Community-Based, Culturally Relevant STEM: Engaging Rural and Indigenous Students Through Partnerships, Institutional Flexibility, and One Health

Abstract

Rural and Indigenous students face many barriers to persistence in biomedical and STEM trajectories including poor access to science experiences, a dearth of relatable educational resources, and educational structures misaligned with rural and Indigenous student and community needs. Rural Alaska Students in One Health Research (RASOR) is designed to provide a positive first college experience for rural and Indigenous students. Key innovations include 1) a partnership between the University of Alaska and tribal governments to allow for culturally relevant, locally-mentored research experiences and 2) a customizable program structure. We also surveyed adults in the region regarding attitudes about science, its community relevance, and science opportunities for young people. One Health—the connection of human, animal, and environmental health—resonated with both adults and students. Student interest in both animal/environmental and human research increased during RASOR, as did measures of science self-efficacy, identity, and science aspirations. Community members view science as important and strongly support students’ scientific interests. However, perceptions remain that science training results in students leaving their communities, despite tribal leadership efforts to “grow-their-own” STEM opportunities and professionals in these same communities. We suggest One Health is a culturally meaningful pathway to promote engagement of rural and Indigenous students in biomedical and STEM fields and is enhanced by educator and institutional flexibility and community partnership.

Introduction

Southeast Alaska communities are home to people of intersecting identities that are underrepresented in biomedical sciences and other science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, including American Indian/Alaska Native (“Indigenous”), low-income, first-generation college, and rural (National Institutes of Health, 2019). Geographic isolation defines these communities—they are accessed only by boat or small aircraft. Although many of the region’s communities have basic modern amenities, there are considerable gaps in access to education, economic development, health services and other opportunities typically available in urban and suburban communities (Chapin et al., 2016; DeFeo et al., 2014; Doyle et al., 2009). As a result of this isolation, communities in Southeast Alaska face similar educational challenges and limitations common in rural America (Avery, 2013). There is a wide educational aspirations/attainment gap among rural Alaska students (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) – few of those interested in pursuing advanced education and career opportunities embark on, or persist in, education and career advancement. Rural Alaska students who pursue college opportunities are typically low-income and first-generation college students; these students are at higher risk to not persist in their chosen educational and career trajectories (Doyle et al., 2009).

In most small Southeast Alaska communities, there is a conspicuous lack of academic place-based science education. Inadequate funding, struggles to retain educators and administrators, and the use of educational resources more aligned to urban and suburban student experience (DeFeo & Tran, 2019; Hollow et al., 2006; Semken et al., 2017; Waller & Barrentine, 2015) contribute to the region’s education challenges. Students have limited exposure to science outside of the minimum requirements to fulfill state education standards (science teachers in these communities may or may not have science backgrounds), with few local science clubs or summer activities focused on science education. Geographic isolation can limit exposure of students to scientifically-minded peers, professional role models, science career pathways, and formal/informal academic opportunities at secondary and post-secondary levels (Avery, 2013; Koricich et al., 2020). Rural Alaska schools have less developed academic and career pathway support structures, and offer fewer course choices, than their non-rural counterparts (DeFeo et al., 2014). One approach to address this lack of opportunity is to offer programs for students to meet outside of their communities at university-based programs or boarding schools. However, while these programs provide many advantages, this approach implicitly reinforces a common perception that science is something that must or should be done outside of their community cultural context. Physical displacement facilitates a critical misalignment of educational culture with community culture, which contributes to the aspiration/attainment gap.

Indigenous subsistence cultures embrace traditional ways of knowing that differ significantly from western approaches to education (Grimberg & Gummer, 2013; Semken, 2005). These cultural dissimilarities are often partitioned within the daily lives of Indigenous and rural Alaskans as they experience “school” culture and “home” culture (Grimberg & Gummer, 2013). Further, curricula and curricular materials devised far from the students’ geographic and/or cultural home often lack place-based and cultural significance, making them unrelatable to students (Avery, 2013; Semken et al., 2017). Cultural detachment from curricula can negatively impact sense of belonging, motivation, aspiration, and awareness of academic and career opportunities (Guillory et al., 2008; Killick, 2015; Piškur et al., 2022). This detachment may disproportionately impact both Indigenous and rural students as their cultures, lifestyles, and traditions may not align closely with those of the dominant culture that defines educational and academic standards and philosophies (Killick, 2015; Ward et al., 2014). It is dangerous to attribute educational “failures” of those in underrepresented groups to individuals’ deficiencies when our colonization-era educational structures and institutions are built on systemic social, educational, and cultural misalignments (Masten, 1994; McLean et al., 2019; Ongtooguk, 2004; Willems, 2012).

