Title: Work in Progress: Understanding Student Perceptions of Stress as part of Engineering Culture
High levels of stress and anxiety are common amongst college students, particularly engineering students. Students report lack of sleep, grades, competition, change in lifestyle, and other significant stressors throughout their undergraduate education (1, 2). Stress and anxiety have been shown to negatively impact student experience (3-6), academic performance (6-8), and retention (9). Previous studies have focused on identifying factors that cause individual students stress while completing undergraduate engineering degree programs (1). However, it not well-understood how a culture of stress is perceived and is propagated in engineering programs or how this culture impacts student levels of identification with engineering. Further, the impact of student stress has not been directly considered in engineering regarding recruitment, retention, and success. Therefore, our guiding research question is: Does the engineering culture create stress for students that hinder their engineering identity development?
To answer our research question, we designed a sequential mixed methods study with equal priority of quantitative survey data and qualitative individual interviews. Our study participants are undergraduate engineering students across all levels and majors at a large, public university. Our sample goal is 2000 engineering student respondents. We combined three published surveys to build our quantitative data collection instrument, including the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), Identification with engineering subscale, and Engineering Department Inclusion Level subscale. The objective of the quantitative instrument is to illuminate individual perceptions of the existence of an engineering stress culture (ESC) and create an efficient tool to measure the impact ESC on engineering identity development. Specifically, we seek to understand the relationships among the following constructs; 1) identification with engineering, 2) stress and anxiety, and 3) feelings of inclusion within their department. The focus of this paper presents the results of the pilot of the proposed instrument with 20 participants and a detailed data collection and analysis process.
In an effort to validate our instrument, we conducted a pilot study to refine our data collection process and the results will guide the data collection for the larger study. In addition to identifying relationships among construct, the survey data will be further analyzed to specify which demographics are mediating or moderating factors of these relationships. For example, does a student’s 1st generation status influence their perception of stress or engineering identity development? Our analysis may identify discipline-specific stressors and characterize culture components that promote student anxiety and stress. Our objective is to validate our survey instrument and use it to inform the protocol for the follow-up interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the responses to the survey instrument. Understanding what students view as stressful and how students identify stress as an element of program culture will support the development of interventions to mitigate student stress.
References
1. Schneider L (2007) Perceived stress among engineering students. A Paper Presented at St. Lawrence Section Conference. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from: www. asee. morrisville. edu.
2. Ross SE, Niebling BC, & Heckert TM (1999) Sources of stress among college students. Social psychology 61(5):841-846.
3. Goldman CS & Wong EH (1997) Stress and the college student. Education 117(4):604-611.
4. Hudd SS, et al. (2000) Stress at college: Effects on health habits, health status and self-esteem. College Student Journal 34(2):217-228.
5. Macgeorge EL, Samter W, & Gillihan SJ (2005) Academic Stress, Supportive Communication, and Health A version of this paper was presented at the 2005 International Communication Association convention in New York City. Communication Education 54(4):365-372.
6. Burt KB & Paysnick AA (2014) Identity, stress, and behavioral and emotional problems in undergraduates: Evidence for interaction effects. Journal of college student development 55(4):368-384.
7. Felsten G & Wilcox K (1992) Influences of stress and situation-specific mastery beliefs and satisfaction with social support on well-being and academic performance. Psychological Reports 70(1):291-303.
8. Pritchard ME & Wilson GS (2003) Using emotional and social factors to predict student success. Journal of college student development 44(1):18-28.
9. Zhang Z & RiCharde RS (1998) Prediction and Analysis of Freshman Retention. AIR 1998 Annual Forum Paper. more »« less
Jensen, Karin J.; Cross, Kelly J.(
, Journal of Engineering Education)
AbstractBackground
Stress is commonly experienced by college students, especially engineering students. However, the role of stress within engineering culture and its implications for engineering programs have not been fully explored in the literature.
Purpose/Hypothesis
The purpose of this study was to measure and examine the relationships among self‐reported stress, anxiety, and depression; engineering identity; and perceptions of inclusion of undergraduate engineering students.
Design/Method
We validated a quantitative survey instrument built on previously published scales and used it to measure self‐reported stress, anxiety, and depression; engineering identity; and perceptions of inclusion.
