All of these and similar programs require funding, both for students, many 

of whom are receiving financial aid, and for the staff members and time needed to create and guide 

learning communities.

150. See Louisiana Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Research Scholars Program Website: 

http://www.lsu.edu/lastem/files/LA-STEM%20flyer%20for%20LSU%20and%20Transfer%20Students%202011.pdf.

BOX H-1: THE MEYERHOFF SCHOLARS PROGRAM

The Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, has been at the forefront 

of efforts to increase diversity among future leaders in science, engineering, and related fields. Started in 

1988, the program now has more than 1,000 alumni. Key components of the program include scholarships 

contingent on maintaining a B-average in STEM majors, an intensive six-week summer bridge program, 

a family-like program community, an emphasis on achieving at the highest levels, personal advising and 

counseling from program staff, summer research internships in national and international laboratories, 

science mentoring, and support from administrators and faculty.

The nomination-based application process is open to prospective undergraduate students of all backgrounds who plan to pursue doctoral study in the sciences or engineering and who are interested in the 

advancement of minorities in those fields. The program’s success is built on the premise that, among 

like-minded students who work closely together, positive energy is contagious. By assembling such a high 

concentration of high-achieving students in a tightly knit learning community, students continually inspire 

one another to do better.

Among African American students who entered the program between 1996 and 2003, 51% (88 of 172) 

attended STEM PhD and MD/PhD programs. An additional 40% entered master’s programs, particularly 

in technical fields, or medical school. Many representatives from Federal agencies, campuses, and corporations across the country have visited UMBC’s campus to learn more about the program’s success. The 

College Board’s National Task Force on Minority High Achievement has praised the Meyerhoff Scholars 

Program as a model that provides lessons that could be broadly applied.

Source: University of Maryland, Baltimore County website: http://umbc.edu/meyerhoff/.
★ 90 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Engaging and Preparing Rising College Students 

Bridge programs, which are typically offered in the summer between high school graduation and the first 

term of college, can help prepare entering students for the rigors of college academics and life (see Boxes 

H-2 and H-3). Typically, high school juniors and seniors live on campus and receive classroom instruction, research experience, career counseling, SAT and ACT preparation, and mentoring from graduate 

students and faculty. Most of these programs, such as Carnegie Mellon University’s Summer Academy 

for Mathematics and Science and the California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science, are 

open to high school students on statewide or nationwide basis. Some are aimed at the underrepresented 

majority to provide incoming students with the intellectual, personal, and social supports they will need 

to excel.

BOX H-2: A POSSE PROGRAM FOR STEM FIELDS

The Posse Foundation is a successful college access and youth leadership development program. Through 

creative partnerships between local communities and 39 select colleges and universities, Posse currently recruits, nurtures, and delivers outstanding student leaders from eight urban sites: Atlanta, Boston, 

Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, and New York.

Since its inception, Posse has sent 3,650 students to college, 90 percent of whom have graduated. As one 

measure of the program’s impact on leadership development, over 70 percent of Posse Scholars either start 

new campus organizations or become presidents of existing ones. A recent survey shows that more than 45 

percent of Posse alumni either have completed a graduate degree or are currently in graduate school.

Posse’s college access process is noteworthy. Each fall seniors are nominated by high schools and community-based organizations in the eight cities. Posse staff and volunteers evaluate students, looking for leaders 

with true commitment and potential. Partnering colleges and universities then select ten-student Posses in 

December of the students’ senior year of high school. During the remainder of their senior year, the students 

participate in weekly sessions with staff trainers and peers who provide scholastic and cultural preparation 

for college. Once on campus the students are mentored by staff and upperclassmen. The home community 

supports the recruiting process, and the partner colleges and universities provide four-year scholarships.

Posse recently began a STEM Posse initiative on three campuses based on the proven elements of the original program, with additional components needed for STEM. Thus far Brandeis University, the University of 

Wisconsin at Madison, and Franklin and Marshall College are admitting STEM Posses. The program identifies 

students with an interest in STEM and provides extra pre-collegiate training during their senior year, a twoweek campus immersion program just prior to matriculation, intensive mentoring in STEM-related areas, and 

placement in research opportunities throughout the four undergraduate years.

