Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education: The Learning Assistant Model and Student Retention and Graduation Rates

Background Evidence-based and student-centered instructional methods hold the promise of transforming undergraduate STEM education and simultaneously solving the dual challenge of STEM workforce needs and inequities within STEM. The Learning Assistant (LA) Model was created to reform curriculum, recruit teachers, and inform discipline-based education research. Numerous studies have shown positive impacts on students and Learning Assistants (LAs) in terms of retention and pass rates, learning outcomes, attitudinal shifts, and emotional support. Several studies have explored demographic differences and found that LAs help close the gap in retention rates for women and first-generation students. While short-term effects have been well documented, the long-term effects on students’ college retention and completion rates have not been widely studied. We gathered information about LA-adopting institutions identified on the Learning Assistant Alliance website and from individual higher education institutions’ websites. Combining this information with the College Scorecard Database for four-year U.S. institutions allows us to examine student retention and graduation rates after these institutions have adopted the LA model and look for differences in both the student and university characteristics included in the dataset. We are interested in determining if there is a difference between LA-adopting and non-LA-adopting institutions in terms of their student outcomes. Results These LA-adopting institutions have larger enrollments and are more likely to award graduate degrees. Students in LA-adopting institutions are more likely to be younger with lower percentages of females, first generation, and Black students. No significant differences in the percentages of Hispanic students or in the average costs per student were observed in our study. Using regression analysis, we find LA-adopting institutions have significantly higher retention and completion rates. Conclusions Since LA-adopting institutions have different characteristics than non-LA institutions, these differences should be considered in future studies examining the impact of the LA model. After controlling for these differences in our study, we find that institutions with the LA model have 4 to 15 percentage points higher college completion rate and they have better outcomes for Hispanic and Black students. These findings suggest that increasing the adoption of the LA model may contribute to reducing inequity in STEM.