Despite these geographic, resource, and cultural barriers, students that live in the unique culture and environment of Southeast Alaska have a rare and valuable perspective for enriching research within STEM fields. Indigenous peoples (Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian) have inhabited the region since time immemorial – likely at least 10,000 years (Lindo et al., 2017)—and have cultural, spiritual, economic, and nutritional ties to the terrestrial and marine environments (Ackerman, 1992; Carlson & Baichtal, 2015). Non-indigenous populations in the region also depend on the environment for commercial fishing, subsistence hunting, clamming, gathering and cultivating native plants for food and traditional arts. Residents live within a One Health context (Hueffer et al., 2019; Määttä et al., 2020) – a strong awareness of the close linkage of human, animal, and environmental health. The linkage between these three elements means that none can be optimally healthy without all being healthy (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2018); a concept that has always been a part of, and consistent with, the Indigenous world view (Arquette et al., 2002; Cajete, 2020; Donatuto et al., 2014; Whyte et al., 2016). While traditional harvesting, cultural camps, and other community activities emphasize place-based environmental knowledge, there are few opportunities for students to connect that knowledge to formal academic training. The loss of these valuable perspectives to STEM fields in addressing social, scientific, biomedical, cultural, and environmental issues exacerbates cultural divides in the nation at large. Underrepresentation of rural and indigenous students in science is felt keenly in small communities as they are often forced to hire outsiders into science-based positions despite a common preference to “grow their own” talent for these roles. An inability to recruit tribal citizens or local residents into these positions threatens community autonomy, self-determination, and sovereignty (Chapin et al., 2016; DeFeo & Tran, 2019).

To address educational and career aspiration disparities for secondary students in small, isolated Southeast Alaska communities, we developed Rural Alaska Students in One Health Research (RASOR). RASOR is a National Institutes of Health-funded, One Health, place-based, mentored research and education collaboration between the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), Sitka Tribe of Alaska (STA) and the Southeast Alaska Tribal Ocean Research (SEATOR) network designed to increase engagement of students from rural Alaska communities in biomedical- and STEM-related education and research experiences. Adolescents are just beginning their academic and career exploration, commitment, and reconsideration process of vocational identity (Porfeli & Lee, 2012); exposure at this age to positive, supported, education and research opportunities may provide additional considerations for their academic and career trajectories. This is especially important for underserved populations who have been shown to benefit from early exposure to research (Kuh, 2008; Ward et al., 2014).

RASOR is structured and administered to bridge rural and indigenous students’ geographic, resource and cultural barriers. RASOR facilitates quality connections with researchers and motivated peers. Students earn college credits through a distance-delivered, rigorous, and supportive academic program. Students conduct locally-directed research mentored in field and lab work by tribal environmental staff in their communities. Our approach is designed to demonstrate the practicality of scientific research, that science can align with community and cultural priorities, and to provide career pathways for community members. Research projects focus on culturally and nutritionally important resources to their home community within a One-Health context. Students present their research both within their home community and to members of the broader scientific community, reinforcing integration between home and academic culture. Crucially, RASOR strives to meet individual students where they are geographically, academically, culturally, and developmentally by extensively modifying conventional education structures; RASOR addresses all 4 elements of the Quadripartite Model of Educational Resilience, which posits that the shared responsibility (and modifications of conventional approaches) of students, educators, institutions, and communities is necessary for successful Indigenous education initiatives (Willems, 2012).

In developing and evaluating this program, we seek to address the following three questions, which are applicable to other initiatives to improve interest and persistence in biomedical and STEM-related academic and career trajectories among our rural and Indigenous populations. Question 1) How do adults in rural Alaska communities perceive science, its relevance, and opportunities and support for young people to study science? Question 2) How does the RASOR curriculum affect science self-efficacy, identity, and aspirations of rural and Indigenous youth? Question 3) What conventional educational structures are barriers to student engagement, and how can these barriers be modified to facilitate student participation and achievement?

Methods

RASOR Program

RASOR is a partnership between the University, tribal governments, and tribal environmental organizations to provide unique personalized research experiences and college skill development for students in their home communities. The Southeast Alaska Tribal Ocean Research consortium trains tribal environmental research staff in each community in ocean monitoring sample and data collection – these staff are potential RASOR student mentors. RASOR staff (UAS—RASOR director and one coordinator) and mentors work with schools to identify and recruit students into RASOR. Tribal environmental departments receive a stipend from RASOR as partial compensation for mentor time; tribes have a strong mandate from tribal councils to provide opportunities for youth. While engaging in hands-on research with their mentors, students take an online dual enrollment course for college credit. Course content and delivery are the responsibility of the RASOR director and is offered through UAS. RASOR aligns strongly with UAS’s 6 strategic goals: Excellence, Diversity, Access, Collaboration, Sustainability, and Stewardship, and is consistent with tribal education and workforce development priorities. Importantly. RASOR is open to Indigenous and non-Indigenous rural students throughout Southeast Alaska.

