1 / 11

Peggy S. Meszaros, Ph.D. Catherine T. Amelink, Ph.D.

A Cross-Institutional Comparison of Educational Factors Promoting or Discouraging the Intent to Remain in Engineering June 15, 2009 ASEE Annual Conference Austin, TX. Peggy S. Meszaros, Ph.D. Catherine T. Amelink, Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.

kamal
Download Presentation

Peggy S. Meszaros, Ph.D. Catherine T. Amelink, Ph.D.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Cross-Institutional Comparison of Educational Factors Promoting or Discouraging the Intent to Remain in EngineeringJune 15, 2009 ASEE Annual Conference Austin, TX Peggy S. Meszaros, Ph.D. Catherine T. Amelink, Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University This research was conducted with support from the National Science Foundation GSE-RES 0522767

  2. Purpose Explore both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that encourage and discourage motivation to remain in engineering programs Examine differences by gender and institutional type (‘high’ versus ‘low’) -Original definition of high/low used the national average (20.9%) of graduating female engineering undergraduates (ASEE, 2004) -Institutions above national average grouped as “high” and as “low” when below average

  3. Participating Institutions Five Year (2003-2007) Average Number & Percent Female Graduates in Engineering

  4. Overview of Methods • Mixed methods research design • Collected quantitative data from undergraduates through a survey (N=1,629) • Educational factors that encouraged or discouraged students were a series of 13 response items • Frequencies were computed to identify top three encouragers and top three discouragers; comparison by gender and institutional type

  5. Overview of Methods • Collected qualitative data from undergraduate students who participated in focus group interviews during campus visit to nineinstitutions • Once the top three items were identified through the quantitative analyses, transcripts from interviews were reviewed for context

  6. Top Three Factors Encouraging and Discouraging Persistence by Institutional Type

  7. Top Three Factors Encouraging and Discouraging Persistence by Gender 7

  8. Qualitative Findings: Encouragers • Future opportunities for prestigious employment and high salaries were seen as compensation for onerous and time-consuming coursework • For females, attending engineering-related events allowed for integration, support, and mentoring

  9. Qualitative Findings: Discouragers • Students felt that despite the time they put into coursework there was little opportunity to discuss the material they were learning. • Females, especially, explained that they often felt as though course requirements left little time to pursue any other interests. • Competitive academic environments served to make female student unsure of their ability. 9

  10. Recommendations • Across institutions: • Provide students with correct information from verifiable sources about salary scales and the training necessary to attain desired salaries • Consider how the engineering course load is structured and whether projects provide opportunities for discussion • Use formal student organizations and programming to go beyond social activities and provide a more meaningful forum to discuss career goals; facilitate mentoring between females • Consider ways other than graded assignments to provide feedback to students on their progress

  11. Selected References • Astin A.W. & H.S. Astin.1993. Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, U.C.L.A. • Green, Kenneth C. 1989. A profile of undergraduates in the sciences. The American Scientist, 78:475-480. • National Science Foundation. 1990. The state of academic science and engineering. Directorate for Science, Technology and International Affairs, Division of Policy Research and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: N.S.F. • Seymour, E. and N. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. • Lipson, Abigail. 1992. A confused student in introductory science. College Teaching. 40 (3): 91-95l. • Manis, J., Sloat, B., Thomas, N. & C.S. Davis. 1989. An analysis of factors affecting choices of majors in science, mathematics and engineering at the University of Michigan. University of Michigan, MI: Center for Continuing Education of Women. • Tobias, Sheila. 1990. They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation. • Treisman, U. 1992. Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23 (5): 362-372. • American Society for Engineering Education. 2004. 2003 Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges. Retrieved April 15, 2005, Available at http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/index.cfm • American Society for Engineering Education. 2007. 2007 Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges. Retrieved January 1, 2009, Available at http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/index.cfm

More Related