Search

Striving to remain a global leader in innovation, the United States continues prioritizing broadening participation in engineering and other STEM fields. For this reason, STEM outreach programs are increasingly popular and vital. However, few programs offer such outreach experiences at a large, national scale and intentionally situate those experiences in locations that enable access for African American youth. In this paper, we present a logic model that showcases the resources and components that can expand the reach of an effective program, outlining the programmatic components involved in executing the National Society of Black Engineers' Summer Engineering Experience for Kids (SEEK) program, which has effectively scaled to cities across the United States. Using SEEK as an instrumental case, we highlight what goes into offering a large-scale community-based STEM outreach program, emphasizing aspects that are most important to preserve during expansion into underserved communities. Key findings illustrate that maximizing the potential of recruiting and engaging youth from underserved populations may hinge on the ability of established programs to scale up their initiatives while establishing appropriate assessment plans to measure effectiveness. Additionally, embracing the ideals of collective impact provides an opportunity for such programs to progress their initiatives by replicating program designs in more communities.

Background: It is well known that earning a bachelor's degree in engineering is a demanding task, but ripe with opportunity. For students from historically excluded demographic groups, this task is exacerbated by oppressive circumstances. Although considerable research has documented how student outcomes differ across demographic groups, much less is known about the dynamic processes that marginalize some students. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual model of student navigation in the context of undergraduate engineering programs. Our goal is to illustrate how localized, structural features unjustly shape the demands and opportunities encountered by students and influence how they respond. Scope/Method: We developed our model using an iterative, four-stage process. This process included (1) "clarifying" the purpose of the development process; (2) "identifying" concepts and insights from prior research; (3) "synthesizing" the concepts and insights into propositions; and (4) "visualizing" the suspected relationships between the salient constructs in the propositions. Results: Our model focuses on the dynamic interactions between the characteristics of students, the embedded contexts in which they are situated, and the support infrastructure of their learning environment. Conclusion: The resulting model illustrates the influence of structural features on how students a) respond to demands and opportunities and b) navigate obstacles present in the learning environment. Although its focus is on marginalized students in undergraduate engineering programs, the model may be applicable to STEM higher education more broadly.

Background: Engineering education scholars (EES) seek to advance innovation, excellence, and access within education systems and the engineering profession. To advance such efforts, the intentional and strategic actions taken by scholars must be better understood. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study aimed to advance the field's understanding of agency toward impact by (1) closely examining the experiences of early career EES pursuing impact in engineering education and (2) co-constructing a contextualized theory of agency. We define agency as taking strategic actions or perspectives toward professional goals that matter to oneself and goals that relate to impacting engineering education. Design/Method: Building on previous work about faculty agency, we leveraged approaches from grounded theory and integrated multiple qualitative approaches to analyze our experiences as six early career EES over the course of a 4-year longitudinal study. Results: Seven key insights about the professional agency toward impact in engineering education of early career EES emerged from the analysis. The contextualized theory and resulting visual representation illustrate this agency as a cyclical process with three components: (1) the factors influencing one's agency, (2) the agentic process itself, and (3) the output of the agentic process. Conclusions: Our co-constructed contextualized theory extends previous work by incorporating the temporal nature of agency, the generation and assessment of available moves, and the importance of feedback on future agentic practices. Our results have implications on how the engineering education community supports graduate students, early career scholars, and new members in their efforts to impact change.

Background: Supporting undergraduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been a persistent need. However, assessing the impact of support efforts can prove challenging as it is difficult to operationalize student support and subsequently monitor the combined impacts of the various supports to which students have access simultaneously. Purpose/Hypothesis: This paper describes the development of the STEM student perspectives of support instrument (STEM-SPSI) and explores how perceptions of student support constructs vary across engineering students. Design/Method: Following best practices for instrument development, forming the STEM-SPSI consisted of an iterative cycle of feedback from various STEM stakeholders and two rounds of pilot testing with students at multiple institutions. We employed factor analysis to identify student-support constructs and conduct validation procedures on the instrument. Results: Results suggest that student support can be conceptualized as a combination of 12 constructs. The STEM-SPSI can help engineering educators evaluate their student-support mechanisms at an academic-unit level. Conclusions: The practical contribution of the STEM-SPSI is to assist colleges in monitoring the extent to which their portfolio of support mechanisms is perceived as helpful by undergraduate students. This work makes a theoretical contribution to the model of cocurricular support that undergirds the instrument by producing empirical evidence for its constructs.

Community college scholars and practitioners consistently seek ways to support vertical transfer from community colleges to four-year institutions. An emerging practice to streamline coursework transfer is the use of tailored, intrusive pre-transfer advising to increase information access for students still enrolled at the community college. In this article, we explore how one pre-transfer program--the Virginia Tech Network for Engineering Transfer Students (VT-NETS)--improved the transfer pathway in engineering through early integration programming and advising structures that help to streamline vertical transfer. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compare the experience of transfer students who participated in VT-NETS with transfer students that did not participate in the pre-transfer program. Based on our findings, we make practical recommendations that may be useful to community colleges and university partners seeking to establish, improve, or scale up early-integration programs for prospective transfer students.

