Study overview

We explored the ways in which community college students experience benefits as a direct result of participation in a STEM internship, to learn both how and why this program impacted its participants. Although many quantitative studies have documented achievement levels for undergraduates across different institution types, there is a gap in knowledge about the academic trajectories and experiences of students attending U.S. community colleges (Table 1) and the ways in which their personal experiences have impacted their academic and career success [15, 16]. Informed by many studies that a) link psychosocial, academic, and professional benefits for students who complete STEM research experiences and internships [17–19], b) the lack of knowledge about the experiences of community college STEM majors, and c) the absence of studies documenting programs at DOE national laboratories, we considered the role of the CCI program on our study participants’ academic and career activities. We gained a deep understanding of participant experiences before, during, and after participation in the program through the documentation of their experiences as students and their opinions about the factors that influenced their academic/career trajectories (including their own community, culture, and background).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Definition of terms.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.t001

Asset-based approach

We take an asset-based (anti-deficit) approach to studying the experiences of individuals who began their STEM coursework as community college students. Deficit thinking involves labeling certain students as being “disadvantaged” or “lacking” in some way, and can be used to justify why some students “fail to achieve” at the same levels as students in other groups [20, 21]. A deficit-oriented approach might place responsibility on students for “leaving” STEM–because they are less prepared or motivated–as opposed to considering the ways in which institutions may be differentially serving students from different groups [22–24]. In this study, we ask questions that allow us to investigate the reasons why community college students persist in STEM, aligned with the asset-based approaches taken by other educational research studies [25–27]. If we identify the factors that have a positive influence on students, we better position ourselves to reproduce these supports in the future.

Technical and research experiences benefit STEM majors at baccalaureate granting institutions

For students at baccalaureate granting institutions, numerous studies show that participation in a mentored research experience has many potential benefits, including increased academic achievement, likelihood of completing a STEM undergraduate degree, interest in completing a STEM graduate degree, and persistence in STEM [2, 18, 28–32]. Working on technical projects, engaging in research, and receiving support from mentors can clarify students’ academic/career goals, and lead to gains in self-efficacy, confidence, technical skill level, and persistence in their field of study [19, 30, 33]. Factors such as self-efficacy, STEM identity, and internalization of the values of the scientific community are thought to act as mediators between STEM activities and overall persistence in STEM careers [34, 35].

Undergraduates are greatly influenced by the activities they engage in during the first two years of their college experience, but many undergraduates do not participate in STEM technical work or research until the last two years of their bachelor’s degree [36, 37]. Studies suggest that participating in research during the first two years of undergraduate studies has the potential to increase student grade point average (GPA) at graduation, discipline-specific content knowledge, confidence, curiosity, interest, science identity, and institutional satisfaction [38–40]. Aptly stated by Hagedorn and Purnamasari, a student “will not elect to be a nuclear physicist” without some exposure to the field, or knowledge about what the career path entails [41]. Participation in research experiences or internships can provide these opportunities.

STEM technical and research experiences for community college students

Collectively, many community college students are interested in transferring to baccalaureate granting institutions, graduating with a STEM degree, and entering the STEM workforce, but very few meet these goals [42]. Of those “entering” students taking STEM coursework at a community college, 75–80% aspire to graduate with a bachelor’s degree, but only 15–16% of community college STEM majors achieve this goal [43–47]. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has called for DOE national laboratories to engage with community colleges in preparing a diverse future STEM workforce through internships and work-based learning experiences [48]. This is, in part, due to the fact that community college students are collectively more diverse than students attending public or private baccalaureate granting institutions, with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, neurodiversity, disability, career pathway, parental educational attainment, and socio-economic status [49–53]. Low levels of psychosocial constructs (e.g., STEM identity, confidence) are thought to be important to understanding the low graduation rates and STEM persistence of Black and Hispanic/Latinx undergraduates [54]. Previous work has shown that undergraduate research and internships for undergraduates attending baccalaureate granting institutions can increase these psychosocial constructs, and internship programs hosted by DOE national laboratories are a possible mechanism through which community college students might similarly benefit [19, 33].

It is clear that engagement of community college students in STEM research experiences and internships could have enormous impact on their retention in STEM. However, although nearly 50% of people with STEM bachelor’s or master’s degrees attended a U.S. community college, an estimated 6% (or fewer) of the studies published each year about STEM research experiences and internships include data from community college or transfer students [55–63]. This may be because fewer community college students participate in STEM research experiences and internships due to lack of access. Additionally, there may be a connection between concealable identities that “carry negative stereotypes” in the academic science community–such as attending a community college–and the lack of scholarly work dedicated to understanding those identities [64]. There are some examples of programs designed for community college students that report positive outcomes [31, 65–68], but these are infrequently reported in the literature [56].

National laboratories’ role in STEM education is underrepresented in the literature

In the past few decades, some technical and meeting reports, conference papers, and abstracts have been published about STEM education and outreach activities at DOE national laboratories, and a small number of peer-reviewed publications on the subject [69–76]. Beyond this, educational scholars at baccalaureate granting institutions–who produce the majority of studies about internships and research experiences for STEM students–rarely mention educational opportunities at national laboratories in their work. With national laboratories spending over $500 million annually to provide students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty with opportunities to work on technical/research projects, an increase in the representation of these opportunities in scholarly literature would benefit funders, host institutions, and participants [77].

