skip to main content

Title: Undergraduate Socialization in Engineering: The Role of Institutional Tactics and Proactive Behaviors
Higher education literature is replete with evidence that socioeconomic variables and background characteristics inform a myriad of factors related to students’ college life. These include the institutions students choose to attend, their experiences after matriculation, differences in success rates, and even post-graduation outcomes. This is particularly true in engineering, where gaps in academic performance, persistence, and degree attainment still endure despite the litany of federal, institutional, and unit-level resources designed to address socioeconomic disparities. In contrast to much of the literature that takes a deficit-based approach, in this work we presuppose that it is not simply differences in socioeconomic variables and background characteristics that separates highly engaged, successful students in engineering from their less engaged, unsuccessful counterparts. Rather, we suggest that an underlying set of socialization processes by which students become familiar with collegiate engineering education makes students more or less likely to engage in activities that are associated with success. We posit that students’ experiences with these socialization processes – institutional socialization tactics and proactive behaviors – may better explain patterns of participation and outcomes in engineering that go beyond the consideration of access to academic and social resources. Drawing on Weidman’s Undergraduate Socialization framework, we developed a conceptual model for more » understanding the socialization processes that inform engineering students’ participation in co-curricular activities (specifically professional engineering societies and student design teams). This model is guided by three hypotheses. First, we hypothesize that socioeconomic, academic, and demographic background characteristics combine to uniquely inform students’ experiences with two socialization processes – institutional tactics and proactive behaviors. This, in turn, informs their participation in co-curricular activities, such as professional engineering societies and student design teams. Finally, students who participate in co-curricular engineering activities have different academic and social outcomes than their counterparts who do not participate in co-curricular engineering activities. We also developed a survey instrument based on this model to understand how various socioeconomic variables and background characteristics inform students’ socialization processes and, as a result, their outcomes in engineering. Our goal is to understand the factors that shape students’ socialization into engineering, as well as their development into engineers. Ultimately, our goal is to narrow gaps in participation and success in engineering by addressing negative socialization experiences. « less
Authors:
Award ID(s):
1640417
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10072811
Journal Name:
ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings
ISSN:
2153-5868
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. POSTER. Presented at the Symposium (9/12/2019) Abstract: The Academy of Engineering Success (AcES) employs literature-based, best practices to support and retain underrepresented students in engineering through graduation with the ultimate goal of diversifying the engineering workforce. AcES was established in 2012 and has been supported via NSF S-STEM award number 1644119 since 2016. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 cohorts consist of 12, 20, and 22 students, respectively. Five S-STEM supported scholarships were awarded to the 2016 cohort, seven scholarships were awarded to students from the 2017 cohort, and six scholarships were awarded to students from the 2018 cohort. AcES students participate in a one-week summer bridge experience, a common fall semester course focused on professional development, and a common spring semester course emphasizing the role of engineers in societal development. Starting with the summer bridge experience, and continuing until graduation, students are immersed in curricular and co-curricular activities with the goals of fostering feelings of institutional inclusion and belonging in engineering, providing academic support and student success skills, and professional development. The aforementioned goals are achieved by providing (1) opportunities for faculty-student, student-student, and industry mentor-student interaction, (2) academic support, and student success education in areas such as time managementmore »and study skills, and (3) facilitated career and major exploration. Four research questions are being examined, (1) What is the relationship between participation in the AcES program and participants’ academic success?, (2) What aspects of the AcES program most significantly impact participants’ success in engineering, (3) How do AcES students seek to overcome challenges in studying engineering, and (4) What is the longitudinal impact of the AcES program in terms of motivation, perceptions, feelings of inclusion, outcome expectations of the participants and retention? Students enrolled in the AcES program participate in the GRIT, LAESE, and MSLQ surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews at the start and end of each fall semester and at the end of the spring semester. The surveys provide a measure of students’ GRIT, general self-efficacy, engineering self-efficacy, test anxiety, math outcome efficacy, intrinsic value of learning, inclusion, career expectations, and coping efficacy. Focus group and interview responses are analyzed in order to answer research questions 2, 3, and 4. Survey responses are analyzed to answer research question 4, and institutional data such as GPA is used to answer research question 1. An analysis of the 2017 AcES cohort survey responses produced a surprising result. When the responses of AcES students who retained were compared to the responses of AcES students who left engineering, those who left engineering had higher baseline values of GRIT, career expectations, engineering self-efficacy, and math outcome efficacy than those students who retained. A preliminary analysis of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 focus group and one-on-one interview responses indicates that the Engineering Learning Center, tutors, organized out of class experiences, first-year seminar, the AcES cohort, the AcES summer bridge, the AcES program, AcES Faculty/Staff, AcES guest lecturers, and FEP faculty/Staff are viewed as valuable by students and cited with contributing to their success in engineering. It is also evident that AcES students seek help from peers, seek help from tutors, use online resources, and attend office hours to overcome their challenges in studying engineering.« less