RASOR implemented a variable-credit structure (Table 1) midway through the first year to accommodate diversity in student availability, interest, and preparedness in support of a positive research and college preparatory experience. To initiate each annual RASOR cohort, enrolled students participate in a 4-day in-person or remotely delivered Whalefest experience (BIOL 175; 1 college credit). Whalefest is a local (Sitka), public-focused, marine science symposium that invites scientists to present marine science research on issues of regional and global importance. BIOL 175 comprises Whalefest science symposium attendance, research workshops, question and answer sessions with scientists, and a written reflection. Non-credit activities such as ocean trivia, dinners and excursions round out the experience. Whalefest also serves as a low-commitment introduction for students who aren’t ready for a full-academic year experience—typically younger students. These Whalefest-only students do not participate in the additional RASOR program components and are not included in RASOR student survey results presented here.

Table 1.

RASOR college credit structure. RASOR students enroll in BIOL 175 and 1–3 credits in BIOL 101. Whalefest students enroll only in BIOL 175

	BIOL 175	BIOL 101
RASOR Component	1-Cr	1-Cr	2-Cr	3-Cr
Whalefest Science Symposium (BIOL 175 1 -Cr)	+	+	+	+
Intro to Research Coursework		+	+	+
Mentored Research (10 h per credit)		+	+	+
Community Science Communication Project		+		+
Research Poster and Poster Presentation			+	+
Total Credits	1	2	3	4

Following Whalefest, RASOR students embark on an academic year-long, 1–3 credit course/research experience completing coursework (BIOL 101—Introduction to Scientific Research Techniques I) and working with research mentors in their home communities on a locally relevant research project. Originally, RASOR research projects focused on monitoring local shellfish for paralytic shellfish poisoning, however, the scope of projects has expanded to reflect student and community interests, and includes studies on marine microplastics and pet-derived fecal coliform contamination in local watersheds. Expertise and interest of tribal mentors are important factors in developing RASOR student research projects; mentors are already involved in projects that have been identified as priorities by tribal governments. Each year mentors meet collectively with RASOR leadership to share experiences and strategies for working with their local students. A mentor handbook outlines mentor roles and responsibilities, tips for project development, and includes resources for working with students. The mentor coordinator checks in with mentors at least monthly, ensures they have supplies, activity ideas, helps to refine project ideas with the mentor and course instructor, and provides other support. This community approach ensures student research topics are locally and culturally relevant.

Students select their credit load in consultation with their BIOL 101 professor (located in the regional hub community of Sitka); together, they determine a credit load that best aligns with their interests, experience, and competing obligations. The course is distance delivered; topics include theoretical foundations for scientific research (i.e. “What is Science”), One Health, biology/ecology content, science communication, peer review, research ethics, academic pathways, and science publication/presentation. Over the course of the academic year, students work with their research mentor 10 h per academic credit. During spring semester, all students within each community (1–5 students) meet twice weekly with their professor via distance connection. Two- and three-credit RASOR students develop a poster for presenting their research in a public forum to both scientists and community members near the end of the course (Table 1).

Flexibility, cultural relevance, and placed-based research are critical to RASOR design. Students coordinate their data collection schedules with their local mentors, influence selection of their research topics, determine their credit workload, schedule weekly meeting with their professor, and define the form of their community communication projects. Working within programmatic guiderails and timelines, the RASOR professor and mentors provide guidance to students on these decisions.

Data Collection

Community Science Surveys

To capture community attitudes toward science, perceived applicability of science in their communities, and accessibility to science training by community youth, we developed the Community Science Survey. Originally designed to be deployed in person, due to pandemic restrictions we deployed the survey electronically in each of 5 Southeast Alaska communities (population range = 502–1654). We selected communities based on size (we did not deploy surveys in the larger “hub” communities), demographic profile (communities with demographics that reflected underserved rural and Indigenous populations were included), and accessibility (presence of a collaborator for orchestrating survey advertising and deployment). We solicited participation of adults (18 years or older) regarding attitudes towards, relevance of, and opportunities in, science. We collected basic demographic data (level of education, race/ethnicity, etc.) to capture a sample reflective of community and regional race/ethnicity- and education level profiles. We advertised the survey through social media and word-of-mouth and incentivized the survey with a chance to win a $75 gift card or gift certificate to a local store (4–6 awards per community, depending on community population size). Survey responses were anonymous. After completing the survey, those wishing to enroll in the raffle selected a link to an external form on which they provided their name and contact information. Raffle winners were chosen at random. Completing the survey and enrolling in the raffle were voluntary. Surveys were limited to a single response from a given IP address.

To minimize the use of unreliable data from the Community Survey (e.g. respondents clicking through the survey for the sole purpose of enrolling in the raffle), we applied a “reasonableness” test based on survey completion time. We determined a reasonable time for survey completion by timing survey completion by a “pilot group” of 8 volunteers (6 were unfamiliar with the survey/RASOR program, 2 were familiar with, or part of, the survey and RASOR program) tasked with taking the survey in a manner consistent with their reading speed. To accommodate those in the study who may read faster than any pilot group participants, we selected a conservative survey threshold time – surveys completed in less than the threshold were not included in the study. For consistency with related studies, we asked about race/ethnicities that were part of respondent heritage.