Results
Our findings indicate that self‐reported levels of stress, anxiety, and depression are high for engineering students. Further, levels of stress and anxiety are significantly higher for female students, while levels of depression are higher for first‐generation students. We find correlations between self‐reported mental health symptoms, engineering identity, and perceptions of inclusion, and these relationships differ by gender. Lastly, we find that students underrepresented in engineering rate their departments as less diverse than their peers.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that perceptions of inclusion and engineering identity are related to student mental health, further emphasizing the importance of developing inclusive cultures in engineering programs. The findings suggest that mental health needs greater attention in engineering education, particularly for female and first‐generation students.
Underproduction, low retention, and lack of diversity in STEM disciplines, especially engineering, are significant challenges nationally, but are particularly acute in regions, both urban and rural, where educational access is limited. Leveraging our institutional location at a public urban research university in a city marked by its connection to its rural surroundings, we seek to address these challenges by implementing the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) model at our university with the support of an NSF IUSE grant. The VIP model is based on active learning and enables tiered mentoring from students at all academic years, thereby providing the opportunity of role modeling from upper-level undergraduate and graduate students as well as faculty. In addition, programs based on the VIP model are accessible to all students (not just high performing students) and provide a meaningful networking environment. We use our implementation of the VIP model to foster STEM identity growth and a sense of belonging, while increasing and celebrating diversity in engineering and other STEM disciplines.
Our VIP program leverages best practices from the well-established VIP model and adapts it to address unique aspects of our university’s community and interests. Specifically, the program includes freshmen and will also serve as a recruitment tool for local community college students. It employs a tiered mentoring approach and activities that prepare students for research and foster networking. The long-term goal of the VIP experience is to create a research culture and community in engineering and eventually across STEM disciplines that is inclusive and supportive of students from diverse backgrounds. An additional focus is to showcase the value of diversity in research and innovation through the program. Both the research culture and increased acknowledgement of the value of diversity are designed to enhance students’ STEM identity, which is important for retention in the major and career.
The purpose of this paper is to report on the planning and launch of our VIP program in Fall 2022, focusing on the PIs’ experiences implementing the program and on our first cohort’s (N = 12; 7 women; 4 Black/African American; 2 Hispanic) experiences participating in the program during their first semester. Specifically, this paper will describe the challenges and opportunities of implementing the VIP program and how the VIP model has been adapted to align with unique aspects of our institution and student body. We will also report preliminary analyses of student journal data collected from the first cohort throughout the Fall semester, where students described their initial expectations/hopes and concerns for the semester; their activities and emotional responses during the semester; and finally, their reflections on their experiences, positive or negative, throughout the semester. The paper will conclude by offering lessons learned from the first year of this project as well as directions for moving forward.
Lee, W. C.; Knight, D. B.; Godwin, A.; Hall, J. L.; Verdín, D.(
, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)
The purpose of the project is to identify how to measure various types of institutional support as it pertains to underrepresented and underserved populations in colleges of engineering and science. We are grounding this investigation in the Model of Co-Curricular Support, a conceptual framework that emphasizes the breadth of assistance currently used to support undergraduate students in engineering and science. The results from our study will help prioritize the elements of institutional support that should appear somewhere in a college’s suite of support efforts to improve engineering and science learning environments and design effective programs, activities, and services. Our poster will present: 1) an overview of the instrument development process; 2) evaluation of the prototype for face and content validity from students and experts; and 3) instrument revision and data collection to determine test validity and reliability across varied institutional contexts.
In evaluating the initial survey, we included multiple rounds of feedback from students and experts, receiving feedback from 46 participants (38 students, 8 administrators). We intentionally sampled for representation across engineering and science colleges; gender identity; race/ethnicity; international student status; and transfer student status. The instrument was deployed for the first time in Spring 2018 to the institutional project partners at three universities. It was completed by 722 students: 598 from University 1, 51 from University 2, and 123 from University 3.
We tested the construct validity of these responses using a minimum residuals exploratory factor analysis and correlation. A preliminary data analysis shows evidence of differences in perception on types of support college of engineering and college of science students experience. The findings of this preliminary analysis were used to revise the instrument further prior to the next round of testing. Our target sample for the next instrument deployment is 2,000 students, so we will survey ~13,000 students based on a 15% anticipated response rate. Following data collection, we will use confirmatory factor analysis to continue establishing construct validity and report on the stability of constructs emerging from our piloting on a new student sample(s). We will also investigate differences across these constructs by subpopulations of students.