Although highly successful, growth of the program is limited by the financial burden on the participating 

institutions. The reach of this program could be greatly enhanced by a Federal or other partner cost-sharing 

program with the schools. Since 75 to 80 percent of the students require financial aid, a 50 percent Federal or 

other partner contribution to the scholarships would clearly allow more institutions to participate by relieving their financial aid budgets and would target federal financial aid dollars to a group of students with high 

potential for success.

Source: Posse Foundation website: http://www.possefoundation.org/.
Appendix H: Effective Programs to Improve STEM Undergraduate Education

★ 91 ★

BOX H-3: MIT HELPS MINORITY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS SUCCEED IN COLLEGE 

STEM MAJORS

A three-week engineering program for minority high school students at MIT that began in 1974 has 

evolved into a national model for widening the pipeline of underrepresented college graduates in STEM 

fields. Today the Minority Introduction To Engineering and Science (MITES) program supports 60 to 80 high 

school students, annually, in the summer after their junior year. They live in an MIT dormitory for a six-andone-half week program of academic work, confidence-building, and development of learning-to-learn 

skills.

Of the 1,765 alumni of the program to date, 34 percent (more than 600 students) have gone on to MIT. 

Recent MITES alumni have also gone to Harvard University, Stanford University, and other exceptional 

schools.

The MITES alumni have been found to be consistently strong performers in college. At MIT, the graduation 

rates of MITES alumni are 12 percentage points higher than the graduation rates of minority students who 

did not attend MITES. MITES students at MIT also graduate with grade point averages comparable to the 

majority MIT student population.

Because of its reputation and systematic outreach, the program receives some 500 to 700 applications 

from around the country, making it more selective than MIT itself. In the summer of 2010, 65 students were 

selected from 22 states and Puerto Rico. Acceptance includes consideration of a student’s status as first 

generation college and those who lack a family members background in science and engineering.

Upon arrival, students are tested to establish individual benchmarks and to guide course selection. 

Through evaluation updates, instructors write detailed evaluation of each student’s mastery of the subject 

in relation to his or her benchmark. Students are given many assignments and quizzes but no final exam or 

final grades. The curriculum uses the cultural context—having students from different minority groups living and working together—to show how cultural diversity and academic achievement can be connected.

The MITES program is entirely scholarship-based. Support comes from dozens of companies and foundations, including 3M Worldwide, Boeing, and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and from alumni.

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology website: http://web.mit.edu/mites/.
★ 92 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Partnerships Between Two-Year Colleges and Four-Year Colleges 

Collaborative partnerships between two-year colleges and four-year institutions would provide greater 

access to and opportunities for advanced STEM education to a growing number of students (see Box 

H-4).

BOX H-4: ARTICULATION BETWEEN TWO-YEAR AND FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

A keystone of the applied STEM manufacturing skills certification model at the Lorain County Community 

College (LCCC) in Cleveland, Ohio, is a unique partnership with four-year institutions. LCCC is the only 

community college in the state that offers a program enabling individuals to earn Bachelor’s and Master’s 

degrees from any of eight Ohio universities without leaving the LCCC campus.

The University Partnership program facilitates seamless, STEM-related education and career pathways 

for students completing manufacturing-based programs at the Associate’s- and applied science- level. 

Programs articulate with a variety of Bachelor’s of Science degrees in engineering and engineering technology for students who want to pursue additional levels of higher education.

As part of the industry certification initiative, college leaders launched a review of the curriculum’s alignment with industry requirements. Faculty identified new or revised content to address skill requirements. 

The Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network (MAGNET), an employer-led organization, held 

employer meetings to validate the certification pathways and discuss embedded skills, including both 

applied STEM and critical “soft” skills. The University Partnership at LCCC enables students to gain the depth 

and breadth of applied STEM skills required to spur innovation and creativity in the modern workplace.

Source: Lorain County Community College website: http://www.lorainccc.edu/up.
Appendix H: Effective Programs to Improve STEM Undergraduate Education

★ 93 ★

Partnerships Between Minority-Serving Institutions and Other Colleges and 

Universities

Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) can serve as key intermediaries to improve the numbers, preparation, 

and diversity of students interested in STEM fields.151 Collaborative efforts between MSIs and other colleges 

and universities could greatly improve educational experiences in STEM disciplines (see Box H-5).