Student Surveys

We developed pre-RASOR and post-RASOR surveys to capture participant demographics; self-reported impacts of mentored research experiences; science self-efficacy and identification; attitudes on One Health; and aspirations regarding science, education, and career pathways. We administered surveys electronically to all full-year RASOR students (2-, 3-, and 4-credit enrollees) prior to, and after completion of, their RASOR experience. Survey items included those mapped to “Hallmarks of Success”, a suite of priority metrics identified by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Diversity Program Consortium (McCreath et al., 2017), and those specifically designed to provide programmatic feedback to inform RASOR administrators. Surveys included Likert-style, multiple choice, and open-ended items.

Using traditional pre/post surveys for subjective, non-cognitive constructs (e.g. attitudinal and aspirational items) may not accurately assess impacts of interventions. Often, those participating in the intervention are unable to accurately self-assess, for a given construct, their initial condition—that is, “they don’t know what they don’t know”, the response shift bias (Drennan & Hyde, 2008; Howard, 1980). Response shift bias is indicated by a change in how a respondent assesses their own initial condition before and after the intervention (the difference in the “pre” and “retro-pre” self-assessments). We included identical subjective construct items in both “pre” and “retro-pre” surveys to assess the existence and extent of response shift bias (Cartwright & Atwood, 2014; Hill & Betz, 2005; Little et al., 2020).

Student Focus Groups

At the conclusion of each year’s RASOR program, we invited each cohort to participate in a focus group led by the program’s external evaluator (2nd author). Primarily as a formative tool, we aimed to further capture student experience in RASOR; assess the impact of program structure/staff on student interest, motivation, and aspirations; and inform program direction to better serve students. Focus group data also supplemented survey data and provided a means to explain survey data from student perspectives, and to identify instances, and explanations, of cases that do not align with patterns observed in survey data (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010). Focus groups were conducted remotely with audio and (optional) video feed.

Student comments were captured and are referenced in this paper to provide narrative context of student experience in RASOR. With consent from participants, we recorded focus group interviews for later transcription, reference, and to ensure accuracy. We include focus group comments for context in the discussion section of this manuscript.

Participation

We include in this paper student data from the first 3 RASOR cohorts. Participation of students and adults in this work was permitted through project review by the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institutional Review Board. Participation in surveys or focus groups was voluntary; all participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that declining to participate would in no way impact any other opportunities or benefits associated with RASOR.

Data and Analysis

Community Science Survey Data

We provide descriptive summaries of data collected from the Community Science Survey; demographic variables are presented within the context of 2020 census data (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) for communities in the region.

Student Survey Data

Due to small sample size when stratified by annual cohort or within-community participants, we pooled survey data for cohorts 1–3 prior to analysis. We compared retro-pre/post Likert-style item responses using a Wilcoxon, 2-sided, signed rank test on paired data (Zar, 1974). To assess response-shift bias, we compared pre-RASOR responses to retro-pre RASOR responses using a Mann–Whitney U-test on unpaired data; we used the same test to identify differences between “pre” and “post” Likert-style items (Zar, 1974). We determined effect size for Likert-style comparisons using a Cohen’s “r” calculation (Fritz et al., 2012). We used a Chi-square test (Zar, 1974) to assess differences in selection frequency for One Health items between RASOR students and adult community members. For all tests, significance was set at p < 0.05. To correct for possible familywise errors due to multiple comparisons, we adjusted the significance level using Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni Procedure (Abdi, 2010).

Results

Community Science Survey

Respondent Demographics

Our Community Science Survey sample is representative of small communities in the region in terms of race/ethnicity and level of education. In the communities surveyed a range of 3.6—10.3% (median = 6.1%) of adults 18 or over participated in the survey. American Indian/Alaska Native (“Indigenous”) and White are the predominant race/ethnicities in small Southeast Alaska communities. Regionally, 72.8% of survey respondents included Indigenous as part of their heritage (compared to 51.1% of respondents from this region identifying as Indigenous on the 2020 U.S. Census) and 36.9% included White as part of their heritage (compared to 32.5% of respondents from this region identifying as White on the U.S. Census). Education level of survey respondents reflected the population: 7.1% (versus 8.9% of the population) of respondents had not obtained a high school diploma or successfully passed the Graduate Education Development (GED) test; 74.0% (versus 76.5% of the population) had a high school diploma or GED without a college degree; 18.9% (versus 14.6% of the population) had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. Median age range of respondents was 41–50; all adult age classes were represented. Median frequency of eating foods derived from wild sources was once per week; less than 5% of respondents reported “never or very rarely”.