Frady, K.; Brown, C.; High, K.; Hughes, C.; O’Hara, R.; & Huang, S.(
, Annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference)
There is little research or understanding of curricular differences between two- and four-year programs, career development of engineering technology (ET) students, and professional preparation for ET early career professionals [1]. Yet, ET credentials (including certificates, two-, and four-year degrees) represent over half of all engineering credentials awarded in the U.S [2]. ET professionals are important hands-on members of engineering teams who have specialized knowledge of components and engineering systems. This research study focuses on how career orientations affect engineering formation of ET students educated at two-year colleges. The theoretical framework guiding this study is Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). SCCT is a theory which situates attitudes, interests, and experiences and links self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and personal goals to educational and career decisions and outcomes [3]. Student knowledge of attitudes toward and motivation to pursue STEM and engineering education can impact academic performance and indicate future career interest and participation in the STEM workforce [4]. This knowledge may be measured through career orientations or career anchors. A career anchor is a combination of self-concept characteristics which includes talents, skills, abilities, motives, needs, attitudes, and values. Career anchors can develop over time and aid in shaping personal and career identity [6]. The purpose of this quantitative research study is to identify dimensions of career orientations and anchors at various educational stages to map to ET career pathways. The research question this study aims to answer is: For students educated in two-year college ET programs, how do the different dimensions of career orientations, at various phases of professional preparation, impact experiences and development of professional profiles and pathways? The participants (n=308) in this study represent three different groups: (1) students in engineering technology related programs from a medium rural-serving technical college (n=136), (2) students in engineering technology related programs from a large urban-serving technical college (n=52), and (3) engineering students at a medium Research 1 university who have transferred from a two-year college (n=120). All participants completed Schein’s Career Anchor Inventory [5]. This instrument contains 40 six-point Likert-scale items with eight subscales which correlate to the eight different career anchors. Additional demographic questions were also included. The data analysis includes graphical displays for data visualization and exploration, descriptive statistics for summarizing trends in the sample data, and then inferential statistics for determining statistical significance. This analysis examines career anchor results across groups by institution, major, demographics, types of educational experiences, types of work experiences, and career influences. This cross-group analysis aids in the development of profiles of values, talents, abilities, and motives to support customized career development tailored specifically for ET students. These findings contribute research to a gap in ET and two-year college engineering education research. Practical implications include use of findings to create career pathways mapped to career anchors, integration of career development tools into two-year college curricula and programs, greater support for career counselors, and creation of alternate and more diverse pathways into engineering.
Words: 489
References [1] National Academy of Engineering. (2016). Engineering technology education in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [2] The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, (IPEDS). (2014). Data on engineering technology degrees. [3] Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.B. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overivew. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310-321. [4] Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D.S., Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineeirng, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622-639. [5] Schein, E. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 80-88. [6] Schein, E.H., & Van Maanen, J. (2013). Career Anchors, 4th ed. San Francisco: Wiley.
The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals state climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and is one of the most urgent issues facing society. To date, most education research on climate change examines middle and high school students’ knowledge without considering the link between understanding and interest to address such issues in their career. In research on students’ attitudes about sustainability, we found that half of first-year college engineering students, in our nationally representative sample of all college students at 4-year institutions (n = 937), do not believe climate change is caused by humans. This lack of belief in human-caused climate change is a significant problem in engineering education because our results also indicate engineering students who do not believe in human caused climate change are less likely to want to address climate change in their careers. This dismal finding highlights a need for improving student understanding and attitudes toward climate change in order to produce engineers prepared and interested in solving complex global problems in sustainability. To advance understanding about students’ understanding of climate change and their agency to address the issue, we developed the CLIMATE survey to measure senior undergraduate engineering students’ Climate change literacy, engineering identity, career motivations, and agency through engineering. The survey was designed for students in their final senior design, or capstone course, just prior to entering the workforce. We developed the survey using prior national surveys and newly written questions categorized into six sections: (1) career goals and motivation, (2) college experiences, (3) agency, (4) climate literacy, (5) people and the planet, and (6) demographic information. We conducted focus groups with students to establish face and content validity of the survey. We collected pilot data with 200 engineering students in upper-level engineering courses to provide validity evidence for the use of these survey items to measure students and track changes across the undergraduate curriculum for our future work. In this paper, we narrate the development of the survey supported by literature and outline the next step for further validation and distribution on a national scale. Our intent is to receive feedback and input about the questions being asked and the CLIMATE instrument. Our objective is to share the nationally representative non-identifiable responses (the estimated goal is 4,000 responses) openly with education researchers interested in students understanding about climate change, their engineering identity, career motivations, and agency through engineering. Ultimately, we want this research to become a catalyst for teaching about topics related to climate change in engineering and its implications for sustainability.