Background: In the field of engineering education, assessment and evaluation have been given insufficient attention as they relate to broadening participation. We posit that this lack of attention negatively impacts our ability to develop and implement sustainable solutions at scale. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the presence of an assessment cycle in the literature related to broadening participation in engineering. The assessment cycle refers to the process by which assessment/evaluation is planned, enacted, and used to improve educational processes. Scope/Method: The scope of this study was influenced by it being situated in a larger study focused on broadening participation of Black Americans in engineering and computer science. We completed a literature map that illuminated a subset of literature broadly related to assessment/evaluation, and subsequently conducted a systematic literature review of 33 publications reporting on assessment/evaluation efforts. Our analysis of these efforts was grounded in a six-stage assessment cycle. Results: The results of this study highlight common publishing practices related to the assessment cycle in the context of broadening participation. We find that assessment/evaluation is generally published at the program level, focused on student development or academic success as a proxy for program effectiveness, and concentrated on positive claims. Conclusion: There is room to significantly improve how assessment/evaluation information is published. By highlighting productive and unproductive publishing practices related to assessment/evaluation, this research has important implications for the use and publishing of assessment/evaluation, particularly as it relates to broadening participation in engineering.

Background: As engineering remains central to the US economy, it is imperative that the innovators of this field reflect the world in which we live. Despite decades of concerted effort to broaden participation in engineering, representation continues to lack. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide education researchers and practitioners with a clear understanding of barriers to the participation of Black American children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Our interest is driven by the role that precollege STEM experiences play in children's likelihood of becoming potential engineering students. Scope/Method: We conducted a systematic literature review of 41 articles focused on Black children in precollege STEM contexts. Each article underwent individual review to gain deeper insight into key contextual factors that enable and constrain these potential engineers. Results: We situate our research findings in Perna's college choice model to highlight the key factors that may influence one's career and college decisions. The contextual factors are associated with the (1) social, economic, and policy context (e.g., racism, sexism, and classism); (2) STEM educational and community context (i.e., social perceptions and access); and (3) the local support context (i.e., teachers and family). Conclusions: Our results represent the early workings of a "glass ceiling" above the heads of potential engineering students. The underrepresentation of Black Americans who thrive in engineering is a byproduct of the lack of accessibility to quality and advanced learning experiences that too often plague K-12 schools and communities that serve high populations of Black Americans. Such findings have implications for research and practice.

A central challenge in engineering education is providing experiences that are appropriate for and accessible to underserved communities. However, to provide such experiences, we must better understand the process of offering a geographically distributed asset-based out-of-school program. This paper focuses on a collaborative research project that examined the broad implementation of the Summer Engineering Experiences for Kids (SEEK) program organized by the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE). SEEK is a three-week summer program that engages participants in hands-on, team-based engineering design projects. NSBE's goal is to make SEEK culturally sustaining, community-connected, and scalable. The purpose of this paper is to provide a retrospective reflection on various aspects of our collaborative project and highlight a series of tradeoffs that must be carefully considered to offer and examine the effectiveness of an intervention designed both to affirm cultural background as well as to broaden access. Guided by Yosso's community cultural wealth (CCW) framework, we engaged in individual reflection and group discussions about the evolution of our three-year project. We considered the six types of capital outlined in CCW to examine various program design elements and tradeoffs. By illuminating the tradeoffs that are required, we hope this paper can help other program designers and researchers to intentionally, preemptively, and proactively consider such tradeoffs.

States and institutions employ articulation agreements to streamline curricular pathways. We investigate the efficacy of that streamlining by considering how course sequences, enacted through pre- and co-requisites, relate to graduation rates for transfer students at different time intervals. Applying a curricular complexity framework that quantifies the complexities of curriculum pathways, we compared the curricular complexities of transfer and first-time-in-college (FTIC) pathways in engineering and correlate those complexity scores with graduation rates at different time intervals. The institutions examined in this study include a mid-Atlantic research university and four of its largest feeder community colleges geographically distributed across the state. We found that, in aggregate, transfer student pathways are less complex than FTIC pathways, although complexity metrics vary across engineering disciplines and sending institutions. Although curricular complexity correlates with graduation rates for FTIC students at different time intervals, the same relationship does not hold for transfer students. The curricular complexity metric is useful for understanding the complexity FTIC students encounter in engineering and correlates with their graduation rates at different time intervals. However, the tool falls short of capturing some nuances of curricular complexity for transfer students. We suggest ways to enhance the metric to depict complexities in curriculum for transfer students.

States and institutions increasingly rely on articulation agreements to streamline vertical transfer, although the effectiveness of those policies on transfer student outcomes remains unclear. To better understand this effectiveness, we explored a partnership between the College of Engineering at a mid-Atlantic research university and two community colleges located within the same state. We interviewed engineering faculty and academic advisors (i.e., the street-level bureaucrats who implement policy) to explore how an articulation agreement influences processes and policies related to coursework transfer. Our results revealed complexities in the implementation of the articulation policy as it collides with an enrollment management university policy that differs in purpose. Their collision has challenging implications for transfer students and for the faculty and advisors responsible for interfacing with those students.

