Lois Calian Trautvetter Northwestern University NCEER January 20, 2012

1. Programs and Factors that Make a Difference in Recruiting & Retaining of Women Engineering Students Lois Calian TrautvetterNorthwestern UniversityNCEERJanuary 20, 2012

2. Prototyping the Engineer 2020 (P360): A 360-Degree Study of Effective Education http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/e2020 Lisa R. Lattuca,Professor of Education & Senior Scientist, lattuca@psu.edu Patrick T. Terenzini, Professor of Education &Senior Scientist Emeritus, terenzini@psu.edu Gül E. Kremer, Associate Professor, Engineering Design and Industrial Engineering Betty J. Harper and Alexander C. Yin,Senior Project Associates Kevin Barron, Saraj Gupta, Hyun Kyoung Ro, India McHale, David Knight, Dan Merson, David Perez, and Travis York Graduate Research Assistants Betsy Palmer, Associate Professor of Education Sarah L. Codd, Associate Professor of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Carolyn S. Plumb, Director of Educational Innovation and Strategic Projects Barbara Komlos, Graduate Research Assistant Rose M. Marra, Associate Professor of Learning Technologies Katie Piacentini, Graduate Research Assistant Lois C. Trautvetter, Assistant Professor and Associate Director, Higher Education Administration, and Policy Ann F. McKenna, Associate Professor of Engineering, Arizona State University Tonya Saddler, Post-Doctoral Student Carla Cortes, Graduate Research Assistant

3. The Prototype to Production: P2P Study Research Team http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/e2020 Lisa R. Lattuca, lattuca@psu.edu Professor of Education and Senior Scientist Patrick T. Terenzini, terenzini@psu.edu Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior Scientist EmeritusGül E. Kremer Associate Professor of Engineering Design and Industrial Engineering Thomas A. Litzinger Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of the Leonhard Center Betty J. Harper and Alexander C. Yin Senior Project Associates Kevin W. Barron, Saraj Gupta, David B. Knight,Amber D. Lambert, India M. McHale, Daniel S. Merson, David Perez II,Hyun Kyoung Ro, and Travis T. York Graduate Research Assistants Ardie D. Walser Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Dean of Undergraduate Studies Latif Jiji Herbert G. Kayser Professor of Mechanical Engineering

4. The Engineer of 2020 Report Attributes of the Engineer of 2020 • Strong analytical skills • Practical ingenuity • Creativity • Communication competencies (oral, written, and cultural) • Business, management, and leadership skills • High ethical standards and professionalism • Agility, resilience, flexibility Diversifying the STEM student population A Vision of the Contexts for Engineering in 2020 Emergence of new fields, tools, and contexts Examples: bio-tech, digital systems; computer systems/tools; sustainable technology; multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, social, political & economic, diversity; global markets & contexts; interaction of engineering and public policy

5. Conceptual Framework (Adapted from Terenzini and Reason, 2005)

6. Today’s Agenda • Overview of two NSF-funded studies: • Prototyping the Engineer of 2020 (“P360” case studies) • Prototype to Production (“P2P” surveys) • P360 Case-study themes for recruitment and retention • Selected P2P survey findings that corroborate P360 findings • Challenges/Questions

7. Prototyping the Engineer 2020A 360-StudyCross Case Analysis

8. Prototyping the Engineer of 2020:A 360-degree Study of Effective Education (P360) Overarching Goals: • Identify: • curricular, instructional, cultural, and organizational factors that produce graduates with the attributes of the engineer of 2020 • factors supporting recruitment and retention of women and historically underrepresented students Strategy: • Empirically identified engineering schools out-performing others in: • producing graduates who resemble the engineer of 2020 • attracting and graduating women and underrepresented students • Conducted 6 case studies of curricula, pedagogy, faculty culture, and internal policies and procedures promoting student outcomes

9. P360 Case Study Sites

10. P2P Study

11. P2P Study Methods Strategy: • Six national surveys assessing the alignment of undergraduate programs with the goals and attributes of TheEngineer of 2020 Stratified, random sample of 31 institutions, including: • 7 engineering disciplines • biomedical, chemical, civil, electrical, general, industrial, mechanical • 3 levels of highest degree offered (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral) offered • 2 levels of control: Public and private institutions • Includes the P360 institutions and 5 minority-serving institutions

12. P2P Institutional Sample (4-year) 1 P360 _Institution 2 Historically _Black Colleges _or University 3 Hispanic-_Serving_Institution

13. P2P Survey Participation Rates

14. P2P Study Data Sources

15. Guiding Research Questions: What institutional cultures, practices, and policies play a role in recruiting women undergraduates? What outreach, summer/bridge, or other women-in-engineering support programs and practices encourage the retention of female students? How do these efforts aid the recruitment and retention of female students in engineering?