Although previous publications about programs or outreach at national laboratories provide useful information about previous activities, many of these publications a) include data collected from students without documentation of informed consent or review/guidance from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), b) make claims about student learning that are not supported by the type of data collected or previous studies, or c) make sweeping generalizations about undergraduate education and/or student learning that may lead to inaccurate conclusions about program impacts [78]. At the time of this writing we are not aware of any previously published studies that include data from program participants in DOE national laboratory programs aligned with IRB standards for human subjects research. This may be due to the fact that the IRB review has not taken place prior to collecting data from program participants or that this step was not documented as part of a manuscript [79, 80]. People have the right to be “respected, and to determine their involvement (or not) in research,” and studies that include student/participant data should include text to confirm compliance with institutional ethics guidelines [80]. In studies about programs at DOE national laboratories, the lack of systematic investigations and/or commentary about human subjects protocols is problematic because it limits a) knowledge about how these programs compare to other similar programs, b) the extent to which scholars at other institution types can find and make contributions to what is already known about these programs, and c) productive collaborations with experts at DOE national laboratories on the subject.

Role of SCCT model in STEM internships

We hypothesize that a STEM internship for community college students can serve as a learning experience aligned with the SCCT model, and elements such as interactions with mentors and role models can serve as contextual factors. Completing an internship could therefore influence the interests, goals, and actions of community college students, related to their academic and career trajectories. We recognize that a STEM internship is only one of many possible factors influencing career choice behavior (actions) for a particular student. However, previous evidence about the ways in which undergraduates are impacted by mentored professional development and research experiences suggest that self-efficacy and outcome expectations are impacted by participation in this type of learning experience [17, 28, 35, 104]. This is likely to be true especially when the nature of the work during the STEM internship relates to the academic courses taken at the community college and/or a students’ specific academic and career goals.

An internship hosted by an institution such as a DOE national laboratory gives students the opportunity to meet and interact with members of the STEM professional community outside of their college or university community. This increases the potential for social integration into the STEM community and increased awareness about the spectrum of career options in their field of interest. Thus, a STEM internship may serve as a mediating factor between community college students’ initial curiosity or interest in STEM and their graduation and persistence in the STEM workforce.

Internship characteristics

Founded in 1999, the Community College Internship (CCI) seeks to encourage community college students to enter technical careers relevant to the DOE mission by providing paid technical training experiences at one of 17 participating DOE laboratories/facilities. This DOE Office of Science Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program is offered on a national scale, but this study focused on the CCI program at LBNL, managed by Workforce Development & Education (WD&E) at LBNL. Applications for CCI are solicited annually, and those selected are placed with a Mentor Group at LBNL–research mentors and colleagues–for whom they will work as “interns.”

During the 2009–2016 time frame, Mentor Groups generally consisted of one LBNL employee (e.g., Staff Scientist, Manager, Engineer) as the primary “mentor,” and one or more designated “associate mentors” who could be employees, managers, or postdoctoral scholars. This is distinct from the department or Division, which are larger groups. The size of Mentor Groups varied, but was usually between 2 and 6 members, and some interns worked with individuals from multiple Divisions or groups, depending on the nature of the project. The primary and associate mentors might engage in different activities with interns, depending on the group dynamics. In some cases, the primary mentor might have meetings with the interns while an associate mentor served as the “daily supervisor.” Additionally, some Mentor Groups had other staff members, graduate students, and/or undergraduates working with the interns, but these individuals would not be listed as a “mentor.” At this time, postdoctoral scholars could serve as “associate mentors,” but were not eligible to be listed as the primary “mentor.” Graduate students and other undergraduates working at LBNL were not eligible to serve as either “mentors” or “associate mentors.”

Ideally, in addition to teaching new skills to support intern development from novice to advanced scientists or engineers (e.g., read and understand primary literature, perform laboratory techniques), the Mentor Group engages in mentoring practices (e.g., career exploration), as well [105, 106]. During the program, interns spend the majority of their time each week working with their Mentor Group to learn new technical/research skills and apply these to a specific project. Interns also attend mandatory events hosted by WD&E. On the first day of the program (shown in Table 2), Orientation introduces interns to program elements and resources at LBNL. Intern Check-ins are small group meetings with the program coordinator to discuss intern experiences and address issues. Internship Meetings are opportunities for interns to interact with peers and guest speakers from various disciplines. Interns present their work to members of the LBNL community and other guests at a Poster Session. To the DOE Office of Science Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, interns submit written deliverables (e.g., paper, poster) and pre- and post-surveys online. Optional activities include tours, lectures and seminars, networking, and workshops. An exit survey is administered to all CCI interns by WD&E during the final week of their program, to allow program staff to make improvements.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Schedule of activities for CCI interns at LBNL during a summer term.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.t002

Previous studies have shown that being paid through an educational program or research experience contributes to undergraduate academic success, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and feelings of being valued by the sponsoring group or organization [107–110]. The financial compensation provided to CCI interns at LBNL in 2016 included a stipend of $800 per week, a housing supplement of $300 per week, and reimbursement for travel costs to and from LBNL. To be eligible for these financial benefits, CCI interns completed their “onboarding” forms, worked 40 hours per week (which includes project tasks with the Mentor Group, completing required training, and attending internship meetings) during the internship term, and submitted deliverables (e.g., surveys, technical paper).