Cross, Kelly J., and Jensen, Karin J. Work in Progress: Understanding Student Perceptions of Stress as part of Engineering Culture. Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10058680. American Society of Engineering Education Conference Proceedings .
Cross, Kelly J., & Jensen, Karin J. Work in Progress: Understanding Student Perceptions of Stress as part of Engineering Culture. American Society of Engineering Education Conference Proceedings, (). Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10058680.
Cross, Kelly J., and Jensen, Karin J.
"Work in Progress: Understanding Student Perceptions of Stress as part of Engineering Culture". American Society of Engineering Education Conference Proceedings (). Country unknown/Code not available. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10058680.
@article{osti_10058680,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {Work in Progress: Understanding Student Perceptions of Stress as part of Engineering Culture},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10058680},
abstractNote = {High levels of stress and anxiety are common amongst college students, particularly engineering students. Students report lack of sleep, grades, competition, change in lifestyle, and other significant stressors throughout their undergraduate education (1, 2). Stress and anxiety have been shown to negatively impact student experience (3-6), academic performance (6-8), and retention (9). Previous studies have focused on identifying factors that cause individual students stress while completing undergraduate engineering degree programs (1). However, it not well-understood how a culture of stress is perceived and is propagated in engineering programs or how this culture impacts student levels of identification with engineering. Further, the impact of student stress has not been directly considered in engineering regarding recruitment, retention, and success. Therefore, our guiding research question is: Does the engineering culture create stress for students that hinder their engineering identity development? To answer our research question, we designed a sequential mixed methods study with equal priority of quantitative survey data and qualitative individual interviews. Our study participants are undergraduate engineering students across all levels and majors at a large, public university. Our sample goal is 2000 engineering student respondents. We combined three published surveys to build our quantitative data collection instrument, including the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), Identification with engineering subscale, and Engineering Department Inclusion Level subscale. The objective of the quantitative instrument is to illuminate individual perceptions of the existence of an engineering stress culture (ESC) and create an efficient tool to measure the impact ESC on engineering identity development. Specifically, we seek to understand the relationships among the following constructs; 1) identification with engineering, 2) stress and anxiety, and 3) feelings of inclusion within their department. The focus of this paper presents the results of the pilot of the proposed instrument with 20 participants and a detailed data collection and analysis process. In an effort to validate our instrument, we conducted a pilot study to refine our data collection process and the results will guide the data collection for the larger study. In addition to identifying relationships among construct, the survey data will be further analyzed to specify which demographics are mediating or moderating factors of these relationships. For example, does a student’s 1st generation status influence their perception of stress or engineering identity development? Our analysis may identify discipline-specific stressors and characterize culture components that promote student anxiety and stress. Our objective is to validate our survey instrument and use it to inform the protocol for the follow-up interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the responses to the survey instrument. Understanding what students view as stressful and how students identify stress as an element of program culture will support the development of interventions to mitigate student stress. References 1. Schneider L (2007) Perceived stress among engineering students. A Paper Presented at St. Lawrence Section Conference. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from: www. asee. morrisville. edu. 2. Ross SE, Niebling BC, & Heckert TM (1999) Sources of stress among college students. Social psychology 61(5):841-846. 3. Goldman CS & Wong EH (1997) Stress and the college student. Education 117(4):604-611. 4. Hudd SS, et al. (2000) Stress at college: Effects on health habits, health status and self-esteem. College Student Journal 34(2):217-228. 5. Macgeorge EL, Samter W, & Gillihan SJ (2005) Academic Stress, Supportive Communication, and Health A version of this paper was presented at the 2005 International Communication Association convention in New York City. Communication Education 54(4):365-372. 6. Burt KB & Paysnick AA (2014) Identity, stress, and behavioral and emotional problems in undergraduates: Evidence for interaction effects. Journal of college student development 55(4):368-384. 7. Felsten G & Wilcox K (1992) Influences of stress and situation-specific mastery beliefs and satisfaction with social support on well-being and academic performance. Psychological Reports 70(1):291-303. 8. Pritchard ME & Wilson GS (2003) Using emotional and social factors to predict student success. Journal of college student development 44(1):18-28. 9. Zhang Z & RiCharde RS (1998) Prediction and Analysis of Freshman Retention. AIR 1998 Annual Forum Paper.},
journal = {American Society of Engineering Education Conference Proceedings},
author = {Cross, Kelly J. and Jensen, Karin J.},
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.
