Search for: All records

In this research paper, we provide an analysis of self-reported variable such as sense of belonging, engineering identity, intent to persist, and stress levels among first-generation and non-traditional students in their first year of engineering education. In the context of prevailing stress culture in undergraduate engineering education, substantial efforts are made to improve the condition of these variables to support students’ wellbeing and academic success. Utilizing existing social and psychological frameworks, this research intends to support the success of such efforts, especially in the case of minoritized college students (first-generation and non-traditional engineering undergraduates). We offer a detailed understanding of how sense of belonging, engineering identity, intent to persist, and stress interact and impact students’ experiences. Quantitative cross-sectional data was collected from first year engineering students (n = 699) in a large Midwestern University in the U.S. through an online survey. The combined sample included 25% female, 49% first generation, and 23% non-traditional students. Independent samples t-tests revealed significant differences between first-generation and continuing-generation engineering students across all variables. First-generation college students reported significantly lower intent to persist (p = .00), engineering identity (p = .01), and higher stress levels (p = .02) compared to continuing-generation study participants. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences based on the above variable among traditional, and non-traditional study participants. Findings from this study emphasize the need for targeted support for first-generation students. Overall, this research highlights the importance of tailored interventions including curricular changes to promote equity and success in engineering education. These findings can help guide strategies to create a more supportive environment that promotes the success and well-being of first year engineering students. 

Purdue University established Freshman Engineering (now known as First-Year Engineering) in 1953, the first program in the U.S. to do so. Over the years, First-Year Engineering (FYE) programs have been established at several institutions, but not all, across the country. In the early 1990s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provided funding for what were called the Engineering Education Coalitions. They funded a total of eight coalitions that involved more than 40 institutions of higher education over the period from 1990-2005. In addition, NSF created the Action Agenda program in the late 1990s aimed at individual institutions that wanted to adapt and adopt the findings from the existing Coalitions. A strong focus of the Coalitions was on introductory engineering courses, with the rationale that engineering was losing too many students through attrition, and we needed to pay more attention to their formative years. Nearly every Coalition created some version of an FYE program through this funding mechanism. The number of FYE programs across the nation has increased dramatically based on these investments, largely in response to curricular efforts aimed at retaining engineering students by providing them with meaningful career-oriented experiences early in their college educations. Many of these first-year programs were called “common first-year engineering programs,” meaning that all students enrolled in the same courses at the same time. It is a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to education. Despite the laudable goals espoused by most FYE programs, there has been an unintended consequence: curricular rigidity and inflexibility. Thus, students have little agency to shape their own pathway toward an engineering degree. Recently, the University of Cincinnati obtained a grant from the NSF to develop the next generation of first-year programs: FYE2.0. We envision a modularized program that will provide students with essential skills, while at the same time scaffold their first year with opportunities for customization and flexibility in charting their own engineering journey. This paper outlines the logistical progress made in implementing FYE2.0 to date and discusses plans for the future. 

This Complete Evidence-Based Practice Paper focuses on the topic of Curriculum and is based on work funded by an NSF IUSE Grant (#2337003). Specifically, it discusses the efforts at the University of Cincinnati, a large, midwestern, urban university, to update their first-year engineering curriculum by providing students and programs more freedom to select content that will both better prepares students for their upper-division classes and specifically allow the students to pursue topics that are of interests to them. The desire to embark on this re-envisioning of the first-year curriculum is motivated by the demands of industry and the current generation of students, which requires a more flexible approach to allow students to better engage with the field of engineering and to allow curricula to adapt to the ever-changing landscape of engineering practice and technology. The significant curricular change involves taking the current 6 credit hours of first year engineering courses and breaking them into a set of 1 credit (or less) modules from which students can select. This paper discusses in detail the first year of the project which has involved implementing changes to the current courses to prepare for the change to the modular format along with getting buy-in from the administration and faculty within the college. The paper also discusses outcomes from the changes implemented during the first year of the project along with the plan for the second and third year of the project, with the goal of having a completely modularized first-year engineering course structure by the start of the third year.