Study population

Of the 96 individuals who began the CCI program at LBNL between Summer 2009 and Fall 2016, 3 (3%) individuals did not complete the program because a) they stopped reporting to LBNL during the work week and/or complete tasks related to their research project, or b) they experienced a medical- or health-related condition preventing them from continuing to report to work at LBNL. The remaining 93 (97%) individuals who successfully completed the CCI program make up our study population, referred to in this study as “CCI alumni,” and information about this group is shown in Table 3.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Information about CCI participants at LBNL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.t003

We collected survey responses from 43 CCI alumni, and conducted interviews with 12 of these individuals. When applying to the CCI program, each individual selected their “primary academic major” from a list of choices on the application. These were based on the coursework they had taken, to indicate a formal program defined by their school, and/or a major they were interested in pursuing after transferring to a baccalaureate granting institution. At the time of their participation in CCI at LBNL, their primary academic majors were as follows: 15 (35%) in civil and/or mechanical engineering, 14 (33%) in chemistry, 5 (12%) in biology, 4 (9%) in physics and/or mathematics, 3 (7%) in environmental science, and 2 (5%) in computer science and engineering. Of the CCI alumni represented in this study, 40 (93%) attended one of the California Community Colleges, and the remaining 3 (7%) attended schools in Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. More than half of the CCI alumni in this study attended one of the following schools as follows (listed in descending order): Contra Costa College, City College of San Francisco, Diablo Valley College, College of Marin, Hartnell College, Ohlone College, and Sacramento City College.

We use the definitions of “science and engineering occupations” (e.g., life scientists, engineers, mathematicians) and “science and engineering-related occupations” (e.g., science teachers, laboratory technicians, laboratory managers) from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [111] and National Science Board [112] to define “STEM” in this context. Currently, 5 (12%) are graduate students, 36 (84%) have entered the STEM workforce, and 2 (5%) have entered the health workforce. Additionally, 20 (47%) have completed one or more A.A./A.S. degrees, 41 (95%) have completed one or more B.A./B.S. degrees, 11 (26%) have completed a master’s degree, 9 (21%) have–or have nearly–completed a Ph.D. in STEM, and 2 (5%) have completed a health-related degree (e.g., Ph.D., D.D.S., M.D., M.D.-Ph.D.).

Positionality statement

The primary author (L.E.C.) is a woman who was born and raised in California, and grew up in a multicultural household in the U.S. with native-born and immigrant parents. Culturally she identifies as American and Middle Eastern. Her previous experiences as a community college student, participating in the CCI program at LBNL, conducting biological research as an undergraduate, and transferring to a California State University were helpful in establishing rapport with study participants. C.L.F. and L.E.C. have 14 and 13 years of experience, respectively, as practitioners working with a suite of internship programs at LBNL. A.M.B. has 28 years of experience working with and studying undergraduate research experiences for STEM majors, and L.E.C. has worked with A.M.B. on these projects for 8 years. Researchers E.W.L., J.J.S., and S.V.D. worked with WD&E internships as student assistants or employees. Researchers A.M., A.N.Z., and G.O.M. worked on this project as research assistants. Collectively, the authors of this work include individuals who identify as men, women, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Latinx, White, and mixed race. At the time of data collection and analysis, this team included undergraduates, post-baccalaureates, graduate students, faculty, and professionals in disciplines related to biology, chemistry, education, mathematics, medicine, physics, and public health.

As researchers our academic experiences, backgrounds, and identities prepared us to add context to the data we collected in this study and determine the best way to represent our findings. Community colleges have very little representation in the higher education literature, and authors of this study who attended community colleges worked to verify that this work did not perpetuate existing stereotypes about these institutions. Our previous work found that most studies about science research experiences do not a) report the proportion of participants from groups historically excluded from STEM fields, and/or b) present “disaggregated outcomes” for members of these groups [56]. It became clear during the data collection process that our study participants’ experiences differed between groups, based on gender, race/ethnicity, and status as a first-generation college student. To ensure that our data analysis strategy would yield findings that highlighted these unique perspectives, co-authors who shared these identities were involved in exploratory conversations about the data we collected. This is discussed further in the “Data analysis” section. Described by Nakagawa and colleagues [113], this study includes Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT).

Data collection

An exit survey was administered to CCI participants during the final week of their internship (e.g., Summer 2009 interns completed exit survey in August 2009, Fall 2009 interns completed exit survey in December 2009), which gave us some baseline information about those elements of the program that were impactful to community college students at the time of their participation. The survey data were not available for students who completed CCI prior to 2009, so we chose to include study participants from 2009 and later.

Exit survey responses and published literature about community colleges, internships, and research experiences informed the development of the Community College Internship (CCI) Alumni Survey and interview protocol, which was written for use in the current study (S1 and S2 Figs). During recruitment in 2018, we found that some email addresses belonging to CCI alumni were missing or inactive, so the remaining CCI alumni were contacted through online platforms such as LinkedIn or Facebook. Consent forms and the CCI Alumni Survey were administered through Qualtrics. We invited all individuals who completed the CCI program in 2009–2016 to complete a survey, and invited all individuals who completed a survey to be interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted a) in-person and recorded as audio files with a handheld recorder or b) using Zoom and recorded as both video and audio files. Interviews with participants were between 60 to 90 minutes in length. L.E.C. conducted the interviews, and field notes were taken by L.E.C. and S.V.D. The audio files were then transcribed and checked for accuracy by A.N.Z., E.W.L., G.O.M., J.J.S., L.E.C., and S.V.D.