Background: There is a need for engineering-specific theories and constructs to advance our understanding of student development. Student integration, widely used in educational research, is a suitable construct; however, it has also received some criticism. These critiques can be addressed by rethinking student integration and its use in the context of engineering education. Purpose/Hypothesis: This article re-conceptualizes student integration and describes the development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument (ESII), which measures integration, as well as provides evidence of its validity. Design/Method: Preliminary items for the ESII were developed using open-ended survey responses from undergraduate engineering students about the impact of co-curricular support. These items were reviewed by multiple researchers to assess question phrasing, formatting, and face validity. The resulting instrument was administered electronically to students in the College of Engineering at a large East Coast public university. Data from 586 students were used to develop evidence of validity by conducting an exploratory factor analysis on half of the data and a confirmatory factor analysis on the other half. Results: Evidence of validity indicates the appropriateness of the ESII for measuring integration and operationalizes integration constructs from the model of co-curricular support (MCCS) for undergraduate engineering students, including academic, social, professional, and university integration. Conclusions: Grounded in the MCCS, the ESII begins to address several critiques of student integration as originally defined by Tinto's model of institutional departure, those related particularly to the measurement of the integration constructs.

This article explores the concept of creating a Bill of Rights for engineering students to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering education. The author, a Black engineering professor, shares their personal experiences and highlights the need for better support for marginalized students. They propose that a Bill of Rights could establish minimum expectations for undergraduate and graduate education and provide a framework for accountability. The author suggests using Young's Five Faces of Oppression as a conceptual framework to outline rights that address exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. The article emphasizes the importance of implementing a Bill of Rights to address oppressive circumstances and hold individuals accountable, and suggests specific rights and accountability practices to mitigate oppression. The author encourages discussion and engagement within the engineering education community to bring about necessary changes. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: Transfer student capital (TSC) helps community college students realize the potential for the transfer pathway to serve as a lower-cost option to a bachelor's degree. However, students' accrual of TSC depends on the quality and quantity of information networks and infrastructure; information asymmetry in these networks can impede students' transfer progress. Methods: Using interview data from stakeholders who support engineering transfer students at one research university and two community college partners, we apply a methodology that combines qualitative coding techniques (i.e., descriptive, process, and evaluative coding) with network and pathway analyses to explore an information network for coursework transfer in engineering. Results: Our findings illustrate the disjointed and complex web of information sources that transfer students may use to accrue TSC. We highlight pathways fraught with information asymmetry as well as information sources and processes that give promise to students' ability to accrue TSC and successfully navigate transfer of coursework vertically. Conclusions: An abundance of information sources and paths does not equate to a better transfer system. Utilizing network analysis to visualize and evaluate information sources and processes provides an additional method for evaluating information systems for transfer. Consolidating information sources or improving processes linking information sources could improve inefficiencies in transfer students' transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engineering student support centers (ESSCs) are common providers of assistance for undergraduate students, especially those from underrepresented groups. However, ESSCs are relatively recent, and there are gaps in our knowledge about how they are intentionally designed to function alongside engineering curricula. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual model that graphically represents the practices of and intentions behind ESSCs. Design/Method: A multi-case study design was used to examine the efforts of six ESSCs housed at four institutions. Using qualitative methods, we collected data from student-support practitioners (those who provide support) and students (those who receive support). The data were analyzed through the development of a logic model. Results: The primary result of this study is an empirically based conceptual model, the model of co-curricular support (MCCS), for constructing and evaluating support systems and individual student interventions. The MCCS builds on Tinto's model of institutional departure and demonstrates the breadth of assistance required to comprehensively support undergraduate students at the college level. Conclusions: The MCCS indicates how a student's interactions with the academic, social, and professional systems in a college and the larger university system can influence a student's success in an undergraduate degree program. The model combines student-retention theory with student-support practice in a way that can facilitate future collaborations between educational researchers and student-support practitioners.

Background: It is well known that earning a bachelor's degree in engineering is a demanding task, but ripe with opportunity. For students from historically excluded demographic groups, this task is exacerbated by oppressive circumstances. Although considerable research has documented how student outcomes differ across demographic groups, much less is known about the dynamic processes that marginalize some students. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual model of student navigation in the context of undergraduate engineering programs. Our goal is to illustrate how localized, structural features unjustly shape the demands and opportunities encountered by students and influence how they respond. Scope/Method: We developed our model using an iterative, four‐stage process. This process included (1) clarifying the purpose of the development process; (2) identifying concepts and insights from prior research; (3) synthesizing the concepts and insights into propositions; and (4) visualizing the suspected relationships between the salient constructs in the propositions. Results: Our model focuses on the dynamic interactions between the characteristics of students, the embedded contexts in which they are situated, and the support infrastructure of their learning environment. Conclusion: The resulting model illustrates the influence of structural features on how students a) respond to demands and opportunities and b) navigate obstacles present in the learning environment. Although its focus is on marginalized students in undergraduate engineering programs, the model may be applicable to STEM higher education more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]