151. Cullinane, J. and L.H. Leegwater (2009). Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: The Model Replication Institutions Program. 

Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

BOX H-5: A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN A HISTORICALLY BLACK 

TEACHING-FOCUSED COLLEGE AND A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

Institutional collaborations that benefit both partners are exemplified by the joint endeavor developed by 

the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), which are a research university and a teaching-focused historically black institution, respectively. The goal of the partnership was to 

expand the interest and success of students from underrepresented groups entering STEM careers through 

expanded scientific knowledge and enhanced educational opportunities.

The collaboration involved exchanges of students and faculty, development of new courses, co-teaching, 

and joint faculty meetings and presentations. Specific outcomes were providing UNH students with a more 

diverse educational environment, ECSU students with access to research labs, and both campuses with 

Federal support for improved STEM research and education.

The collaboration has delineated a set of best practices that could be useful to other alliances, including:

•	 Institutional commitment and faculty engagement

•	 Mutual respect and shared time commitments

•	 An engaged leader

•	 Critical change agents

•	 Initiation of difficult dialogues

•	 Preparing for growth and evolution

Source: Williams, J.E., C. Wake, E. Abrams, G. Hurtt, B. Rock, K. Graham, S. Hale, L. Hayden, W. Porter, R. Blackmon, M. LeCompte, and D. 

Johnson.(2011). “Building a model of collaboration between historically black and historically white universities.” Journal of Higher 

Education Outreach and Engagement 15(2): 35-56.
★ 94 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Partnerships Between Higher Education and Business

Some U.S. businesses have found effective ways to partner to enhance STEM education and careerreadiness in high schools, colleges, and universities (see Boxes H-6 and H-7). Involvement of the private 

sector in training of the future workforce can provide motivation and confidence for students in their 

ability to perform a STEM-capable job, enhanced training and useful experience, and career readiness. 

BOX H-6: EMT SUMMER ACADEMY

Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA, offers an accelerated Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Summer 

Academy in partnership with the Silicon Valley Community Collaborative (SVCC), the Central County 

Occupational Center (CCOC), and the San Jose Job Corps. The EMT Academy is presented as a stepping 

stone for students’ advancement in allied health and medical careers. In addition to meeting labor force 

needs, this program is designed to serve as a model for increasing the retention of underrepresented 

students in community colleges, particularly in STEM-related fields.

The central components of the program include EMT certification, career and college counseling, tutoring, supported transition to EMT employment and/or college programs, removal of barriers in navigating 

institutional bureaucracy, and implementation of engagement strategies.

Source: Foothill College website: http://www.foothill.edu/bio/programs/emt/.
Appendix I: References for Tables 2, 3, and 4

★ 95 ★

BOX H-7: HARRISBURG UNIVERSITY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY*

In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a postsecondary institution is helping students who leave high school without 

good preparation become marketable in STEM fields. The Harrisburg University for Science and Technology 

(HU), which has grown from 100 to 722 students, including those enrolled in degree programs (368) and 

certificate-seeking students (354), between 2005 and 2011, is a private university with the mission of readying the central Pennsylvania workforce for 21st century jobs.

Just 12 percent of residents in the Harrisburg area have a college degree, and area colleges are under 

producing STEM degrees as compared with similar regions. As manufacturing companies have closed, the 

local economy needs more skilled STEM workers to be revived.

The HU academic format is interdisciplinary, without departments or tenure. Courses are organized around 

learning objectives, and corporate partners advise on course design. Communication and teamwork are 

stressed throughout the curriculum.

Two thirds of the students are adults, many sponsored by their employers. All students are coached on 

life issues such as time management and juggling family and careers. An executive search firm helps new 

students define career paths, and each has a business mentor. Each student builds an “e-portfolio” that 

includes performance, comments from faculty, and measures of civic engagement.

Of its first 100 graduates, 92 were hired into the fields they studied, with salaries of $50,000 to $60,000 per 

year, according to Mel Schiavelli, President of HU. Another striking result is that employers of 18-22 year old 

students say they do not have to spend 12 to 18 months teaching their new hires how to fit into corporate 

culture. The students were already mentored through internships and academic-year projects based on 

workplace needs. Despite these successes, Harrisburg University still faces problems of under- preparation 

within their student body and refers 15 percent of its students to community colleges for remedial study, 

Schiavelli noted.

