Search

Background: Increasing the persistence of engineering transfer students can help meet the US national priority of increasing the number of engineering graduates. Many transfer students experience a decrease in their grade point average (GPA) at their receiving institution, known as transfer shock, which can lead to them leaving the institution. This GPA decrease is found to be more prevalent in engineering transfer students. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to analyze a single institutional dataset to determine when transfer shock occurs, how it differs among engineering transfer student subgroups, and if transfer shock is a predictor of graduation within 4 years in engineering. Design/Method: A 10-year dataset with 789 engineering transfer students was used in this study, and the engineering transfer students were split into four subgroups. Multiple statistical analyses were conducted, including Welch's F-test, chi-square, and logistic regression, to understand differences in transfer shock during the first three terms of enrollment as well as 4-year graduation rates among each subgroup. Results: Transfer shock extends through the first three post-transfer terms, resulting in transfer norming. The engineering transfer student subgroups experience different levels of transfer norming; however, the subgroups were not predictors of graduation. The predictors were the transfer GPA and the transfer norming in the first three post-transfer terms of enrollment. Conclusions: Engineering transfer students are not a homogeneous population; there are key differences between lateral and vertical transfer students. More strategic, longitudinal programming and decision-making should be considered by institutions.

Background: Calls to improve learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and particularly engineering, present significant challenges for school systems. Partnerships among engineering industry, universities, and school systems to support learning appear promising, but current work is limited in its conclusions because it lacks a strong connection to theoretical work in interorganizational collaboration. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study aims to reflect more critically on the process of how organizations build relationships to address the following research question: In a public-private partnership to integrate engineering into middle school science curriculum, how do stakeholder characterizations of the collaborative process align with existing frameworks of interorganizational collaboration? Design/Method: This qualitative, embedded multiple case study considered in-depth pre- and post-year interviews with teachers, administrators, industry, and university personnel during the first year of the Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools (PEERS) program. Transcripts were analyzed using a framework of interorganizational collaboration operationalized for our context. Results: Results provide insights into stakeholder perceptions of collaborative processes in the first year of the PEERS program across dimensions of collaboration. These dimensions mapped to three central discussion points with relevance for school-university-industry partnerships: school collaboration as an emergent and negotiated process, tension in collaborating across organizations, and fair share in collaborating toward a social goal. Conclusions: Taking a macro-level look at the collaborative processes involved enabled us to develop implications for collaborative stakeholders to be intentional about designing for future success. By systematically applying a framework of collaboration and capitalizing on the rich situational findings possible through a qualitative approach, we shift our understanding of collaborative processes in school-university-industry partnerships for engineering education and contribute to the development of collaboration theory.

Background: Determining the root causes of persistent underrepresentation of different subpopulations in engineering remains a continued challenge. Because place-based variation of resource distribution is not random and because school and community contexts influence high school outcomes, considering variation across those contexts should be paramount in broadening participation research. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study takes a macroscopic systems view of engineering enrollments to understand variation across one state's public high school rates of engineering matriculation. Design/Method: This study uses a dataset from the Virginia Longitudinal Data System that includes all students who completed high school from a Virginia public school from 2007 to 2014 (N=685,429). We explore geographic variation in four-year undergraduate engineering enrollment as a function of gender, race/ethnicity, and economically disadvantaged status. Additionally, we investigate the relationship between characteristics of the high school and community contexts and undergraduate engineering enrollment across Virginia's high schools using regression analysis. Results: Our findings illuminate inequality in enrollment in engineering programs at four-year institutions across high schools by gender, race, and socioeconomic status (and the intersections among those demographics). Different high schools have different engineering enrollment rates among students who attend four-year postsecondary institutions. We show strong associations between high schools' engineering enrollment rates and four-year institution enrollment rates as well as moderate associations for high schools' community socioeconomic status. Conclusions: Strong systemic forces need to be overcome to broaden participation in engineering. We demonstrate the insights that state longitudinal data systems can illuminate in engineering education research.

Background: Prior researchers developed an instrument to measure perceived design thinking ability of first-year students interested in engineering, and they validated the instrument through exploratory factor analysis. Purpose/Hypothesis: Our study uses the previously developed instrument to evaluate perceived design thinking ability of senior engineering students. We make a cross-sectional comparison of this measure on a national scale. Design/Method: We surveyed a national sample of senior engineering students in 2018 and conducted a cross-sectional comparison with results from a 2012 national sample of first-year students who were interested in declaring an engineering major. Two-way analysis of variance tests compared average design thinking scores across sample groups. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to improve the design thinking instrument. Results: First-year students who intended to declare an engineering major score significantly higher (2.80) on the design thinking scale than senior engineering students (2.59) with a medium effect size of 0.4. The senior engineering sample performs significantly worse on the feedback seeking and experimentalism instrument items, but significantly better on the integrative thinking and collaboration items. We found no significant differences in perceived design thinking ability among engineering disciplines among senior students. Conclusions: Feedback seeking and experimentalism are traits that engineering educators should develop in their students to improve perceived design thinking ability. Incorporation of user-centered design and divergent thinking in the engineering classroom are recommended as avenues to foster feedback seeking and experimentalism. We also offer recommendations to improve the design thinking instrument for future research.

Background: Increasing the persistence of engineering transfer students can help meet the US national priority of increasing the number of engineering graduates. Many transfer students experience a decrease in their grade point average (GPA) at their receiving institution, known as transfer shock, which can lead to them leaving the institution. This GPA decrease is found to be more prevalent in engineering transfer students. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to analyze a single institutional dataset to determine when transfer shock occurs, how it differs among engineering transfer student subgroups, and if transfer shock is a predictor of graduation within 4 years in engineering. Design/Method: A 10‐year dataset with 789 engineering transfer students was used in this study, and the engineering transfer students were split into four subgroups. Multiple statistical analyses were conducted, including Welch's F‐test, chi‐square, and logistic regression, to understand differences in transfer shock during the first three terms of enrollment as well as 4‐year graduation rates among each subgroup. Results: Transfer shock extends through the first three post‐transfer terms, resulting in transfer norming. The engineering transfer student subgroups experience different levels of transfer norming; however, the subgroups were not predictors of graduation. The predictors were the transfer GPA and the transfer norming in the first three post‐transfer terms of enrollment. Conclusions: Engineering transfer students are not a homogeneous population; there are key differences between lateral and vertical transfer students. More strategic, longitudinal programming and decision‐making should be considered by institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior researchers developed an instrument to measure perceived design thinking ability of first‐year students interested in engineering, and they validated the instrument through exploratory factor analysis. Purpose/Hypothesis: Our study uses the previously developed instrument to evaluate perceived design thinking ability of senior engineering students. We make a cross‐sectional comparison of this measure on a national scale. Design/Method: We surveyed a national sample of senior engineering students in 2018 and conducted a cross‐sectional comparison with results from a 2012 national sample of first‐year students who were interested in declaring an engineering major. Two‐way analysis of variance tests compared average design thinking scores across sample groups. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to improve the design thinking instrument. Results: First‐year students who intended to declare an engineering major score significantly higher (2.80) on the design thinking scale than senior engineering students (2.59) with a medium effect size of 0.4. The senior engineering sample performs significantly worse on the feedback seeking and experimentalism instrument items, but significantly better on the integrative thinking and collaboration items. We found no significant differences in perceived design thinking ability among engineering disciplines among senior students. Conclusions: Feedback seeking and experimentalism are traits that engineering educators should develop in their students to improve perceived design thinking ability. Incorporation of user‐centered design and divergent thinking in the engineering classroom are recommended as avenues to foster feedback seeking and experimentalism. We also offer recommendations to improve the design thinking instrument for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]