The collection of CCI Alumni Survey data, interview data, and follow-up communication with study participants occurred between 2018 and 2021. As shown in Table 3, our communication with study participants was completed after these individuals completed CCI at LBNL, as follows: between 5 and 8 years for 26 (60%) individuals, and between 9 and 12 years for 17 (40%) individuals. Half of the CCI alumni we interviewed had completed CCI at LBNL between 5 and 8 years prior to this study, and half had completed the program between 9 and 12 years prior. We recognize that the time since an individual had completed the program could impact their responses, and so our goal was to recruit survey respondents and interviewees from each “year of participation.” This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at LBNL (Protocol ID: Pro00023065) with the University of California, Berkeley, as the relying institution (Reliance Registry Study #2593). All contributing researchers have completed training in the responsible and ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, administered through LBNL or the University of California, Berkeley.

Data analysis

When survey results were first obtained, A.N.Z. and G.O.M. organized open-ended responses into major categories, and these initial themes were used to guide discussions among our research team and with others who possess expertise regarding community college staff, faculty, and students in STEM departments (see “Credibility and trustworthiness” section). Data sets were organized by S.V.D. into individual folders for each study participant, to allow for review of all of the data collected from a particular individual for this study and guide our research team discussions. Survey responses and interview transcripts (referred to as “documents”) were analyzed using an approach that combined both grounded theory and content analysis, as follows: a) codes were generated based on the SCCT framework and literature related to professional development opportunities and research experiences for undergraduates, b) documents were read in full, c) sections aligned with the research questions were tagged, d) certain sections of each document were assigned one or more individual codes, e) codes that did not appear in our data were removed from the list of codes, and f) major themes identified in multiple documents were kept [114, 115]. After these major themes were identified, a first draft of the “Findings” section was written to summarize the ideas conveyed by study participants, supported by illustrative quotes. S6 Table shows the list of categories identified from the SCCT model, the coding categories, and individual codes and sub-codes developed for use in this study. We discussed this draft to identify text that framed study participants’ experiences through a deficit lens, and made adjustments aligned with our asset-based perspective. For example, when study participants described their experiences and attitudes toward STEM before CCI, they often recounted stories in which they felt “clueless” about research and/or the work of scientists and engineers. We felt that it was important to balance the presentation of study participants’ stories “in their own words,” with the representation of their experiences in the context of the resources available to them, and the external factors impacting their perspectives. In the example above, we would include the word “clueless,” but worked to ensure that readers understood this to be the perception of study participants, and not our interpretation of their preparation or potential for success. Finally, we identified areas of the text which might be clarified or strengthened by conversations with others who have direct experience with the scenarios described by study participants. We then discussed these preliminary findings with community college students, faculty, and advisors and those who have served as technical/research mentors for community college students, which led to some additional insights. Finally, we discussed the content related to study participants’ unique experiences based on gender, race/ethnicity, and status as first-generation college students. Through these conversations, we identified the ways in which the data from these groups a) were characteristically different from the study population as a whole, b) could be supported by previously published educational research about these groups, c) could be framed through an asset-based lens, and d) furthered our understanding of the SCCT model applied to community college STEM majors. For example, the first draft of the current study addressed the importance of socializing during the learning experience, but did not include a connection between “warmth” in the social environment and the benefits of a learning experience as perceived by women. The identification of this connection led to some of the content that now appears as part of the “Gender” section (in Section 3). Coded documents were read again closely in order to modify/verify existing codes and apply new codes, and this led to multiple revisions of the “Findings” section text.

Scholars have called on educational scholars to report on the perspectives of Hispanic/Latinx community college students [24, 116, 117]. When analyzing our data, we found that some study participants shared unique experiences connected to their Hispanic and/or Latinx identities. We acknowledge that the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino/a/x,” do not describe a singular racial, ethnic, or linguistic community [118]. As shown in Table 3, approximately one-fifth of our study participants are Hispanic/Latinx. To protect the identities of our study participants, we have only used data in the “Findings” section that reference an individual’s self-identification as Hispanic or Latinx when that information was disclosed as part of an open-ended survey response or interview. Additionally, we have named the specific identity of one or more study participants when reporting a finding that connects to background, culture, or identity in our writing, instead of referring to a group as “students of color” or “underrepresented minorities” [24].

Credibility and trustworthiness

The topic of this study, CCI, is a national program funded by the DOE, and has multiple sites across the U.S. However, this study is focused on the CCI program hosted by one particular DOE national laboratory: LBNL. One benefit of examining the impact of the CCI program on participants who have all completed the program at LBNL is the reduction of institutional variability, as compared to a study comparing CCI across different sites [119].

Used in several ways, triangulation (Fig 1) was a key aspect of our approach to conducting this study [120, 121]. This study involves multiple data types, allowing us to employ data triangulation [121, 122]. Our primary method for collecting data was through the collection of survey responses. Conducting in-depth interviews allowed us to more clearly understand the survey responses by asking for clarification, collecting new stories, and allowing us to confirm or refine our initial interpretations of the survey data. We used analyst triangulation, in which multiple observers or analysts contribute their expertise to enhance the quality and credibility of our findings, in three ways [121, 122]. 1. There is a long history of assessment and evaluation of community colleges by people outside of the community college setting, which prevents those with expertise from contributing to knowledge about this system [123, 124]. As described in the “Data analysis” section, we consulted with current and previous community college students, community college and university faculty, university advisors who work with transfer students, and STEM professionals who serve as mentors. 2. During the data collection and analysis stages, multiple researchers read and discussed the data and the themes we constructed to present our findings. As we interpreted data from a particular study participant or group of study participants, authors of the current study with similar backgrounds, lived experiences, or identities were consulted. 3. Over the course of this study, we were in touch with CCI alumni at multiple time points for the purposes of recruitment into the study, scheduling interviews, and member checks to establish transparent relationships and rapport with this group [125–128]. Although CCI alumni shared information about their lives that would eventually become data, we reduced the amount of “transactional” communication. Some CCI alumni reached out to check our progress or update our research team on their academic or career activities. They expressed gratitude for the opportunity to provide their perspectives, excitement for the publication of this work, and hope that it creates opportunities for community college students.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Types of triangulation used.