  2. Co-curricular team projects in engineering – like design projects, experimental assignments, or national project-based competitions or challenges – can be key experiences for students in forming personal and professional skills and traits. Little concrete data is available about why students choose to participate or not participate in such activities though, and how their participation and perceptions of the activities may be influenced by factors such as their gender identity, race/ethnicity, and other facets of themselves and their experiences. Without this data, it is difficult to conceive of strategies to improve participation in certain activities among groups of people who are otherwise under-represented compared even to their representation at the College level. The research was devised to gather insight into why students chose to participate or not participate, and what they felt the benefits and detrimental effects of participation were. The pilot study was conducted at the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo campus, which is part of the California State University system - it has a student cohort that is not particularly diverse compared to the rest of the system or highly representative of state demographics, and it has an institutional focus on applied, hands- on learning that means that amore »high number of students participate in co-curricular engineering projects. A 70 question survey tool, adapted from an existing tool, garnered responses from nearly 500 students, with demographic and identity questions preceding sections about factors that led to participation or non- participation, and then perceptions of positive and negative outcomes that can come from involvement in co-curricular engineering projects.« less
  3. The Guided Pathways initiative is among many reform efforts that have been implemented by hundreds of community colleges in the country. Four main practice areas are intrinsic of Guided Pathways: 1) mapping pathways to students’ end goals, 2) helping students choose and enter a program pathway, 3) keeping students on a path, and 4) ensuring that students are learning. Although this approach is an important step toward successful transfer placement, the Guided Pathways do not address the visible and invisible barriers to student success once students transfer to a 4-year institution. This paper presents a novel and holistic approach to transfer that eliminates visible and invisible barriers to student success. The Holistic and Programmatic Approach for Transfer (HPAT) model includes early and active participation of the 4-year transfer partner, structured within a well-thought-out transfer articulation agreement that builds on a joint commitment to quality and student success. Integral to the agreement is the requirement for the rigor of the curriculum at the community college to match that of the 4-year partner, along with exceptional student support, financial assistance, and mentoring from the point of admission at the community college, through transfer and up to the bachelor's or master's degree completion.more »Unique to this model is the fully collaborative and holistic approach to admission; curriculum alignment, including content; participation in co-curricular activities; co-advising; co-mentoring; and data sharing that drive continuous improvement. Students in the program are concurrently registered in both the community college and the 4-year partner institution, becoming part of both student communities from the start. These students take classes at the 4-year partner at a discounted price while still enrolled at the community college, thus eliminating curricular barriers, ensuring placement as juniors, and facilitating belonging at the transfer institution. In addition, program-specific courses and activities at the transfer institution aim to eliminate the socialization and adjustment barrier upon transfer, further increasing belongingness to both institutions. Preliminary outcomes promise a ninety-five percent (95%) transfer rate within 2-3 years from admission. The Program's success is attributed to a holistic and programmatic approach for transfer that emphasizes cross-institutional commitment, effective mentoring, rigor, quality, and increases in the engineering profession (measured through a belonging survey and "Appreciative Inquiry" case study interviews). Although this approach is Engineering specific, our model is positioned to revolutionize transfer that can be duplicated for other Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) and non-STEM disciplines.« less