Respondent Results

Adult respondents to the Community Science Survey indicated young people have opportunities and strong support for studying science in their community, and there are employment opportunities for those who pursue interests in science. Further, respondents felt they could identify 1) science projects that have benefited their community, and 2) science projects that should be done in their community. Community members recognized the importance and value of science at local, state, and national levels, however, their perceptions regarding ease of finding, and access to, local employment were more pessimistic (Fig. 1). When asked to select reasons NOT to study science, the most common selection (22.7%) was that those who study science often do not return to the community, a common sentiment in remote Alaska village communities.

Fig. 1.

Frequency (percent) of Community Science Survey respondent selections of good reasons for young people to study science

RASOR Students and Surveys

All RASOR-enrolled students resided in Southeast Alaska during their RASOR experience. Between fall 2019 and spring 2022, 39 secondary school students residing in 7 communities enrolled in the academic year-long RASOR (14, 8, and 17 in RASOR cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Participating students represented communities whose race/ethnicity demographics ranged primarily Indigenous populations to those with predominately White populations. All students attended public secondary schools; 5 students attended a regional state-operated boarding school, and 2 students from an alternative secondary school.

During year 1, three students withdrew from RASOR during spring semester and two students completed fewer than 4 credits, the only credit option available at the time they enrolled. Since adopting a multi-credit approach in year 2, all students completed their chosen credit tracks with at least a grade of C- (A-F scale). The full 3-credit option for the spring course (4 credits total) remained the most popular. Over three years, 26 students completed 3 credits, 7 students completed 2 credits and 3 students completed 1 credit.

We identified resonance with the One Health concept among both RASOR students and community members. Adult community members and RASOR students shared similar patterns of interest in connecting human and animal/environmental health, and the idea that the disciplines are closely related. Fewer adults and students reported that either human or animal/environmental science was more important to them than the other. However, a higher percentage of RASOR students indicated that animal/environmental health science is more important to them than human health science. We observed the opposite trend in the community adult population (Fig. 2). RASOR participants self-reported greater interest in both human (p < 0.01; r = 0.53) health- and animal/environmental (p < 0.01; r = 0.56) health-related research at the conclusion of, versus prior to, their RASOR experience (“retro-pre/post” comparison), however, we observed no “pre/post” difference in student interest in human health- or animal/environmental health-related research (Fig. 3). This difference suggests a response shift bias in respondent attitudes (Fig. 3; Drennan & Hyde, 2008).

Fig. 2.

Relative interest in, and perceived relationships between, human and animal/environmental health and health science by pre-intervention RASOR students and by adults in 5 small Southeast Alaska communities. *p < 0.05 (Chi-square)

Fig. 3.

Self-reported mean Likert-style scores of student interest in human health- and animal/environmental health-related research prior to (“pre” and “retro-pre”; n = 34 and 23, respectively) and after (“post”; n = 23) participating in RASOR. Horizontal bar with asterisks indicates difference between “pre” and “retro-pre” responses (response-shift bias; Mann–Whitney U). Asterisks without horizontal bar indicate significant difference between “retro-pre” and “post” responses (paired Wilcoxon). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Overall, students reported that RASOR positively impacted their confidence working in, understanding of, and aspiration toward, scientific research. RASOR student comfort in doing research (p < 0.01; r = 0.60) and understanding of science principles (p < 0.01; r = 0.60) increased significantly during their RASOR experience (Fig. 4; “retro-pre” versus “post” comparison). We also observed a significant “pre” versus “retro-pre” difference for both metrics (both p < 0.001; r = 0.76 and r = 0.41, respectively; Fig. 4), suggesting a response shift bias (Drennan & Hyde, 2008). There was a significant “pre-post” increase in student science self-identity (“I think of myself as a scientist” and “I feel like I am part of a community of scientists”; both p < 0.01; and r = 0.49 and 0.38, respectively) scores (Fig. 5). Interest by students in pursuing a degree in science (p < 0.01; r = 0.67) and in a scientific research job/career (p < 0.01; d = 0.67) increased during RASOR. Students also reported increased confidence in taking a college course (p < 0.01; r = 0.78).

Fig. 4.

Self-reported mean Likert-style scores of student comfort doing science research and understanding of science processes before (“pre” and “retro-pre”; n = 34 and 22, respectively) and after (“post”; n = 22) participating in RASOR. Asterisks without bar indicates significant differences between post and retro-pre scores (Wilcoxon signed rank test). Horizontal bar with asterisks indicates difference between “pre” and “retro-pre” responses (response-shift bias; Mann–Whitney U). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Fig. 5.

Self-reported mean Likert-style science identity scores of students before (“pre”, n = 34) and after (“post”, n = 23) participating in RASOR. Asterisks indicate significant pre-post differences (Mann–Whitney U). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Discussion

In this paper, we describe the flexible and personalized approaches RASOR uses to impact self-efficacy and scientific identity/aspirations of participating rural high school students. We demonstrate through community surveys that our approach of place-based research is responsive to the desires of rural communities, which value scientific research and support students pursuing STEM education, but are concerned about students leaving their community to do so. Capturing community attitudes provides context for student-level applications and impacts of RASOR. It also illuminates the local environments in which RASOR is operating and facilitates aligning program details with community attitudes. The responsive strategies incorporated in RASOR show potential to “move the needle” in addressing chronic under-representation of rural and Indigenous Alaska populations in STEM and biomedical science fields.