Multiple data types enabled the use of data triangulation. Various groups of people with unique knowledge about the topic of study informed our data interpretation and analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.g001

Limitations

Selection bias is a common critique of studies focusing on the impacts of programs, internships, research/technical experiences, and other professional development opportunities. In this context, selection bias refers to the scenario in which a student makes the decision to apply to and/or has a greater than average chance of participating in a program as a result of their a) professional network, b) knowledge of its existence, or c) skill level in applying to the program (e.g., experience writing essays, relevant experience on their resume/CV, strong recommendation letters). We recognize selection bias as a potential limitation of this study, and thus cannot claim that participation in the CCI program directly caused the outcomes reported in this study. Instead, we make the case that participation in CCI influenced student perspectives about working in STEM fields, their own abilities and interest in STEM fields, and other related topics, aligned with the SCCT model. Our findings thus center around those outcomes that CCI alumni attribute to their participation in the program.

Although online surveys are generally convenient and cost-effective, they produce a lower response rate than surveys administered by other means [129]. The average response rate for online surveys used in educational research is 44%, and providing incentives does not guarantee that this rate will increase [130]. As suggested by Sammut and colleagues [129], we used email reminders and sent recruitment messages through online platforms, as described in the “Data collection” section. Although we would have liked to collect data from all CCI alumni, we received surveys from 43 (46%) of this group, which is aligned with the aforementioned average response rate.

As compared to the numbers of CCI alumni who completed the program in 2009 to 2016, a) women and White alumni are overrepresented in the group who completed surveys, b) Asian and Hispanic/Latinx alumni have similar representation in the group who completed surveys, and c) men, Black alumni, those who selected “two or more races” are underrepresented in the group who completed surveys. Of the CCI alumni who disclosed their ethnicity/race, there were no Black alumni who completed a survey or interview. We thus cannot produce findings about the unique experiences of those CCI alumni who identify as Black or multi-racial. Notably, there were 7 (8%) CCI alumni who chose not to provide their gender and 16 (17%) CCI alumni who chose not to provide their ethnicity/race. It is possible that these individuals were less inclined to share information about themselves and/or their perspectives, and could be a reason why the number of surveys we received from these groups were lower than their peers.

Section 1. Pre-program experiences, supports, and barriers

1A. Support from community college faculty, STEM groups, and peers.

While attending community colleges, the faculty, staff, and student peers at their home institution were a key source of support for CCI alumni (Table 5). Aligned with recent studies about the supportive social environments at community colleges, 30/43 (70%) of CCI alumni described their positive experiences with small class sizes, community-building activities, and mentorship [131]. Some compared the individualized attention they received at their community colleges with the inaccessibility of faculty at baccalaureate granting institutions after transferring. Although many alumni were originally not planning to apply to any STEM internship or other research opportunity, 21/43 (49%) of CCI alumni reported that they were supported to do so through a “nudge” from community college faculty members, STEM club leaders, program staff, or peers (Fig 2). We conceptualize the “nudge” as strong and deliberate encouragement to pursue a particular opportunity, despite student reservations and/or low self-confidence. They were first introduced to the idea of engaging in professional development opportunities during class, in conversations with peers, or while attending an event hosted by a STEM club. Later, the aforementioned individuals or groups would increase the intensity and complexity of support (e.g., reminders in class, announcements during club meetings, and writing recommendation letters).

Something that helped a lot was the [STEM club]…That was key for me. Getting in a group with people that were open-minded and willing to connect and doing it together … You see them again, and again, and again in the same classes, and that was something that was really vital, having that support system there.

… we had instructors that … had careers in industry or worked at these research centers, so they want to share what they learned … my instructor told me about CCI… and said, ‘You know, you’ve got a good shot of getting in. Would you be interested?’

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Primary reasons for applying to the CCI program at LBNL.

These themes were generated from open-ended survey responses. Alumni applied to the CCI program between 2008 and 2015, and participated between 2009 and 2016. The percentage of CCI alumni (n = 43) who listed each reason are shown. Respondents usually listed more than one reason.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.g002

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Experiences of CCI alumni as community college students taking STEM coursework before their participation in the program at LBNL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.t005

For some CCI alumni, the lack of support from their families to pursue an undergraduate degree in STEM was a barrier to their academic success. Described by 9/43 (21%) of CCI alumni, this lack of familial support was challenging on an emotional level (e.g., self-doubt, embarrassment), or in terms of their understanding of what steps to take to pass their courses and/or transfer to a baccalaureate granting institution. Several Hispanic/Latinx alumni from rural agricultural communities explained that their upbringing did not prepare them to confidently select a major or obtain professional development opportunities, but that the social networks at their local community colleges were beneficial in helping them to achieve their goals. This is aligned with a study by Mireles-Rios and Garcia, in which Latinx undergraduates described the importance of support from mentors and campus organizations to their academic success, confidence, and emotional well-being [132].