Besides helping students and employers HU is helping to revive downtown Harrisburg, with a new building and dormitory and $30 million in annual economic impact. 

Source: Based on PCAST Working Group on Undergraduate STEM education discussions with Mel Schiavelli, President, Harrisburg 

University for Science and Technology, May 2011, and data from Harrisburg University of Science and Technology website.

* This version includes some changes that clarify ambiguities in an earlier draft. 

★ 97 ★

Appendix I: References for Tables 2, 3, and 4

References for Table 2. 

Almer, E., K. Jones, and C. Moeckel. (1998). “The impact of one-minute papers on learning in an introductory accounting course.” Issues in Accounting Education 13(3): 485-495.

Anderson, W. L., Mitchell, S. M., and M.P. Osgood. (2005). “Comparison of student performance in 

cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes.” Biochemistry and 

molecular biology education: A bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry 

and Molecular Biology 33(6): 387-93.

Armbruster, P., M. Patel, E. Johnson, and M. Weiss. (2009). “Active learning and student-centered pedagogy 

improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology.” Education 8: 203-213.

Armstrong, N., S. Chang, and M. Brickman. (2007). “Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology 

classes.” Education 6: 163-171.

Beichner, R. J., J.M. Saul, D.S. Abbott, J.J. Morse, D.L. Deardorff, R. J. Allain, et al. (2007). “The studentcentered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project.” In E. 

F. Redish & P. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-Based Reform of University Physics. College Park, MD: 

American Association of Physics Teachers.

Born, W. K., W. Revelle, and L.H. Pinto. (2002). “Improving biology performance with workshop groups.” 

Science Education 11(4): 347.

Buckley, M., H. Kershner, K. Schindler, C. Alphonce, and J. Braswell. (2004). “Benefits of using sociallyrelevant projects in computer science and engineering education.” SIGCSE ’04: Proceedings of 

the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 36(1): 482–486.

Capon, N. and D. Kuhn. (2004). “What‘s so good about problem-based learning?” Cognition and Instruction

22(1): 61-79.

Chizmar, J. F. and A.L. Ostrosky. (1998). “The one-minute paper: Some empirical findings.” The Journal of 

Economic Education 29(1):3.

Cortright, R. N., H.L. Collins, D.W. Rodenbaugh, and S.E. DiCarlo. (2003). “Student retention of course 

content Is improved by collaborative-group testing.” AJP: Advances in Physiology Education

27(3): 102-108.

Cortright, R. N., H.L. Collins, and S.E. DiCarlo. (2005). “Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: 

ability to solve novel problems.” Advances in Physiology Education 29(2): 107-11.

Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. (2001). “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results.” American 

Journal of Physics 69(9): 970.

Fagen, A. P. (2002). “Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms.” The Physics Teacher 40(4): 206.
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 98 ★

Fonseca, A. P., C.I. Extremina, and A.F. Fonseca. (2004). “Concept mapping: A strategy for meaningful 

learning in medical microbiology.” First International Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, 

Spain.

Freeman, S., E. O. Connor, J.W. Parks, M. Cunningham, D. Hurley,D. Haak, C. Dirks, and M.P. Wenderoth. 

(2007). “Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology.” Education

6:132-139.

Harris, M. A., R.F. Peck, S. Colton, J. Morris, E.C. Neto, and J. Kallio. (2009). “A combination of hand-held 

models and computer imaging programs helps students answer oral questions about molecular structure and function: A controlled investigation of student learning.” CBE—Life Sciences 

Education 8(1): 29-43.

Klappa, P. (2009). “Promoting active learning through “pub quizzes”— a case study at the University of 

Kent.” Evaluation 14 (December), Article C2.

Lasry, N., E. Mazur, and J. Watkins. (2008). “Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college.” 

American Journal of Physics 76(11): 1066.

Lewis, S. E. and J.E. Lewis. (2005). “Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry 

alternative.” Journal of Chemical Education 82(1): 135.

McDaniel, C. N., B.C. Lister, M.H. Hanna, and H. Roy. (2007). “Increased learning observed in redesigned 

introductory biology course that employed web-enhanced, interactive pedagogy.” CBE—Life 

Sciences Education 6: 243-249.