RASOR: Integrating Flexibility, Responsiveness, and Principles of Rural and Indigenous Education

With a flexible, responsive approach, RASOR aims to minimize barriers to rural and Indigenous students by engaging students in a college-level science education and research experience. Rural and Indigenous students face many barriers to success. Barriers include relatively rigid institutional structures poorly aligned with rural and/or Indigenous cultures and lack of access/proximity to high quality educational opportunities outside the limited offerings of local, often under-resourced schools (Avery, 2013; Gilmer, 2010). RASOR incorporates student voices in designing a program that accommodates the unique experiences, cultures, and circumstances of the region’s rural and Indigenous students. In this regard, RASOR reflects our attitude that the burden of rural and Indigenous student success does not lie with them, but is a shared responsibility – and breaking down systemic barriers to equity in educational opportunity is the responsibility of institutions and educators (McLean et al., 2019; Morales & Morales, 2020; Willems, 2012).

Continuous formative assessment has revealed both programmatic limitations of the original design and opportunities for student success, and has reinforced the importance of institutional and programmatic plasticity in serving rural and Indigenous students (McLean et al., 2019; Michalski et al., 2017; Willems 2012). Fundamentals of RASOR (e.g. place-based, culturally relevant mentored research; centrally delivered college-level coursework; remote community focus) have been consistently delivered since program inception. Ongoing formative assessment influences RASOR’s operational framework, which combines elements of the Quadripartite Model of Educational Resiliency (“Quadripartite Model”; Willems, 2012), uses a modified Student–Teacher-Scientist Partner approach (STSP; Gilmer, 2010; Housel et al., 2014), and implements Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) practices that include culturally responsive leadership at institutional and administrative levels (Brown & Crippen, 2017; Morales & Morales, 2020).

Our modifications to RASOR are consistent with the Quadripartite Model (Willems, 2012) whereby student success is the shared responsibility of student, educator, institution, and community. Three examples illustrate our efforts toward flexibility, shared responsibility, and responsiveness. First, implementing the multi-credit structure required educator and institutional flexibility, but has provided a more inclusive experience for rural students by empowering them to select a level of investment consistent with their interests, background, and preparedness. In the 2 years since implementing the variable credit structure, all enrolled students have persisted in, and successfully completed, RASOR. Second, the initial RASOR design emphasized a full cohort (all enrollees in each year) model – activities focused on full cohort cohesion despite students being dispersed across 700 km. Student feedback strongly indicated local (community) cohort cohesion was a more important contributor to a positive, productive experience than full cohort-level activities. The instructor replaced weekly full cohort meetings with an additional weekly community cohort meeting for each community (total of 2 community cohort meetings/week) to accommodate student engagement with course content and instructor. The shift from a regional cohort to a community-based cohort represents a student-informed, educator-level adaptation to promote student success. In practice, this change provides rural and Indigenous students an important level of support, from instructor and peers, in their first college and research experience likely unavailable in a traditional university environment (Michalski et al., 2017; Milne et al., 2016; Smith & Gottheil, 2011). Third, the university and tribal partnership has enabled each to contribute their respective strengths in education, scientific expertise and infrastructure, community presence and engagement, and administrative support in a common goal of expanding student opportunities. As such, RASOR represents a rurally-derived school-community partnership model that is exportable and adaptable to other regions (Zuckerman, 2019).

The Student–Teacher-Scientist Partnership (STSP) approach emphasizes the contributions of all parties in developing a more holistically mentored science experience for students (Gildehaus et al., 2019; Housel et al., 2014; Michalski et al., 2017; Smith & Gottheil, 2011). Its widely recognized that furthering student science understanding includes a sense of science self-efficacy – they perceive they can succeed in tasks, activities, and courses—however, many secondary school teachers have limited practical science experience (Estrada et al., 2018; Hurtado et al., 2009; Lofgran et al., 2015; Newell & Ulrich, 2022; Webb-Williams, 2018). Partnering with scientists is a means to supplement student and teacher content knowledge with the “doing” of science. This is sometimes viewed as vertical teaming (Gilmer, 2010), a term (problematically) suggesting a hierarchy of importance, where the scientist occupies the highest tier. In RASOR, we have adopted a modified STSP approach that is horizontally integrated to promote a realistic and holistic science experience. Local tribal research mentors, employed through the research network, provide holistic mentorship that incorporates community-specific, cultural, scientific, and local logistical elements to student projects. The course instructor/scientist engages with students on content, science principles, applying and adapting student field experiences into science projects, and in development of research presentations and community science communication projects. Built-in programmatic flexibility accommodates further modification and overlap of these roles as community cohort and individual student needs dictate. Channels of communication between instructor and research mentors are open; they communicate directly during mentor training sessions at the beginning of each year and on an as-needed basis. Local secondary school teachers have the option to participate, however, RASOR is designed to function with limited local teacher investment, as rural teacher workloads generally limit additional activities. In this regard, RASOR supplements teacher efforts while expanding student opportunities in science.