Section 2. Experiences during and after the CCI program

Shared through open-ended survey responses and interviews, CCI alumni explained what they gained from CCI (Table 6), and how the program shifted their perspectives about a number of topics. These gains were often contrasted with their perspectives as community college students before CCI, and stood out as being impactful to them years after completing the program.

When I did my interviews for grad school, they asked me a question about internships. The first thing I talked about was my experience at LBNL, talking research projects, collaborating with professionals, problem solving on the spot. When I talk about it, my eyes light up! I’m in the moment, it really gets me excited. They see it, and they notice that, and they feel that, and then they know that I’m being honest and genuine. And they themselves understand that these experiences helped me get to where I am now.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Most common benefits of participation in the CCI program at LBNL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.t006

Section 3. Additional considerations related to background, culture, and identity

In the field of undergraduate STEM education, many scholars have called for researchers to consider the ways in which students’ multiple identities can result in unique lived experiences, versus the examination of experiences based solely on a single identity [137, 138]. The concept of “intersectionality” was first introduced by Crenshaw as a response to the unique marginalization of Black women, as opposed to the experiences of Black people of any gender, or women of any racial/ethnic background [139, 140]. Studies exploring intersectionality in STEM have highlighted the value of storytelling in empowering students to share about the ways in which they believe their identities and lived experiences have impacted their STEM trajectory [141–144].

To add context to their academic/career experiences, 16/43 (37%) of CCI alumni shared stories about how their upbringing, group membership, or culture impacted their experiences in STEM. The role of the mentor was a major theme present in both survey and interview data from alumni who self-identified as part of an “underrepresented” group. Despite being from a “different background,” mentors and staff who deliberately dedicated time to connect with interns about their personal lives were remembered as critical to interns’ positive experiences during CCI. This aligns with the concept of personalismo in Hispanic/Latinx culture, which describes how personal relationships are initially valued more than formal/institutional relationships, and critical to building trust (confianza) in an educational or professional setting [132, 145].

Yeah, my mentor was a White man, but for me … he was truly a friend. [We] would talk about everything, basically anything you can imagine.

[My mentor] would sit you down, and he would tell you anything you wanted to talk about. … I told him, I feel inadequate. I don’t know what I’m doing really, … And I remember he gave me a look, like he wasn’t prepared, because typically the interns that he gets, they already had an idea as to what they want to do. … he was a little surprised and interested … So, he started talking to me about his private life a little bit, sharing about some of the things he did … That was really helpful. … I know he had a lot on his plate, he always did. But, he kept his door open. He literally kept his door open.

Internships at DOE national labs integrate students into the STEM community

Due to the striking underrepresentation of DOE national laboratories and community colleges in the higher education literature, we used this study as a way to investigate both of these topics. Learning, collaborating, and spending time with STEM professionals outside of their school was impactful to community college students who previously struggled to imagine what scientists and engineers “do” at work. Many of the CCI alumni in this study recalled aspects of their experiences that are unique to working at LBNL—such as spending time in the cafeteria or riding the shuttle—that became important to them over the course of their internship. As these activities became familiar to the interns, so too did the idea that they were a part of the institutional community. Many CCI alumni reflected on the unique opportunity to explore, learn, and work at a DOE national laboratory during their internship. Some found it valuable to collaborate with experts in their field while others reflected on the benefits of having access to specialized research centers and powerful technology.

Scholarship about “ownership of learning” suggests that certain learning environments can create or strengthen excitement and motivation about the topic of study [148]. In the current study, most CCI alumni attributed an increase in their STEM identity to the novel experiences of being involved in the activities of a scientist or engineer, including opportunities to apply their newly-learned skills, present their work, and be recognized by others as colleagues. Some found it valuable to connect their CCI projects to societal or scientific impacts, especially if they pursued a STEM career to make a positive impact on others. Others felt deep connections and commitment to their CCI projects when their Mentor Group gave them responsibility and ownership over some aspect of the work. This aligns with previous work about how opportunities to showcase one’s competence as a scientist through research progress and interactions with others can increase self-recognition as a scientist [14, 149–151], how STEM projects framed as beneficial to society can support STEM learning and retention for students with communal goals [106, 152], and the value to students in developing project ownership, a commitment and personal connection with a project [148]. Our findings suggest that completing a STEM internship at a DOE national laboratory can produce outcomes that are comparable to other STEM research experiences or internships for undergraduates.

Many students are looking for opportunities close to home

Many community colleges are disconnected from the STEM professional community and promote employment over professional development opportunities that would support the development of STEM identity in students [50, 153, 154]. At the time of their participation in CCI, more than 90% of our study population were residents of the same state where LBNL is located (California), and most were attending community colleges located within 100 miles of the LBNL Main Site in Berkeley. This aligns with previous findings about community college student preference for completing professional development opportunities located within a “comfortable distance” [155–158].

Harmful stereotypes decrease student confidence

Our study participants identified stereotypes about community college students from the media and harmful “comments” made by others. The academic community perpetuates negative stereotypes about community college students, which can have harmful impacts on community college student retention and belonging in STEM fields [64]. Similarly, television shows, films, and books produced in the U.S. rarely include depictions of community college students and/or inaccurately portray them as “mediocre” and “unmotivated” [159–161]. Although our study participants did not agree with these negative depictions, these biases negatively impacted their confidence to apply to internships or other professional development experiences outside of school. Our findings align with previous studies about the impact of negative narratives about community colleges on students’ “thoughts, beliefs, values, and behaviors,” even when they have positive perceptions about community colleges themselves [162, 163].

