Search for: All records

Summer bridges have for decades proven to be effective for retention of first year students entering four-year technical degree programs, however little is known about if or how they help students develop future professional role identities. This case study investigates the effect that a summer engineering bridge program has on the future engineer role identity of a single participant. The Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity, a holistic metatheoretical framework for motivation, engagement and learning through identity development, is used to analyze various sources of data collected before, during and after the summer bridge. Specifically, we investigate how the ontological and epistemological beliefs, purpose and goals, self-perceptions and self-definitions, and perceived-action possibilities reveal changes in one’s future engineer role identity. 

Most first-year engineering students are initially paired with non-engineering advisors and typically only enroll in one engineering course during their first year. However, undergraduate research is vital for enhancing critical thinking skills and boosting STEM persistence, as highlighted by Kuh (2008) and Brown et al. (2015). Recognizing this gap, we initiated "Sprouting Research from Day 1," which paired S-STEM scholars during their second semester of college with engineering faculty research mentors. Faculty mentors met bi-weekly with their mentees to discuss individual research interests and then every other week as part of a group session about broader research concepts. To gain insights into the motivations and expectations of the faculty mentors, a focus group was conducted at the end of the semester. The transcript of that meeting was analyzed using the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (Kaplan & Garner, 2017). Findings suggest mentors were motivated by the DEIB nature of this initiative, a modest financial incentive, and a desire to build deeper connections with scholars. They viewed the program primarily as a teaching opportunity, expecting scholars to be self-motivated and research inclined. Mentors noted that a better alignment of research projects with student aspirations and a more focused semester-end deliverable (e.g. REU application) would enhance the program's structure. Finally, the need for professional development for faculty was identified as crucial to scaling up the initiative. That suggestion led to the development of a five-part professional development workshop series on how to better engage first-year students in research which is currently being delivered. Feedback from this series will be analyzed and used to help foster a stronger research culture from the start of a student’s undergraduate engineering education.