skip to main content

Title: Supporting factors in Native American engineering students’ pursuit of engineering careers
For Native American young people, paradoxical cultural pressure (i.e., pressure to do well academically while maintaining tribal identity; Komives et al., 2011), and a lack of academic preparation have been cited as barriers to their academic and career success (Jackson, Smith, & Hill, 2003); however, there is little research regarding the supports that these young people receive. This type of research is especially critical for careers where Native American students are underrepresented, such as in engineering (with Native Americans who comprise almost 2% of the U.S. population comprise only 0.4% of engineers and 0.2% of engineering faculty; NACME, 2014). To tease out differences in how Native American students are supported in their engineering career development compared to students from the dominant cultural group in engineering, we conducted a study with 50 Native American and 50 Caucasian American undergraduate and graduate engineering students. ANOVA’s showed that Caucasian American and Native American students had the same level of interest in pursuing an engineering career; however, Caucasian American students reported greater emotional and instrumental support from parents, school personnel, and peers for studying engineering. Results will be interpreted in light of how educational equity in areas of supporting Native American engineering students can more » be accomplished. This research was conducted by Emily Koithan, Morgan Schmitt-Morris, Yuqing Wang (Undergraduate Research Scholars [URS]), and Dr. Sherri Turner (Educational Psychology), and colleagues. « less
Authors:
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1743329
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10110965
Journal Name:
University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development Research Day
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. There is an urgent need for young people to prepare for and pursue engineering careers. Engineering occupations comprise 20% of the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs in the U.S. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). The average wage for STEM occupations is nearly double that of non-STEM occupations, with engineers commanding some of the highest salaries in STEM (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). Moreover, engineering occupations are expected to be some of the fastest growing occupations in the U.S. over the next 10 years (Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2018); yet, there are current and projected shortages of workers in themore »engineering workforce so that many engineering jobs will go unfilled (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015) Native Americans are highly underrepresented in engineering (NSF, 2017). They comprise approximately 2% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), but only 0.3% of engineers (Sandia National Laboratories, 2016). Thus, they are not positioned to attain a high-demand, high-growth, highly rewarding engineering job, nor to provide engineering expertise to meet the needs of their own communities or society at large. The purpose of this study was to examine factors that encourage or discourage Native American college students’ entry into engineering. Using Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; 2000), we examined the correlates of these students’ interests and efficacy in engineering to accomplish this goal. Participants were N = 30 Native American engineering college students from the Midwest; 65% men, 30% women, and 4% other. The mean age was 25.87 (SD = 6.98). Data were collected over the period of one year on college campuses and at professional development conferences via an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. Three scales were used in the study: Mapping Vocational Challenges – Engineering (Lapan & Turner, 2000, 2016), the Perceptions of Barriers Scale (POB; McWhirter, 1998), and the Structured Career Development Inventory (Lapan & Turner, 2004). An a priori Power Analysis (f2 = .50; α = .05, 1 – β = .90) indicated our sample size was adequate. For all scales, full-scale Cronbach’s α reliabilities ranged from .82 to .86. Results of correlation analyses indicated that engineering efficacy was negatively related to lack of academic preparation (r = -.50, p = .016), and perceived lack of ability (r = -.53, p = .009), and positively related to academic achievement (r = .43, p = .043), career exploration (r = .47, p = .022), and approaching engineering studies proactively (r = .53, p = .009). Engineering interests were negatively related to perceived lack of ability (r = -.55, p = .007), and positively to proactivity (r = .42, p = .044), and academic achievement (r = .45, p = .033). Engineering interests were also related to support from parents, teachers, and friends to study engineering and pursue an engineering career. There was no significant relationship between engineering interests and engineering efficacy among these students. The relevance of these results will be discussed in light of SCCT, and recommendations for practice will be included.« less