Application selection processes can be updated to increase access

Our results suggest that community college students feel that most opportunities for professional development are not “for them,” especially when competing with students from more schools that provide more support with finding opportunities, writing personal statements, and obtaining recommendation letters. This aligns with previous work that has highlighted the unique challenges community colleges face with supporting their students to engage in STEM research, who are often unaware of research opportunities, believe that they are not qualified to apply, and are faced with implicit bias when they do apply for internships and research programs [153, 164]. Although many technical or research opportunities are offered to provide undergraduates with the chance to gain experience, studies suggest that “cultural biases of academic research” lead many STEM professionals to select those applicants who already have relevant experience or extracurricular activities for these positions [165, 166].

Kindness supports inclusion and persistence in STEM

For students and early career professionals, positive and supportive mentor-mentee relationships in a particular professional environment contribute to an increased desire to remain in a similar career pathway [167]. Multiple scholars argue that Black and Hispanic/Latinx students and professionals do not receive adequate support needed to obtain their academic/career goals, and call for additional studies on the subject [168–172]. Throughout this study, we have reported examples of practices that led to community college students feeling as though they were capable, competent, and prepared to pursue a STEM degree or career. Previous studies about students from groups historically excluded from STEM have reported that a) mentoring relationships are necessary to retain these students in STEM careers, b) these students receive less mentoring overall, c) mentors with a similar background can be effective, but they are often over-burdened, and d) well-intentioned mentors can inadvertently harm these students through practices (e.g., biased selection of applicants, colorblind mentoring) that reproduce inequities faced by these groups in the past [34, 172, 173].

Although kindness is valued by all types of students, studies have shown that kindness cues in the form of macro- and microaffirmations can contribute to feelings of social inclusion, and persistence in STEM for Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American, and low-income students [139, 174]. Two related studies that included more than 2,200 undergraduates majoring in life sciences attending baccalaureate granting institutions found that negative social interactions, feeling excluded or unwelcome, and witnessing unfair treatment–such as favoritism–were factors that led to students wanting to leave their group [133, 175]. For these students, a positive environment and experiencing kindness led to the opposite result, and they were more likely to stay with their group. Similarly, a study about female undergraduates majoring in engineering found that microaggressions led to feelings of exclusion, frustration, and a desire to limit social interactions [146]. Examples from that study include people showing surprise that a woman would study engineering, women having to prove to others that they are qualified to be in engineering learning environments, feeling tokenized as one of few women in engineering, and overhearing inappropriate jokes told by colleagues/peers [146].

The SCCT model can be modified to better align with community college student experiences

CCI alumni reported that learning experiences (including STEM coursework) they engaged with at their community college did not result in skill development or knowledge about STEM careers and they had low confidence and outcome expectations. Their stories indicate that perceived barriers (e.g., biases against community college students, few opportunities) act as proximal contextual influences that reduce the likelihood of applying to a learning experience, but support from faculty, STEM clubs, and peers are proximal contextual influences that increase that likelihood. Many CCI alumni received a “nudge” to apply to the program from community college faculty, STEM club leaders, program staff, or peers, which was especially critical for those who experienced discrimination in K-12 educational settings or lacked familial support for their academic goals. A recent study identified types of individuals who influenced community college women of color during their pursuit of careers in STEM [176]. Family members, college faculty/staff, and K-12 educators were most commonly named as positive influences [176]. Notably, two of their study participants named K-12 educators as negative influences, who “tried to block opportunities for them to advance their education,” which aligns with our findings [176]. The original SCCT model and subsequent iterations did not include a link between proximal contextual influences and learning experiences, but our data connect these two concepts (Fig 3). In other words, many of the students who participated in the CCI program would have been less likely to apply to the program without the support from their community college network.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Model of how Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) influences community college student participation in learning experiences and subsequent persistence in STEM fields.

This was developed for the current study based on the original model of how basic career interests develop over time [82] and later iterations applied to STEM learning experiences for undergraduates [17, 85]. Boxes highlighted in orange were added to previous models, based on data from Community College Internship (CCI) alumni in the current study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317403.g003

Recent studies about the SCCT model suggest an indirect effect of proximal contextual influences on goals related to STEM careers through self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and other potential modifications to the model in its original form [104, 177]. Nearly all of the CCI alumni surveyed reported the two largest gains from participating in a STEM internship as a community college student to be a) the connections they formed with members of the STEM professional community (proximal contextual influences) they interacted with during the internship, and b) increased expectations that they would be successful in their academic or professional pursuits (outcome expectations). This professional community allowed students to learn more about STEM careers during CCI, supported them in achieving their goals, and provided kindness–all of which resulted in increased student self-efficacy and confidence. These findings allow us to extend the SCCT model by including a direct link between proximal contextual influences and self-efficacy and/or confidence.