McDaniel, M., H. Roediger, and K. McDermott. (2007). “Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the 

laboratory to the classroom.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(2): 200-206.

OʼSullivan, D. W. and C.L. Cooper. (2003). “Evaluating active learning: A new initiative for a general 

chemistry curriculum.” Journal of College Science Teaching 32(7): 448-453.

Pelaez, N. J. (2002). “Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology.” Advances in Physiology Education 26(3): 174-184.

Preszler, R. (2004). “Cooperative concept mapping: Improving performance in undergraduate biology.” 

Journal of College Science Teaching 33(6): 30-35.

Preszler, R. W., A. Dawe, and C.B. Shuster. (2007). “Assessment of the Effects of Student Response Systems 

on Student Learning and Attitudes over a Broad Range of Biology Courses.” CBE—Life Sciences 

Education 6(1): 29 - 41.

Preszler, R. W. (2009). “Replacing lecture with peer-led workshops improves student learning.” CBE—Life 

Sciences Education 8: 182-192.

Rivard, L.P. and S.B. Straw. (2000). “The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory 

study.” Science Education 84: 566-593.

Schwartz, D. L. and J.D. Bransford (1998). “A time for telling.” Cognition & Instruction 16: 475-522.
Appendix I: References for Tables 2, 3, and 4

★ 99 ★

Smith, M., W. Wood, W. Adams, C. Wieman, J. Knight, N. Guild, et al. (2009). “Why peer discussion improves 

student performance on in-class concept questions.” Science 323: 122-124.

Smith, M.K., W.B. Wood, K. Krauter, and J.K. Knight. (2011) “Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor 

Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions.” CBE—Life Sciences 

Education 10: 55-63.

Steele, J. E. (2003). “Effect of essay-style lecture quizzes on student performance on anatomy and physiology exams.” Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching 29(4): 15-20.

Tessier, J. (2004). “Using peer teaching to promote learning in biology.” Journal of College Science Teaching

33(6): 16-19.

Tessier, J. (2007). “Small-group peer teaching in an introductory biology classroom.” Journal of College 

Science Teaching 36(4): 64-69.

Tien, L.T., V. Roth, and J.A. Kampmeier. (2002). “Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional 

approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching

39(7): 606-632.

Traver, H. A., M.J. Kalsher, J.J. Diwan, and J. Warden. (2001). “Student reactions and learning: Evaluation 

of a biochemistry course that uses web technology and student collaboration.” Biochemistry 

and Molecular Biology Education 29: 50-53.

Yarden, H., G. Marbach-ad, and J.M. Gershoni. (2004). “Using the concept map technique in teaching 

introductory cell biology to college freshmen.” Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching

30(1): 3-13.

References for Table 3. 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). “Vision and Change in Undergraduate 

Science Eduction: A View for the 21st Century.” Washington, DC.

Austin, A. E., M.R. Connolly, and C.L. Colbeck (2008). “Strategies for Preparing Integrated Faculty: The 

Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning.” New Directions for Teaching and 

Learning 113: 69-81.

Barlow, A. and M. R. Villarejo (2004). “Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational 

enrichment program.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(9): 861-881.

Bartlett, K. (2003). “Towards a true community of scholars: Undergraduate research in the modern 

university.” Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 666-667: 707-711.

Beatty, I. D. (2004). “Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems.” Educause 

Center for Applied Research: Research Bulletin 2004(3): 1-13.

Bouwma-Gearhart, J. L., S.B. Millar, S.S. Barger, and M.R. Connolly (2007). “Doctoral and Postdoctoral STEM 

Teaching-related Professional Development: Effects on the Early Career.” American Educational 

Research Association Annual Meeting.
★ 100 ★

EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS

Burstyn, J., S. Sellers, A. Cabrera, K. Freidrich, and L. Giovanetto. (2006). “Resources for Inclusive Teaching in 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.” CIRTL Diversity Institute Literature Review. 

Accessible at http://www.cirtl.net/bibliography.

Caldwell, J. E. (2007). “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips.” CBE— Life 

Sciences Education 6(1): 9-20.

Campbell, S. P., A. K. Fuller, and D.A.G. Patrick. (2005). “Looking beyond research in doctoral education.” 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(3): 153-160. 

