Cited by 232Higher Education Research StudiesCareer Development and DiversityMathematics Education and Programs

Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first‐generation college students in STEM and non‐STEM majors

Dika, Sandra L., D'Amico, Mark M.·2016·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

Representation of diverse groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a persistent concern in the United States. Although there have been some strides toward more diverse representation, significant problems of underrepresentation remain in particular STEM fields: physical sciences, engineering, math, and computer sciences (PEMC). The purpose of this study is to understand the significance of pre‐college personal and academic factors along with early college experiences to explain persistence among first‐generation college students (FGCS) considering possible differences among PEMC‐STEM majors, other‐STEM majors, and non‐STEM majors. Using institutional and survey data from one 4‐year urban research institution in the Southeast, logistic regression models demonstrate the importance of early academic performance (first‐semester GPA) to increase odds of FGCS persistence across majors; and also reveal important differences. Besides early academic performance, the only other significant factor for persistence of PEMC‐STEM majors was perceived preparation in math. Perceived social fit was significant for persistence for the other‐STEM and non‐STEM majors, whereas perceived academic fit was only significant for non‐STEM majors. These results align generally with previous research, and also suggest that examining differences among STEM subgroups may help develop more nuanced understandings of the needs of different groups. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 368–383, 2016

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.21301

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • First-year GPA predicted STEM retention after three semesters in an analysis of approximately 1200 STEM first-generation college students.

    “in an analysis of ∼1200 STEM first-generation college students, Dika and D’Amico (2016) found that first-year GPA predicted STEM retention after three semesters.”

    From A Meta-analysis of University STEM Summer Bridge Program Effectiveness (2021) · cites this paper as Dika and D’Amico (2016)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dika, S. L., & D'Amico, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • Department of Educational Leadership University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte North Carolina 28223
Corresponding author
Dika, Sandra L.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-22
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
368-383
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
OpenAlex
W2205548068
Cited by
232
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
35.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematics Education and Programs
Keywords
first-generation college students, student persistence, STEM majors, non-STEM students, underrepresentation in STEM

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review