Mentors, colleagues, peers, and program staff continued to take actions to provide support in the form of advice, recommendations, additional internships and jobs, future collaborations, publishing papers together, etc. As described in the “Study Population” section, of the 38 CCI alumni in this study who have entered the workforce, 36 (95%) are working in STEM fields. Further, those who stayed in contact with the LBNL professional community after the CCI program were regularly reminded of their ability to be successful. These actions were thus connected to STEM persistence. Additionally, alumni reported that learning new research and/or technical skills and developing proficiency in science communication during CCI were beneficial to their academic and career trajectories and feeling like a scientist or engineer. Previously, the SCCT model did not include skill development or knowledge about STEM careers, although these are well-known outcomes of professional development opportunities for students. They have been added to the SCCT model in this study, because our data suggest that these are critical to increased self-efficacy, confidence, identity, and outcome expectations. Although we understand them to be individual concepts, there are a large number of studies that link self-efficacy, confidence, and STEM identity together, and our data suggest that all three of these factors are closely related [28, 30, 35, 54, 98, 178]. Thus, we have grouped these three concepts together in our proposed updates to the SCCT model, as applied to community college STEM majors who completed a STEM internship.

Some alumni expressed frustration when they felt like “the only” person from a particular background/identity in a particular group/setting, especially when this situation repeated itself over time. However, those mentors from a different race/ethnicity than their mentees who created space to have conversations about personal topics created feelings of trust and closeness. Aligned with the concept of “authentic care,” our findings indicate that mentors who were perceived to prioritize the care of mentees over project-related outcomes (e.g., finishing tasks, generating data) made a deep and long-lasting impact on their mentees [179]. Women who participated in the CCI program reported the benefits of experiencing a “warm” social environment and opportunities to interact with other women. Some Hispanic/Latinx alumni shared stories about the discrimination they experienced from K-12 educators and schools, which negatively influenced their confidence to apply to the CCI program and their expectations of success in a STEM career. Combined with knowledge from previous studies about SCCT [17, 93], our data suggest that personal inputs (e.g., race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, first-generation to college) play a role in the pursuit of a STEM degree or career, and in their overall perspectives before, during, and after a learning experience.

Community college students may be actively exploring and negotiating their relationship to STEM as a career pathway. Thus, a STEM internship has the ability to a) expose them to new academic and career options, b) provide them with the self-efficacy and confidence to succeed, and c) integrate them into the STEM community at a critical time in their undergraduate studies. Our findings reveal that–years after completing the program–students who received quality mentoring and support retained positive memories and associations regarding their experience.

Partnerships with community colleges

Federal agencies with an interest in broadening participation in STEM should consider the fact that many community colleges have less access to internships for their students, and promote employment over professional development opportunities that would support the development of STEM identity [50, 154]. Programs that involve partnerships between community colleges and other institutions can be an effective way to support student success during “the transitions from one part of their career pathway to another” [180]. Aligned with the call to action by Hampton-Marcell and colleagues [2] to support Black students through partnerships between schools and DOE national laboratories, we recommend that laboratories establish strategic partnerships with community colleges to provide students with “early exposure” research opportunities. Considering previous findings about community college student preference for academic/career opportunities within a “comfortable distance,” we recommend that DOE national laboratories engage in outreach efforts that include community colleges in the surrounding geographic area [155–158]. Additionally, DOE national laboratories can communicate with program alumni to share information about future opportunities to enter the DOE workforce and engage in outreach efforts that include schools in the surrounding geographic area, to provide opportunities to both students and faculty at community colleges [181, 182]. Community colleges that are not located near a DOE national laboratory could partner with other federal organizations with internship programs, such as the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and Smithsonian Institution (SI).

Applicant evaluation and selection

Broadening the scope of possible ways to evaluate program applicants is one way to address the disparities in resources across different student populations and ensure that a diverse new generation of STEM professionals is trained and supported to succeed from the undergraduate level and beyond. Programs should also consider the bias that may be present in their eligibility requirements, application structure, selection criteria, and/or recommendation letters against those student populations with less access to STEM careers. For example, an applicant’s GPA may not be reflective of their disposition and interest in working on research/technical projects [17]. Programs could reduce bias by the use of a standardized recommendation letter, which would produce “a similar description for each student” applicant [164]. Those involved in reviewing applications could consider the potential impact such an opportunity might have for a student with limited access to those opportunities. The Level Playing Field Institute in Oakland, California and the Biology Scholars Program at the University of California, Berkeley consider factors such as “distance traveled.” Rather than previous achievements, distance traveled examines an applicant’s trajectory, including the resources and support they had access to and what hurdles they have overcome to arrive at their current academic/career stage [183–186]. Similarly, McDevitt and colleagues [165] suggest a two-step approach, in which program directors first review and narrow the applicant pool based on project needs, program goals, etc., and then mentors select students from this pool based on skills and their “potential to gain additional value” from the program.

Practices in support of community college students

For students and early career professionals, positive and supportive mentor-mentee relationships in a particular professional environment contribute to increased desire to remain in a similar career pathway [167]. Creating a positive and supportive working environment is beneficial to all parties in the short-term and can have long-term impacts on students, as well. Mentors will best serve all students by being aware of the possible ways in which background, culture, and identity can impact students’ academic/career experiences and perspectives. Unlike many of the resources needed to offer a professional development opportunity to students, kindness is free and readily available for all members of the STEM professional community to give to others. Although we often associate professional development opportunities with productivity and career advancement, mentors whose practices include kindness, attention, and trust can have many positive impacts on their mentees years into the future.

Mentors, counselors, and staff can expose and challenge negative stereotypes about community colleges, to support students’ pride in their educational pathways and identities and increase the likelihood that they will persist and complete their studies [42, 162, 187]. We recommend that those individuals involved in the recruitment, training, and education of community college and transfer students learn about these issues and take active steps to empower these students.