In RASOR, we apply principles of culturally relevant pedagogies (CRP) by embracing the cultural, geographic, and life experience contributions made by students (and mentors) and placing these contributions at the center of the learning environment through student-centered, place-based, culturally-relevant educational experiences. Adopting pedagogical practices that capture the contributions of our students’ rich cultural (both Indigenous and rural), geographic backgrounds, and life experience is partly responsible for student success in, and satisfaction with, RASOR (Gay, 2013; Ladsen-Billings, 1994; Ward et al., 2014). Further, we embrace the notion that CRPs are not simply the domain of teachers, but are multi-faceted (Brown & Crippen, 2017; Willems, 2012); culturally responsive leadership (at administrative and institutional levels) is critical in effectively implementing changes to promote equity in educational access and relevance (McLean et al., 2019; Morales & Morales, 2020). Without administrative and institutional accommodation, RASOR would be unable to offer students a relatable science experience.

Community Perceptions of Science

Results from our Community Science survey and our experiences delivering RASOR illuminate regional issues regarding science, attitudes about science, and the perceived relevance of science to communities. Similar to other educational opportunities, rural citizens may look at science education differently than those in urban and suburban areas (Koricich et al., 2020); economics and employment options may take on greater significance in rural areas due to limited opportunities for rural residents, an issue familiar to many places, and at many scales, globally (Koricich et al., 2020). Despite a strong sense of supporting young people’s interest in science, only 25% of community respondents indicate that jobs for those with science training are available locally. Twice as many think it leads to good paying jobs and that there are many opportunities for those with scientific training, and even more respondents think science training is valuable to their community (63%), important to the state/nation (73%), and leads to interesting and rewarding employment (64%). The conflict of science training being important and valued in the community, but the acknowledgement that there are few economic opportunities in the community for those with science training aligns with the perception that science training may be perceived as a pathway out of rural communities (Avery, 2013; Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Corbett, 2007; Ward et al., 2014).

Ironically, there are science jobs in these communities and a desire to grow capacity; most local tribal governments have environmental departments which manage natural and subsistence resources, there are clinics which employ healthcare and allied health staff, and every community has K-12 teachers. Often, a high percentage of the community STEM workforce are non-locals – this has many implications including demographic misalignment between community and its STEM workers, perceptions that STEM employment is not available to local citizens, and challenges integrating community interests and STEM project priorities. Tribal governments and communities are deeply interested in “growing their own"STEM professionals. RASOR leadership has been working with these stakeholders to engage students, regardless of their level of preparedness, in STEM opportunities that promote interest in, and develop skills for, STEM trajectories.

Student Experiences in RASOR

RASOR students engage in mentored, place-based research, work on coursework and research in community student cohorts, and meet regularly with course faculty – factors shown to have positive persistence outcomes for underrepresented minority undergraduate students (Chang et al., 2014). In a rigorous examination quantifying relative importance of a variety of variables on underrepresented undergraduate student science self-efficacy and identity, Syed et al. (2019) showed that research experience and being mentored were strongly associated with both self-efficacy and identity; results consistent with other work (Estrada et al., 2018; Hurtado et al., 2009; Ovink & Veazey, 2011; Pfund et al., 2016). Our data show that during their RASOR experience, student science self-efficacy and science identity improve. Similarly, college course confidence and aspirational measures improve during RASOR. In focus groups convened for formative purposes, students frequently commented that faculty accessibility, quality, and support (academic and non-academic) as key positive factors in their experience. Comments included:

“I didn’t expect the amount of support we got from her (instructor). My parents are always telling me, ‘your college professors aren’t going to help you’. (The instructor) was always, like ‘How are you guys feeling about your emotions. Is there anything I can help you with? Here are some time management skills.’ She really just led us across…not that she babied us, but it was really nice the extra help we got from her.”

“The good communication between me and my professor/mentor” (student response to “What did you like most about RASOR?”)

“She (instructor) was wonderful. Like she really communicated with us.”

“She (mentor) was super helpful and helped guide us when we started our research poster. But before that…we were meeting and doing stuff and she was super helpful. She helped me talk to her boss who has a degree in marine biology, which I am considering…She gave us a tour of the lab that she works at and that was really helpful. Was a good fit.”

These comments are consistent with previous findings (Xu, 2018) that quality instruction and faculty accessibility for help and support are critical to STEM persistence in STEM, and that quality instruction is not necessarily dependent on students and mentors sharing certain cultural attributes (Ward et al., 2014).

Based on focus group input, community relevance and engagement are important to our rural and Indigenous students. Two RASOR students summarized the importance of community engagement,

“I think being able to do something in our own communities was really an important part for me, because I don’t really know about any other research that goes on in my community particularly. So it was cool to be involved in something that’s actually impactful for us.”

