More Like this

1. Exploring the career thinking of Native American engineering students

   Colston, Nicole ; Turner, Sherri L. ; Johnson, Sarah ; Jacobs, Sue C. ; Mason-Chagil, Gale ( June 2019 , American Society for Engineering Education (2019); Paper #26791)

   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 guide 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. 

   more » « less
2. Developing two-year college student engineering technology career profiles

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36945  

   Frady, K. ; Brown, C. ; High, K. ; Hughes, C. ; O’Hara, R. ; & Huang, S. ( July 2021 , 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. 

   more » « less
3. Engaging STEM Transformational Experiences for Early Momentum (ESTEEM)

   Yahdi, Mohammed ; Bracey, Zoe Buck ( November 2019 , National Science Foundation -  Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program Principal Investigator (PI) Meeting, November 2019.)

   Need/Motivation (e.g., goals, gaps in knowledge) The ESTEEM implemented a STEM building capacity project through students’ early access to a sustainable and innovative STEM Stepping Stones, called Micro-Internships (MI). The goal is to reap key benefits of a full-length internship and undergraduate research experiences in an abbreviated format, including access, success, degree completion, transfer, and recruiting and retaining more Latinx and underrepresented students into the STEM workforce. The MIs are designed with the goals to provide opportunities for students at a community college and HSI, with authentic STEM research and applied learning experiences (ALE), support for appropriate STEM pathway/career, preparation and confidence to succeed in STEM and engage in summer long REUs, and with improved outcomes. The MI projects are accessible early to more students and build momentum to better overcome critical obstacles to success. The MIs are shorter, flexibly scheduled throughout the year, easily accessible, and participation in multiple MI is encouraged. ESTEEM also establishes a sustainable and collaborative model, working with partners from BSCS Science Education, for MI’s mentor, training, compliance, and building capacity, with shared values and practices to maximize the improvement of student outcomes. New Knowledge (e.g., hypothesis, research questions) Research indicates that REU/internship experiences can be particularly powerful for students from Latinx and underrepresented groups in STEM. However, those experiences are difficult to access for many HSI-community college students (85% of our students hold off-campus jobs), and lack of confidence is a barrier for a majority of our students. The gap between those who can and those who cannot is the “internship access gap.” This project is at a central California Community College (CCC) and HSI, the only affordable post-secondary option in a region serving a historically underrepresented population in STEM, including 75% Hispanic, and 87% have not completed college. MI is designed to reduce inequalities inherent in the internship paradigm by providing access to professional and research skills for those underserved students. The MI has been designed to reduce barriers by offering: shorter duration (25 contact hours); flexible timing (one week to once a week over many weeks); open access/large group; and proximal location (on-campus). MI mentors participate in week-long summer workshops and ongoing monthly community of practice with the goal of co-constructing a shared vision, engaging in conversations about pedagogy and learning, and sustaining the MI program going forward. Approach (e.g., objectives/specific aims, research methodologies, and analysis) Research Question and Methodology: We want to know: How does participation in a micro-internship affect students’ interest and confidence to pursue STEM? We used a mixed-methods design triangulating quantitative Likert-style survey data with interpretive coding of open-responses to reveal themes in students’ motivations, attitudes toward STEM, and confidence. Participants: The study sampled students enrolled either part-time or full-time at the community college. Although each MI was classified within STEM, they were open to any interested student in any major. Demographically, participants self-identified as 70% Hispanic/Latinx, 13% Mixed-Race, and 42 female. Instrument: Student surveys were developed from two previously validated instruments that examine the impact of the MI intervention on student interest in STEM careers and pursuing internships/REUs. Also, the pre- and post (every e months to assess longitudinal outcomes) -surveys included relevant open response prompts. The surveys collected students’ demographics; interest, confidence, and motivation in pursuing a career in STEM; perceived obstacles; and past experiences with internships and MIs. 171 students responded to the pre-survey at the time of submission. Outcomes (e.g., preliminary findings, accomplishments to date) Because we just finished year 1, we lack at this time longitudinal data to reveal if student confidence is maintained over time and whether or not students are more likely to (i) enroll in more internships, (ii) transfer to a four-year university, or (iii) shorten the time it takes for degree attainment. For short term outcomes, students significantly Increased their confidence to continue pursuing opportunities to develop within the STEM pipeline, including full-length internships, completing STEM degrees, and applying for jobs in STEM. For example, using a 2-tailed t-test we compared means before and after the MI experience. 15 out of 16 questions that showed improvement in scores were related to student confidence to pursue STEM or perceived enjoyment of a STEM career. Finding from the free-response questions, showed that the majority of students reported enrolling in the MI to gain knowledge and experience. After the MI, 66% of students reported having gained valuable knowledge and experience, and 35% of students spoke about gaining confidence and/or momentum to pursue STEM as a career. Broader Impacts (e.g., the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM; development of a diverse STEM workforce, enhanced infrastructure for research and education) The ESTEEM project has the potential for a transformational impact on STEM undergraduate education’s access and success for underrepresented and Latinx community college students, as well as for STEM capacity building at Hartnell College, a CCC and HSI, for students, faculty, professionals, and processes that foster research in STEM and education. Through sharing and transfer abilities of the ESTEEM model to similar institutions, the project has the potential to change the way students are served at an early and critical stage of their higher education experience at CCC, where one in every five community college student in the nation attends a CCC, over 67% of CCC students identify themselves with ethnic backgrounds that are not White, and 40 to 50% of University of California and California State University graduates in STEM started at a CCC, thus making it a key leverage point for recruiting and retaining a more diverse STEM workforce. 