Carter, F. D., M. Mandell, and K.I. Maton. (2009). “The Influence of On-Campus, Academic Year 

Undergraduate Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerhoff Scholarship 

Program.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(4): 441-462.

Connolly, M. R. (2008). “Effects of a Future-Faculty Professional Development Program on Doctoral 

Students and Postdocs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Findings from a Threeyear Longitudinal Study.” Presented at conference on Preparing for Academic Practice: Disciplinary 

Perspectives. Oxford, England.

Donofrio, L. A., B. Russell, et al. (2007). “Mentoring. Linking student interests to science curricula.” Science

318(5858): 1872-1873.

Felder, R. M., A. Rugarcia, and J.E. Stice. (2000). “The future of engineering education: Assessing teaching 

effectiveness and educational scholarship.” Chemical Engineering Education 34(3): 198–207.

Gainen, J. (1995). “Barriers to success in quantitative gatekeeper courses.” New Directions for Teaching 

and Learning 61: 5–14.

Gilmer, T. C. (2007). “An Understanding of the Improved Grades, Retention and Graduation Rates of STEM 

Majors at the Academic Investment in Math and Science (AIMS) Program of Bowling Green State 

University (BGSU).” Higher Education 8: 11-21.

Haak, D. C., J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman. (2011). “Increased Structure and Active Learning 

Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology.” Science 332: 1213-1216.

Hathaway, R., B.A. Nagda, and S. Gregerman. (2002). “The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study.” Journal of College 

Student Development 43(5): 614-631.

Haudek, K. C., J. J. Kaplan, et al. (2011). “Harnessing Technology to Improve Formative Assessment of 

Student Conceptions in STEM: Forging a National Network.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 10(2): 

149-155.

Hunter, A-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. (2007). “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate 

research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.” Science Education 91: 

36-74.

Kight, S.L., J.J. Gaynor, and S.D. Adams. (2006). “Undergraduate Research Communities: A Powerful 

Approach to Research Training.” Journal of College Science Teaching July/August, 34-39.
Appendix I: References for Tables 2, 3, and 4

★ 101 ★

Kinkel, D. H. and S. E. Henke. (2006). “Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance, 

educational planning, and career development.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences 

Education 35: 194-201.

Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful: Do college students need same-gender role 

models?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30(1): 36-46.

Lopatto, D., C. Alvarez, et al. (2008). “Undergraduate research. Genomics Education Partnership.” Science

322(5902): 684-685.

May, G. S. and D. E. Chubin (2003). “A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underrepresented minority students.” Journal of Engineering Education 92(1): 33.

Miller, S., C. Pfund, C. Maidle Pribbenow, and J. Handeslman. (2008). “Scientific Teaching in Practice.” 

Science 322: 1329-1330. 

Muller, C. B. (1997). “The potential of industrial ‘E-Mentoring’ as a retention strategy for women in science 

and engineering.” Frontiers in Education Conference1997 - 27th Annual Conference, Teaching and 

Learning in an Era of Change. Proceedings 2: 622-626.

Ong, A. D., J. S. Phinney, et al. (2006). “Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective influence 

of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students.” Journal of Adolescence 29(6): 

961-979.

Ovando, M. N. (1994). “Constructive Feedback: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning.” International 

Journal of Educational Management 8(6): 19 - 22.

Peckham, J., P. Stephenson, J-Y Hervé, R. Hutt, and Miguel Encarnação. (2007). “Increasing student retention in computer science through research programs for undergraduates.” SIGCSE ’07: Proceedings 

of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 39(1): 124–128.

Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, D. Ebert-May, A.P Fagen, J. Gentile, S. Gossens, I.M. 

Khan, J.B. Labov, C.M. Pribbenow, M. Susman, L. Tong, R.Wright, R.T. Yuan, W.B. Wood, and J. 

Handelsman, J. (2009). “Summer Institute to Improve University Science Teaching.” Science 324: 

470-471.

Rodriguez, A. L., F. Guido-DiBrito, V. Torres, and D. Talbot. (2000). “Latina College Students: Issues and 

Challenges for the 21st Century.” NASPA Journal 37(Spring 2000).

Russell, S. H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough (2007 ). “The pipeline. Benefits of undergraduate research 

experiences.” Science 316(5824): 548-9.

