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. Thankfully, greater numbers of engineering educators are recognizing this need and are consequently establishing engineering leadership certificates, minors, and even full degree programs through centers at universities throughout the country. However, for these programs to reach their full potential, engineering educators must be successful in integrating leadership into the very identity of engineers. This study seeks to better understand the relationship between engineering identity and leadership, so tools can be developed that enable engineering educators to more effectively integrate leadership into an engineering identity.
This paper explores this relationship using a national sample of 918 engineering students who participated in the 2013 College Senior Survey (CSS). The CSS is administered by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA to college students at the end of their fourth year of college; data from the CSS are then matched to students’ prior responses on the 2009 Freshman Survey (TFS), which was administered when they first started college, to create a longitudinal sample. Using a leadership construct developed by HERI as the outcome variable, this work utilizes Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) to examine the impact of engineering identity and a host of other factors shown to be important in college student development on leadership. HLM is especially appropriate since individual student cases are grouped by schools, and predictor variables include both student-level and institution-level variables. The leadership construct, referred to as leadership self-efficacy in this work, includes self-rated growth in leadership ability, self-rating of leadership ability relative to one’s peers, participation in a leadership role and/or leadership training, and perceived effectiveness leading an organization.
The primary independent variable of interest was a factor measuring engineering identity comprised of items available on both the TFS and CSS instruments. Including this measure of engineering identity from two different time periods in the model provides the relationship between engineering identity in the fourth year and leadership self-efficacy, controlling for engineering identity in the first year as a pretest. Statistically significant results were found across each of the areas tested, including the fourth-year engineering identity factor as well as several collegiate experiences, pre-college experiences, major, and institutional variables. Taken together, these results present a nuanced picture of what matters to predicting leadership outcomes for undergraduate engineering students. For example, while engineering identity is a significant positive predictor of the leadership construct, computer engineers score lower than mechanical engineers on leadership, while interacting with faculty appears to enhance leadership self-efficacy.
more »
« less
Development of Leadership Self-Efficacy: Comparing Engineers, Other STEM, and Non-STEM Majors
The purpose of this work in progress research paper is to examine the differences in leadership self-efficacy among engineering undergraduates and their peers in other fields, and understand how leadership self-concept changes from the first through the fourth year of college. This study conceptualizes engineering formation as a professional identity development process, cultivated through participation in engineering communities of practice. The guiding hypothesis is that experiences that contribute to engineering identity, which focus on the development of technical mastery, conflict with the development of leadership self-concept. This work presents preliminary analysis of the differences between engineering undergraduates and their peers with regard to their leadership experiences during college. Preliminary results reveal a complex picture of the differences between engineering students and their peers in other STEM and non-STEM fields. Engineering students have the highest leadership self-efficacy of all three groups by the end of the fourth year of college, which mirrors differences in self-rated leadership skills at college entry. However, differences in leadership experiences during college vary among these three groups, and not consistently with their leadership self-efficacy. Engineers are least likely to participate in a leadership training during college and to value becoming a leader after college. Among engineering students, students who participate in internships, undergraduate research, and collaborate with peers report higher leadership. Leadership is unrelated to plans to enter engineering as a career.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1664231
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10089862
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 5
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Undergraduate research opportunities have been demonstrated to promote recruitment, retention, and inclusion of students from underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines. The opportunity to engage in hands-on, discovery-based activities as part of a community helps students develop a strong self-identity in STEM and strengthens their self-efficacy in what can otherwise be daunting fields. Kansas State University has developed an array of undergraduate research opportunities, both in the academic year and summer, and has established a management infrastructure around these programs. The Graduate School, which hosts its own Summer Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program aimed at URM and first-generation college students, coordinates the leadership of the other grant-funded programs, and conducts a series of enrichment and networking activities for students from all the programs. These include professional development as well as primarily social sessions. The Kansas LSAMP, led by Kansas State University, created a summer program aimed at under-represented minority community college students enrolled in STEM fields to recruit them into research opportunities at K-State. There has been strong interest in the program, which incorporated university experience elements in addition to an introduction to STEM research and the four-year university. In the 5 years since the program’s inception, cohorts of nine to fourteen students came to K-State each year for eight-week experiences and took part in both cohort-based sessions and individual mentored research experiences. The two-fold focus of this program, Research Immersion: Pathways to STEM, has resulted in the majority of the students presenting a poster at a national conference and transferring to a STEM major at a four-year institution. Survey results showed that the program was successful at improving STEM identity and academic self-concepts. Qualitative feedback suggested that the two parts of the program worked together to increase interest and self confidence in STEM majors but also ensured that students connect with other students and felt comfortable in the transition to a 4-year institution.more » « less
-
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.more » « less
-
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 management 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.more » « less
-
This paper reports on activities and outcomes from years three and four of a 5-year NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM) award at a two-year college. The college is a minority-serving institution located in a metro area with high rates of concentrated poverty and low levels of educational attainment. Through the program scholarships are awarded to cohorts of students majoring in engineering selected each fall semester from applications collected the previous spring. After completing transfer preparation curriculum at the two-year college, select scholars who transfer to the local four-year university may remain in the program for continued support. Students in each cohort, including those who remain in the program after transfer, are supported with annual scholarships of up to $6000, depending on financial need. In addition to scholarship money, students participate in a variety of program activities throughout the school year in the form of academic seminars, extracurricular events, professional development, faculty mentoring, peer mentoring, academic advising, and undergraduate research opportunities. Noteworthy elements of the program in years three and four include 1) the selection and award of the fourth and final cohort entering the program, 2) a transition of leadership to a new principal investigator for the program at the two-college, and 3) the increase in number of students who have continued with the program after transfer to the local four-year university. During year three of this five-year program, the first cohort of students successfully transferred and completed a full year at their new four-year university. Supplemental funding has enabled the program to expand support for additional students at both the two-year college and the four-year university after transfer. This has reduced financial burdens and addressed the unanticipated challenge that some students would need more than two years to transfer due to delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Program evaluation findings identified requests from students that would enhance the program approach and further prepare for transfer. These included establishing a transferred student panel for students preparing to transfer, seminars on maintaining a positive work/life balance and differences in university systems, further support for peer mentorship for both mentors and mentees, and additional opportunities for collaboration across engineering disciplines. Research findings from interviews conducted with transferred students identified several opportunities to further enhance the transfer preparation approach and support structures needed for success at their new institution. These include intentional preparation for establishing membership in a new community, identification of systems and processes for support at their new institution, including how these may differ from their previous institution, and opportunity to serve as a mentor and engage with students preparing to transfer. In addition, in year 4 program leadership transitioned due to a new role at new university and more students support requests of leadership at both the two-year college and the four-year transfer university than originally anticipated. This has resulted in reflection on the program administration and the people and structures that sustain it. This poster will include summaries of scholar activities, transition in and impact on program leadership, program evaluation results, and research findings from the first cohort of students that have transferred and completed a full year at their new institution.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2018.8658493