   more » « less
4. Defining First-generation and Low-income Students in Engineering: An Exploration

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34373  

   Atwood, Sara A ; Gilmartin, Shannon K ; Harris, Angela ; Sheppard, Sheri ( January 2020 , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)

   First-generation (FG) and/or low-income (LI) engineering student populations are of particular interest in engineering education. However, these populations are not defined in a consistent manner across the literature or amongst stakeholders. The intersectional identities of these groups have also not been fully explored in most quantitative-based engineering education research. This research paper aims to answer the following three research questions: (RQ1) How do students’ demographic characteristics and college experiences differ depending on levels of parent educational attainment (which forms the basis of first-generation definitions) and family income? (RQ2) How do ‘first-generation’ and ‘low-income’ definitions impact results comparing to their continuing-generation and higher-income peers? (RQ3) How does considering first-generation and low-income identities through an intersectional lens deepen insight into the experiences of first-generation and low-income groups? Data were drawn from a nationally representative survey of engineering juniors and seniors (n = 6197 from 27 U.S. institutions). Statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate respondent differences in demographics (underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM), women, URM women), college experiences (internships/co-ops, having a job, conducting research, and study abroad), and engineering task self-efficacy (ETSE), based on various definitions of ‘first generation’ and ‘low income’ depending on levels of parental educational attainment and self-reported family income. Our results indicate that categorizing a first-generation student as someone whose parents have less than an associate’s degree versus less than a bachelor’s degree may lead to different understandings of their experiences (RQ1). For example, the proportion of URM students is higher among those whose parents have less than an associate’s degree than among their “associate’s degree or more” peers (26% vs 11.9%). However, differences in college experiences are most pronounced among students whose parents have less than a bachelor’s degree compared with their “bachelor’s degree or more” peers: having a job to help pay for college (55.4% vs 47.3%), research with faculty (22.7% vs 35.0%), and study abroad (9.0% vs 17.3%). With respect to differences by income levels, respondents are statistically different across income groups, with fewer URM students as family income level increases. As family income level increases, there are more women in aggregate, but fewer URM women. College experiences are different for the middle income or higher group (internship 48.4% low and lower-middle income vs 59.0% middle income or higher; study abroad 11.2% vs 16.4%; job 58.6% vs 46.8%). Despite these differences in demographic characteristics and college experiences depending on parental educational attainment and family income, our dataset indicates that the definition does not change the statistical significance when comparing between first-generation students and students who were continuing-generation by any definition (RQ2). First-generation and low-income statuses are often used as proxies for one another, and in this dataset, are highly correlated. However, there are unique patterns at the intersection of these two identities. For the purpose of our RQ3 analysis, we define ‘first-generation’ as students whose parents earned less than a bachelor’s degree and ‘low-income’ as low or lower-middle income. In this sample, 68 percent of students were neither FG nor LI while 11 percent were both (FG&LI). On no measure of demographics or college experience is the FG&LI group statistically similar to the advantaged group. Low-income students had the highest participation in working to pay for college, regardless of parental education, while first-generation students had the lower internship participation than low-income students. Furthermore, being FG&LI is associated with lower ETSE compared with all other groups. These results suggest that care is required when applying the labels “first-generation” and/or “low-income” when considering these groups in developing institutional support programs, in engineering education research, and in educational policy. Moreover, by considering first-generation and low-income students with an intersectional lens, we gain deeper insight into engineering student populations that may reveal potential opportunities and barriers to educational resources and experiences that are an important part of preparation for an engineering career. 

   more » « less
5. Correlates of Native American engineering students’ career interests and efficacy: A test of SCCT

   Turner, Sherri L. ; Mason-Chagil, Gale ; Jacobs, Sue C. ; Colston, Nicole ; Johnson, Sarah ; Patzkowsky, K. ( August 2019 , American Psychological Association 127th Annual Convention)

   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 the 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. 

   more » « less