Shaffer, C. D., C. Alvarez, et al. (2010). “The Genomics Education Partnership: Successful Integration of 

Research into Laboratory Classes at a Diverse Group of Undergraduate Institutions.” CBE—Life 

Sciences Education 9(1): 55-69.

Springer, L., M. E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan. (1999). “Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates 

in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational 

Research 69(1): 21-51.
EN G AG E TO EXC EL : P RO D U C I N G O N E M I LLI O N A D D I T I O NA L CO LLE G E G RA D UAT E S 

WITH DEGREES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHMATICS

★ 102 ★

Stout, J. G. D., Nilanjana; Hunsinger, Matthew; McManus, Melissa A. (2011). “STEMing the tide: Using 

ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 255-270.

Summers, M. F. and F. A. Hrabowski (2006). “Preparing Minority Scientists and Engineers.” Science

311(5769): 1870-1871.

Sy, S. R. a. R., J. (2008). “Family Responsibilities Among Latina College Students From Immigrant Families.” 

Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 7(3): 212-227.

Turner, P., L. Petzold, A. Shiflet, I. Vakalis, K. Jordan, and S. St. John. (2011). “Undergraduate Computational 

Science and Engineering Education.” Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review

53(3): 561–574.

University of Texas, Austin. (2011). Course Transformation Site from

http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctp/resources/literature-review/#instructional_dev_tech.

Walton, G. M. and G. L. Cohen. (2011). “A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and 

Health Outcomes of Minority Students.” Science 331(6023): 1447-1451.

Wei, C. A. and T. Woodin. (2011). “Undergraduate Research Experiences in Biology: Alternatives to the 

Apprenticeship Model.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 10(2): 123-131.

Wild, L. and L. Ebbers. (2002). “Rethinking student retention in community colleges.” Community College 

Journal of Research and Practice 26: 503- 519.

Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, et al. (2007). “Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development 

affects student achievement.” Issues & Answers Report, REL, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. 2007 (033).

References for Table 4. 

Barlow, A. and M. R. Villarejo (2004). “Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational 

enrichment program.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 00: 1-2.

Carter, F. D., M. Mandell, and K.I. Maton. (2009). “The Influence of On-Campus, Academic Year 

Undergraduate Research on STEM Ph.D. Outcomes: Evidence From the Meyerhoff Scholarship 

Program.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(4): 441-462.

Foertsch, J. A., B. B. Alexander, and D.L. Penberthy. (1997). “Evaluation of UW-Madison’s summer undergraduate research programs (final report).” Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD 

Center.

Gilmer, T. C. (2007). “An Understanding of the Improved Grades , Retention and Graduation Rates of STEM 

Majors at the Academic Investment in Math and Science (AIMS) Program of Bowling Green State 

University (BGSU).” Higher Education 8: 11-21.
Appendix I: References for Tables 2, 3, and 4

★ 103 ★

Hathaway, R., B.A. Nagda, and S. Gregerman. (2002). “The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study.” Journal of College 

Student Development 43(5): 614-631.

Hunter, A-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. (2007). “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate 

research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.” Science Education 91: 

36-74.

Junge, B., C. Quiñones, J. Kakietek, D. Teodorescu, and P. Marsteller. (2010). “Promoting Undergraduate 

Interest, Preparedness, and Professional Pursuit in the Sciences: An Outcomes Evaluation of the 

SURE Program at Emory University.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 9(2): 119-132.

Kight, S.L., J.J. Gaynor, and S.D. Adams. (2006). “Undergraduate Research Communities: A Powerful 

Approach to Research Training.” Journal of College Science Teaching July/August, 34-39.

Kinkel, D. H. and S. E. Henke. (2006). “Impact of undergraduate research on academic performance, 

educational planning, and career development.” Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences 

Education 35: 194-201.

Lopatto, D. (2004). “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): first findings.” Cell Biology 

Education 3(4): 270-277.

Lopatto, D. (2007). “Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active 

learning.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 6: 297-306.

Russell, S. H., M.P. Hancock, and J. McCullough. (2007 ). “The pipeline. Benefits of undergraduate research 

experiences.” Science 316(5824): 548-9.

Summers, M. F. and F. A. Hrabowski. (2006). “Preparing Minority Scientists and Engineers.” Science

311(5769): 1870-1871.


President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology (PCAST)

www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast