Search

A substantial investment by the National Science Foundation (NSF), including awards from Engineering Education and Centers in the Engineering Directorate and the Division of Undergraduate Education in the Education and Human Resources Directorate, has led to the creation and study of the Multiple Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD). This large database of student records has yielded groundbreaking research on student pathways by a small interdisciplinary team of researchers. The team has shown that while individual engineering programs may have poor graduation rates, a multi-institutional view reveals that engineering programs as a whole graduate a larger fraction of students than other groups of disciplines [1]. The team has also shown that women and men have similar graduation rates in engineering, likely a result of efforts to make engineering education a welcoming environment for women and the high academic credentials of the women who do study engineering [2]. As with the overall graduation rate, individual institutions and programs can and do have outcomes that depart from this aggregate perspective. A comprehensive study of student pathways in various engineering disciplines provided practitioners with rich information specific to their disciplinary context [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The team has also designed a variety of metrics that have provided researchers and practitioners with an improved understanding of student pathways [11]. The quality of the data source and the research team is attested by these substantial findings, multiple best paper awards, and other recognitions [1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13]. An overview of MIDFIELD and research using it can be found in [14]. This paper provides updates on transitioning MIDFIELD to the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), documentation of institutional policies, and supporting a growing community of researchers in using the database including the second offering of the MIDFIELD Institute. This work is supported by the NSF Division of Engineering Education and Centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Navy and Marine Corps are both branches of the US Department of the Navy. However, they have different missions in support of national defense and thus sailors and Marines have very different job responsibilities during their service. This study investigates how these different roles impact their future choice to major in engineering. We explore three research questions. 1) What reasons did student veterans in engineering give for first enlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps? 2) What factors influence their job placement in the service? 3) How does military service influence their decision to later major in engineering? We find that patriotism and a desire to attain a sense of direction influences these veterans to join both services but that Marine Corps veterans are more likely to report doing so out of a sense of pride and a desire to engage in combat than Navy veterans. Placement in military jobs is determined by the needs of the force and the capabilities of the sailor or Marine. Those who score well on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) have more choices and, in the Navy, are encouraged to join the nuclear program. Marines are more likely to be assigned where they are needed. Participants cited their technical training and a desire to improve processes and products as key reasons for pursuing engineering. Veterans in the nuclear Navy indicated that they were also encouraged through their training to seek higher education in engineering whereas Marine Corps veterans received little encouragement to seek higher education outside of the Marine Corps. Colleges of engineering can use this information to tailor their recruiting of former service members by connecting the dots from training to engineering education for those with technical training. The services are likewise encouraged to connect the dots between training and future education explicitly. For those without technical training, university recruiting messages could emphasize the assets of discipline and hard work gained in the military as well as the opportunity to improve processes they may have encountered in their service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this project is to identify policies and practices that influence choice, persistence, and attrition of Black students in Electrical Engineering (EE), Computer Engineering (CpE), and Mechanical Engineering (ME) and to make actionable recommendations for policy makers regarding best practices. Building on prior work that demonstrated the impacts of gender and race on academic trajectories for engineering as a whole and EE, CpE, and ME in particular, our transformative mixed-methods project responds to calls for more crossinstitutional qualitative and longitudinal studies of minorities in engineering education. The study will investigate the following overarching research questions: 1. Why do Black men and women choose and persist in, or leave, EE, CpE, and ME? 2. What are the academic trajectories of Black men and women in EE, CpE, and ME? 3. In what ways do these pathways vary by gender or institution? 4. What institutional policies and practices promote greater retention of Black engineering students? Our mixed-methods approach combines the quantitative power of large sample sizes available from the Multi-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD) and the qualitative richness of 80 in-depth interviews and detailed content analysis of institutional policies and contexts at four institutions. This approach allows for the development of the thematic rigor necessary to advance theoretical understanding of engineering education for underrepresented minorities (URMs). We will draw on the theoretical frameworks of intersectionality, critical race theory, and community cultural wealth to guide our research and interpret our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the number of student veterans and service members increases, universities are creating new programs or expanding existing programs to better serve the needs of this student population. In many cases, faculty and staff have become actively involved in advocating for student veterans and serving as allies for their success. Our qualitative study on student veterans in engineering (SVEs) included in-depth interviews of institutional agents (IAs) at our four academic institutions. We interviewed 24 individuals in Fall 2014 and Spring 2015; interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. Interviewees worked in a variety of settings across campus, including financial aid and health services. We also interviewed a First-Year Engineering (FYE) staff member. To better understand the broader context of SVEs' educational experiences beyond departments of engineering, we explore the IAs' perspectives on their duties in serving student veterans and their suggestions for improving policies and programs, both at the university level and within engineering. We also examine some implications of these perspectives for engineering education. We focus this study on two research questions: 1. How do IAs describe their roles and responsibilities as they pertain to student veterans in general? 2. What are IAs' experiences in working with student veterans in engineering? Our study highlights how IAs effect positive change for student veterans and help SVEs navigate the transition from the military to university structures and cultures. The IAs felt they played an instrumental role in expanding services for student veterans and in establishing a positive and supportive culture for student veterans. However, they also recognized the need for additional resources for, and improvement in, certain policies and programs. The results can inform university and departmental efforts to enhance SVEs' transitions from the military to higher education and engineering studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This NSF Research in Engineering Education (REE)-funded project explores the experiences of student veterans in engineering (SVE) at four institutions across the US. Data collection included interviews with key informants in year one of this grant, focus groups with SVEs in year two, and in-depth SVE interviews in year three at each campus. Years 4 and 5 have focused on analysis and dissemination. Here, we provide a summary and highlight some results from our work. This study has potential for broad impact by diversifying pathways to and through engineering programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a visual, quantitative analysis of the academic pathways of Black men and women who enroll in Electrical Engineering (EE) or Mechanical Engineering (ME) at any point during their undergraduate experience (N=4816). Our research provides evidence that more Black students choose EE than ME, in contrast to national data for all races that show that more students major in ME than EE. While more Black students initially enroll in EE overall, ME attracts a larger proportion of its Black students from other majors and retains a larger fraction. Black women are particularly persistent in ME (58%). Most Black students who leave EE or ME leave the institution without a degree. Seventy-eight percent of Black men and 65% of Black women who leave ME leave the institution without a degree. Of those leaving EE, 74% of Black men and 64% of Black women leave the institution without a degree. This examination of quantitative differences between disciplines lays a foundation for qualitative study through indepth student interviews of Black students in these majors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the relationship between peer to peer comments and behavioral ratings of teamwork behavior for first year engineering students using the CATME peer evaluation system. CATME allows team members to rate themselves and each other on five research-based dimensions essential for good team functioning. The five dimensions are: Contributing to the Team's Work (C), Interacting with Teammates (I), Keeping the Team on Track (K), Expecting Quality (E) and Having Related Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (H). During the spring semester of 2016, students rated themselves and their teammates on these five dimensions and were asked to explain their ratings of themselves and their peers. We find that, in general, the comments were focused primarily on Contributing and secondarily on Having Related Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities; not all five CATME dimensions. However, when detailed comments are given, they often provide additional insights into peer ratings and explanations for the CATME exception codes. These insights into team functional or dysfunctional behavior provide information to the instructor that goes well beyond what can be obtained from the peer ratings alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the experiences of first-generation students is important for expanding diversity and inclusion in engineering education. Some of these students may include the military as a part of their educational pathways. However, there is little research on the experiences of firstgeneration student veterans in engineering education. This qualitative study seeks to address this gap. The investigation focuses on first-generation student veterans in engineering (FGSVEs) (n=15) who were interviewed as a part of a larger study of SVEs (n=60) on four college campuses. The study addressed the following research questions: (1) Why do FGSVEs decide to join the military? (2) Why do FGSVEs choose to major in engineering?. Results suggest that these FGSVEs join the military to gain some direction and purpose in their lives and to pay for college. They primarily choose engineering as a pathway toward financial stability and to engage in creative problem solving. This study reveals that the military provides opportunities to first-generation students that would otherwise not likely be available to them due to their reported lower level of motivation and academic discipline during and after high school. The study results can aid in the development of recruiting strategies and the design of more effective programs and policies for SVEs in general and first-generation SVEs in particular. For example, because many of these students overcame initial obstacles in higher education, they could be a potential pool of effective mentors in engineering, both to other student veterans and to first-generation students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To improve opportunities for women student veterans in engineering (WSVE), our qualitative study contributes to the body of knowledge about women SVEs and female gender identity in engineering. Our exploratory research presents information about WSVEs' pathways into engineering and begins to unpack the factors related to WSVEs' gender, military and engineering identities. The research was guided by three main questions: 1. Why do WSVEs pursue a Bachelor's degree in engineering? 2. How do military experiences shape WSVEs' educational experiences? 3. To what extent are the WSVEs' current engineering education experiences shaped by their gender, veteran, and engineering identities?. We interviewed seven WSVEs about their transition out of the military and into engineering programs at four institutions. Participants also completed an identity exercise articulating the extent to which various components of their identity were most central to their core self (e.g., woman, engineering student, socioeconomic status, veteran or military status, etc.). The analysis of the participants' narratives reveals several themes: (1) there is often a connection between WSVEs' military occupational specialty (MOS) and their decision to pursue an engineering degree program; (2) the participants' military experiences served to support their academic experiences in engineering; (3) the participants do not directly indicate that gender identity is particularly salient to their military experience or in engineering; however, their narratives illuminate how they conceptualize engineering identity as central to their experiences; and (4) although participants did not indicate that gender was central to their identities and experiences, nearly all of them discussed relational elements, including the significance of relationships and caregiving to their educational experiences. That is, family roles (e.g., daughter, wife, sister) were central to their identity, even if the women did not say that gender, per se, was salient. Our initial results offer insights into the unique experiences of women who served in the military and who then chose to advance their careers and education in engineering. Policies and programs for WSVEs should account for previous military experience related to engineering, the similar male-dominated cultures both the military and engineering fields possess, and the importance of family- and relationship-oriented responsibilities to WSVEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the engineering community seeks to widen the pathways toward engineering education, hundreds of thousands of military veterans are initiating their college studies at universities across the U.S. Given this trend, it is essential to better understand the factors that lead student veterans to choose to major in engineering. We are conducting a comparative case study at four institutions enrolling undergraduate student veterans in engineering (SVEs). In this paper, we draw upon in-depth interviews conducted with SVEs at two of these institutions to: (1) better understand the factors that shape SVEs' decisions to major in engineering and, (2) determine whether and how the military influences student veterans' decisions to major in engineering. Our work provides insights into the timing of the decision as well as the extent to which military training and experiences provide a direct, or indirect, pathway into engineering. We highlight student experiences to advance knowledge about SVEs' educational pathways on several fronts. Methodologically, our in-depth analysis allows us to capture the nuanced nature of SVE narratives that often remains hidden when using other approaches to studying engineering education. Theoretically, we draw from Cognitive Information Processing theory to more accurately reflect SVE decision making about majoring in engineering. Practically, the results can inform military transition assistance programs and improve university efforts to ensure that student veterans experience a successful transition from their military career to higher education and engineering studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This project explores the experiences of student veterans in engineering through a comparative case study across four institutions: University of San Diego (USD), North Carolina State University (NCSU), Purdue University, and Clemson University. Our research plan incorporates content analysis of academic policies that student veterans encounter, interviews with key informants on each campus, focus group interviews with student veterans, and in-depth student interviews to elicit rich narratives. This study has potential for broad systemic impact by diversifying pathways to and through engineering programs. During Year 1 (2014-2015) of the grant, we interviewed 23 key informants at our institutions. Key informants include professionals supporting veterans in student veteran success centers, financial aid, advising offices, and other student support services. We identified themes that shape student veteran experiences on these campuses: the presence/absence of key student policies and services; and gaps in the provision of such services. At each institution, there has been a heightened emphasis on improving services for veterans. In Year 2 (2015-2016), we conducted five focus groups with a total of 21 student veterans engineering students. Participants who had significant technical responsibilities as part of their service often considered engineering to be a logical next step in their career. However, veterans with less technical responsibility in their military jobs were more attracted to engineering by financial opportunities and/or job security. Veteran students' relationships with faculty and other students are influenced by their age and their veteran status. While many veterans viewed age as an advantage in engineering study, some cited balancing school with the family and work responsibilities that often come with age as a disadvantage. Veterans are more likely to tell their professors than other students about their veteran status. In Year 3 (2016-2017), we conducted 62 individual interviews with veteran engineering students at our four campuses. Data from these interviews will be analyzed and compared with data from the focus groups to provide a richer description of the experiences of military veterans who choose to pursue a bachelor's degree in engineering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]