  2. Qin Zhu, PhD Assistant Professor (Ed.)
    Prior research suggests various reasons for the paucity of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people in engineering fields, including academic deficiencies, lack of role models, and minimal financial support to pursue a college education. One potential reason that has yet to be explored relates to the cultural and spiritual barriers that could deter AI/AN people from feeling a sense of belonging in engineering fields. These barriers may create obstacles to progressing through engineering career pathways. Our research investigates the range and variation of cultural/spiritual/ethical issues that may be affecting AI/AN people’s success in engineering and other science, technology, and mathematics fields.more »The work reported here focuses on findings from students and professionals in engineering fields specifically. The study seeks to answer two research questions: (1) What ethical issues do AI/AN students and professionals in engineering fields experience, and how do they navigate these issues?, and (2) Do ethical issues impede AI/AN students from pursuing engineering careers, and if so, how? We distributed an online survey to AI/AN college students (undergraduate and graduate) and professionals in STEM fields, including engineers, in the western United States region. Our results indicate strong connections to AI/AN culture by the participants in the study as well as some cultural, ethical, and/or spiritual barriers that exist for AI/AN individuals in the engineering field. The AI/AN professionals had less concerns with respect to activities that may conflict with AI/AN cultural customs compared to the students, which may be a result of the professionals having gained experiences that allow them to navigate these situations. Overall, our research offers insights for policy and practice within higher education institutions with engineering majors and/or graduate programs and organizations that employ engineering professionals« less
  3. The low numbers of women and underrepresented minorities in engineering has often been characterized as a ‘pipeline problem,’ wherein few members of these groups choose engineering majors or ‘leak out’ of the engineering education pipeline before graduating [1]. Within this view, the difficulty of diversifying the engineering workforce can be addressed by stocking the pipeline with more diverse applicants. However, the assumption that adding more underrepresented applicants will solve the complex and persistent issues of diversity and inclusion within engineering has been challenged by recent research. Studies of engineering culture highlight how the persistence of women and minorities is linkedmore »to norms and assumptions of engineering cultures (e.g., [2], [3]). For example, some engineering cultures have been characterized as masculine, leading women to feel that they must become ‘one of the guys’ to fit in and be successful (e.g., [4]). In the U.S., engineering cultures are also predominantly white, which can make people of color feel unwelcome or isolated [5]. When individuals feel unwelcome in engineering cultures, they are likely to leave. Thus, engineering culture plays an important role in shaping who participates and successfully persists in engineering education and practice. Likewise, disciplinary cultures in engineering education also carry assumptions about what resources students should possess and utilize throughout their professional development. For example, educational cultures may assume students possess certain forms of ‘academic capital,’ such as rigorous training in STEM subjects prior to college. They might also assume students possess ‘navigational capital,’ or the ability to locate and access resources in the university system. However, these cultural assumptions have implications for the diversity and inclusivity of educational environments, as they shape what kinds of students are likely to succeed. For instance, first generation college (FGC) students may not possess the same navigational capital as continuing generation students [5]. Under-represented minority (URM) students often receive less pre-college training in STEM than their white counterparts [6]. However, FGC and URM students possess many forms of capital that often are unrecognized by education systems, for example, linguistic capital, or the ability to speak in multiple languages and styles) [7], [8]. Educational cultures that assume everyone possesses the same kinds of capital (i.e. that of white, American, high SES, and continuing generation students) construct barriers for students from diverse backgrounds. Thus, we propose that examining culture is essential for understanding the underlying assumptions and beliefs that give rise to the challenging issues surrounding the lack of diversity and inclusion in engineering. This case study examines the culture of a biomedical engineering (BME) program at a large Midwestern university and identifies underlying assumptions regarding what sources of cultural and social capital undergraduate students need to be successful. By tracing when and how students draw upon these forms of capital during their professional development, we examine the implications for students from diverse backgrounds, particularly FGC and URM students.« less
  4. Recent reports indicate that there are less than 1900 (0.6%) Native American undergraduate and graduate engineering students nationwide (Yoder, 2016). Although Native Americans are underrepresented in the field of engineering, there is very little research that explores the contributing factors. The purpose of our exploratory research is to identify the barriers, supports, and personal strengths that Native American engineering students identify as being influential in developing their career interests and aspirations in engineering. Informed by research in Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 2000), we conducted an online survey to assess the motivational variables that guidemore »the career thinking and advancement of students preparing to enter the field of engineering. Instrumentation included Mapping Vocational Challenges (Lapan & Turner, 2000, 2009, 2014), Perceptions of Barriers (McWhirter, 1997), the Structured Career Development Inventory (Lapan & Turner, 2006; Turner et al., 2006), the Career-Related Parent Support Scale (Turner, Alliman-Brissett, Lapan, Udipi, & Ergun, 2003), and the Assessment of Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups (Rankin, 2001), which were used to measure interests, goals, personal strengths and internal and external barriers and supports. Participants (N=23) consisted of graduate (≈25%) and undergraduate (≈75%) Native American engineering students. Their survey responses indicated that students were highly interested in, and had strong self-efficacy for, outcome expectations for, and persistence for pursuing their engineering careers. Their most challenging barriers were financial (e.g., having expenses that are greater than income, and having to work while going to school just to make ends meet) and academic barriers (e.g., not sufficiently prepared academically to study engineering). Perceptions of not fitting in and a lack of career information were also identified as moderately challenging barriers. Students endorsed a number of personal strengths, with the strongest being confidence in their own communication and collaboration skills, as well as commitment to their academic and career preparation. The most notable external support to their engineering career development was their parents’ encouragement to make good grades and to go to a school where they could prepare for a STEM career. Students overall found that their engineering program climates (i.e., interactions with students, faculty, staff, and program expectations of how individuals treat each other) were cooperative, friendly, equitable, and respectful. Study results are interpreted in light of SCCT and recommendations for future research and practice in engineering education are provided.« less
  5. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education initiatives in higher education increasingly call for career mentorship opportunities for underrepresented minorities (URM). Researchers (Johnson & Sheppard, 2004; Nelson & Brammer, 2010) note the importance of having faculty to mentor and act as role models for students, often assuming that mentors play a stronger role if they are also from the same cultural background. Native American (NA) faculty members are underrepresented in most fields in colleges and universities, and exceedingly so in engineering. Only 0.2% (N=68) of engineering faculty nationwide identify as Native American (Yoder, 2014). Likewise, NA students are underrepresented inmore »undergraduate (0.6%; N=1853) and graduate (0.1%; N=173) engineering programs. The low percentage in graduate school is of even greater concern as they represent the primary potential pool of new faculty members. Advising and mentorship from those who identify as NA are often considered important components recruiting and retention in STEM fields. For example, Smith and colleagues (2014) found that factors such as communal goal orientation influenced NA engineering students’ motivation and academic performance. However, very few studies account for differences in NA identity or provide a nuanced account of successful NA STEM professional experiences (Page-Reeves et al., 2018). This research paper presents findings from an exploratory study aimed at pinpointing the factors that influence NA entry and persistence in engineering faculty positions.« less