  4. In order to lead the social process required to solve society’s grandest challenges and ensure that the capabilities of an expanded engineering workforce are successfully harnessed, new engineers must be more than just technical experts—they must also be technical leaders. Greater numbers of engineering educators are recognizing this need and establishing engineering leadership certificates and minors through centers at universities throughout the country. While the implementation of these offerings is a step forward, most programs tend to focus on leadership as a set of skills or experiences bolted onto a traditional engineering education with limited formal evidence of the impact these experiences have on student development. The purpose of this study is to test the effect of experiences engineering students have in leadership roles on their perceived gains in leadership skills, using a national dataset. The framework guiding this study is a model for engineering leadership identity constructed from Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice model and Komives et al.’s model for leadership identity development (LID) which recognizes that the engineering formation process is, at its core, an identity development process. Engineering leadership is theorized to develop from peripheral participation in engineering communities of practice in ways that promote students’more »leadership development. Specifically, undertaking leadership roles in curricular and co-curricular engineering activities develops students’ sense of engineering leadership identity, which results in their recognition of gains in different leadership skills. The data for this study come from the 2015 administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), overseen by the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University. The NSSE is administered to a random sample of first- and fourth-year students, and focuses on curricular and co-curricular student engagement. In 2015, NSSE included a pilot module to assess leadership experiences at 21 participating institutions. The overall sample includes 2607 students who held a leadership role, among whom are 90 engineering students. The dependent variables for this study are a set of eight items prompting students to indicate the extent to which participation in a leadership role contributed to development of different leadership skills. This study employs multiple regression to test the relationships among leadership related experiences and eight leadership skill outcomes for engineering students. Significant results across the eight regression models paint a complex portrait regarding factors that affect gains in leadership skills for engineering students. For example, receiving formal leadership training is a significant positive predictor of only three of the leadership outcomes explored in this work: thinking critically and analytically, working effectively with others, and continuing leadership after college. These results can be utilized by educators engaged in Engineering Leadership education to tailor their program experiences and better achieve the desired educational outcomes.« less
  5. The STEM Excellence through Engagement in Collaboration, Research, and Scholarship (SEECRS) project at Whatcom Community College is a five-year program aiming to support academically talented students with demonstrated financial need in biology, chemistry, geology, computer science, engineering, and physics. This project is funded by an NSF S-STEM (Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) grant awarded in January 2017. Through an inclusive and long-range effort, the college identified a strong need for financial and comprehensive supports for STEM students. This project will offer financial, academic, and professional support to three two-year cohorts of students. The SEECRS project aims to utilize a STEM-specific guided pathways approach to strengthen recruitment, retention, and matriculation of STEM students at the community college level. Scholarship recipients will be supported through participation in the SEECRS Scholars Academy, a multi-pronged approach to student support combining elements of community building, faculty mentorship, targeted advising activities, authentic science practice, and social activities. Students are introduced to disciplines of interest through opportunities to engage in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in Biology, Chemistry and Engineering courses, funded summer research opportunities, and seminars presented by STEM professionals. Communities of practice will be nurtured through the introduction of cohort building and facultymore »mentorship. Cohort development starts with a required two-credit course for all scholars that emphasizes STEM identity development, specifically focusing on identifying and coping with the ways non-dominant individuals (racial/ethnic minorities, non-male gender, lower socioeconomic status, first-generation, 2-year community college vs. 4-year institutions) are made to feel as outsiders in STEM. Each SEECRS scholar is paired with a faculty mentor who engages in ongoing mentor training. The project evaluation will determine the efficacy of the project activities in achieving their intended outcomes. Specifically, we will collect data to answer the research question: To what extent can a guided pathways approach provide a coordinated and supported STEM experience at Whatcom Community College that: (1) increases student success, and (2) positively shifts students’ STEM self-identity? The evaluation will employ a quasi-experimental research design, specifically a pretest-posttest design with a matched comparison group. Our first cohort of 14 students was selected over two application rounds (winter and summer 2017). We awarded ten full scholarships and four half-scholarships based on financial need data. Cohort demographics of note compared to institutional percentages are: females (64% vs. 57%), Hispanic (14% vs. 17%), African American (7% vs. 2%), white (79% vs. 66%), first generation college bound (43% vs. 37%). The cohort is comprised of six students interested in engineering, six in biology, and one each in geology and environmental sciences. With increased communication between the project team, our Financial Aid office, Entry and Advising, high school outreach, and the Title III grant-funded Achieve, Inspire, Motivate (AIM) Program, as well as a longer advertising time, we anticipate significantly enhancing our applicant pool for the next cohort. The results and lessons learned from our first year of implementation will be presented.« less