“Just making an impact in our community was pretty cool.”

We feel the 2-pronged approach to community engagement (i.e. topical research relevant to the community and local student-directed community outreach) is crucial in countering the problem of rural disengagement due to perceived irrelevance of curricula and assessment strategies (Avery, 2013; Gilmer, 2010). Ideally, RASOR students become ambassadors in their community for science, community engagement, and program. Strong community buy-in can foster sustainability that can have multi-generational impacts, as has been the case for the Rural Alaska Honors Institute (RAHI) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. RAHI, implemented in the 1980 s, is a recognized brand in many Alaska Indigenous communities – in some cases, multiple generations from a single family have participated in RAHI.

As part of this work, we were interested in assessing the existence and amplitude of response shift bias (i.e. the respondent’s frame of reference regarding a construct shifts in response to exposure to the intervention). We included both “pre” and “retro-pre” survey efforts for some self-reported, non-cognitive, subjective constructs. Similar to what others have documented (Cartwright & Atwood, 2014; Hill & Betz, 2005; Little et al., 2020), we observed response shift bias in self-efficacy, confidence, and interest/attitude constructs (Figs. 1 and 3). We concur with these authors in recommending that combining pre-intervention and retrospective strategies (to assess response shift) or focusing primarily on retrospective methods when assessing subjective experiences of program-related change. We encourage careful consideration of survey strategy for these subjective constructs to minimize response shift bias and the possible misinterpretation of findings that may result, and to optimize evaluation and assessment efforts.

Accounting for response-shift bias is not just an important method for capturing the recalibration of student self-perception regarding a construct of interest. It can also indicate an important programmatic outcome whereby the scale students use to assess a construct grows (example, they know more about what scientists do) and they are likely to be more informed in their self-assessments. In this regard, response shift bias suggests a greater impact; students are not just moving along a scale of content knowledge, but changing the size of their scale itself, indicating an expanding disciplinary awareness.

Conclusions

Breaking down barriers to rural and Indigenous student interest, recruitment, and persistence in STEM fields is the responsibility of institutions, communities, educators, and students. Focusing on any one barrier is unlikely to achieve the long-denied equity in rural and Indigenous student education. In an effort to combat structural inequity in education, we developed RASOR, a flexible and responsive program that incorporates elements of the Quadripartite Model of Educational Resilience, Student–Teacher-Scientist Partner approach, and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to promote academic and research success and confidence of rural and Indigenous students. Recognizing the importance of adapting RASOR to student and community needs has yielded a rigorous, yet nurturing education and research program popular with rural students. RASOR students show improved science self-efficacy, science identify, and college course and research confidence. Student feedback reinforced the notions that strong personal connection to the instructor and mentors, and participating in research in, and relevant to, their communities were important to students. We encourage institutions and educators to explore partnerships with underserved communities, and to adopt inclusive policies and strategies to promote equity in education and opportunity.

Biographies

Ellen Chenoweth

studied humpback whale foraging behavior and energetics for her doctorate at the University ofAlaska. In addition to her whale research, she collaborates with Southeast Alaska tribes to develop educational opportunities for rural high school students rooted in their home communities and cultures.

Paul Cotter

holds a doctorate in Biological Sciences/Science Education and is principle of EvaluLogic, an evaluationservices company focused on cross-cultural science education initiatives and substance misuse prevention and community wellness projects.

Janice Straley

holds a MS in biological oceanography and is emerita faculty at the University of Alaska. Since 1979, Ms. Straley researched the interactions between large whales and human activities. In the mid 1990s she began incorporating high school, undergraduate and graduate students into her research through a tiered mentoring program.

Kari Lanphier

has a MS in Water Resource Science and is the director of the Southeast Alaska Tribal Ocean Research (SEATOR) Consortium. Among a myriad of education and outreach activities, SEATOR tests subsistence shellfish species for paralytic shellfish poisoning to safeguard the health of subsistence harvesters across the region.

Author Contribution

All listed authors made substantial contributions, in the form of concept, design, data acquisition, data analysis, data interpretation, and/or contributed intellectual/written content, to the work. All authors have approved the version to be published and are accountable to all aspects of the work.

Funding

This work is supported by a National Institutes of Health Science Education Partnership Award (Project Number 5R25GM129838-04) to Janice Straley and Ellen Chenoweth, former and current Principal Investigator, respectively.

Data Availability

Due to privacy restrictions, the raw data supporting findings of this study are not publicly available. De-identified, aggregate data can be requested from the authors; authorization of data release is subject to restrictions on their use.

Declarations

Ethics and Consent to Participate

All research reported in this manuscript was reviewed and approved by the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institutional Review Board (IRB) and performed in accordance with the Belmont Report (1979) and federal regulations to protect human research subjects. Active, voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants in the research per IRB requirements.

Competing interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.