16. Recruiting Female Undergraduates in Engineering

17. Recruitment of Women Engineers:Case Study Findings Found three themes: • Commitment and institutional characteristicsappear to be influential • Flexible and strategic admissions and “high touch” efforts make a difference • Strong outreach efforts for women exist

18. Recruitment Theme: Commitment and Institutional Characteristics • Strong commitment to recruiting women • Strong leadership and commitment to diversity and diversity programming • Critical mass of women students • Female presidents and faculty encourage action

19. Recruitment Theme: Flexible, Strategic, & “High Touch” Admissions Policies & Practices • Flexible admissions approaches – high math scores passion and creativity • Personal contact by President, Dean, and faculty • Student organizations are involved • Customized recruitment materials • Collaboration with admissions staff and engineering Dean and faculty • Involvement of administrators, faculty, and students creates welcoming/appealing climate

20. Recruitment Theme: Strong Outreach Programs • Breaking the white male engineering stereotype • Strong faculty, graduate and undergraduate involvement in these programs • Outreach programs are targeted for elementary, middle school, and high school students

21. Faculty Participation in Recruiting Women and URM Students (past 3 years) By Gender and Race/ethnicity *** *** p < .001

22. Value Given to Recruiting Women and URM Students in P&T Decision Making (%)

23. Faculty and Program Chair Opinions about Promoting Diversity and Academic Excellence “It's very difficult to increase student diversity without sacrificing academic quality.” (%)

24. Retaining Women Undergraduate Engineers

25. Retention of Women Engineers:Case Study Findings Found five themes: • Positive, encouraging campus climate • Support services during early undergraduate years • Strong ties to faculty and student interaction in and out of the classroom • High support for student organizations and activities • Learning and living communities

26. Retention Theme: Campus Climate • Presence of female faculty as well as students creates positive environment • Academic and intellectual qualities are valued – sense of belonging • Collaborative efforts among various offices and departments encourage a supportive atmosphere

27. P2P Student Responses by Gender

28. Retention Theme: Support Services during Early Undergraduate Years • Efforts to raise awareness of different engineering majors during the first year – lab, seminar, and project orientated experiences for all students • Summer Bridge and new support programs serve as a welcoming event and orientation for all students • Interaction with peer advisors and use of peer-mentoring programs targeted for females

29. P2P Results Using 1st year experiences for all students

30. The Importance of Support Services toWomen Students How important to your academic success in engineering are the services of a learning/tutoring center at your college? • Women: 2.84; Men: 2.55 significantly different 1: Not at all important, 2: slightly, 3: moderately, 4: very, 5: extremely

31. Retention Theme: Strong Ties to Faculty and Student Interaction • Women faculty and students share common experiences • Faculty view themselves as role models • Commitment to providing undergraduate research opportunities with faculty, alumni, and industry sponsors benefit females

32. Faculty view themselves as role models • In a typical week, how much time do you spend interacting informally with undergraduates outside of class? • Women: 2.61, Men: 2.40 significantly different 1: 1 hour or less, 2: 2-3 hours, 3: 4-5 hours, 4: 6-7 hours, 5: 8 hours or more

33. P2P Data: Student Responses about Faculty Interactions

34. P2P Data: Commitment to Providing Research Opportunities No significant gender differences

35. Retention Theme: High Support for Student Organizations & Activities • Play a key role in community building and recruiting • Provide a positive influence on learning and leadership for females • Foster a welcoming climate • Provide a peer mentoring component

37. P2P Data: Gender Differences in Activities

38. Student Level of Activity in Clubs by Gender *** *** *** *** *** p < .001 1= Not active 2= Slightly active 3= Moderately active 4= Highly active 5= Extremely active

39. Retention Theme: Learning and Living Communities Four of the six institutions had “learning and living” communities: • First year residential experience • Seminar – focusing on lectures and small work sessions • Informal study sessions • Finding other female engineering students – “divide and conquer”

40. P2P Gender Differences in Living Communities Since enrolling in college, how many years have you lived in a residence area specifically for majors in engineering, science, or math? Female: .24 Male: .13 (significant difference by gender)

41. Conclusions

42. Conclusions Early programs and practices help to increase representation of women in engineering by: • Capitalizing on existing diversity of peer environment, alumni, the institution’s facilities and sources • Creating early opportunities for faculty/student interaction in outreach, bridge, and support programs • Building a sense of community

43. Conclusions Creating the sense that “anybody can be an engineer” I think anybody can be an engineer, as a matter of fact that is the problem for us. Engineers that we have now and we have young women and young men [come] away . . .it looks boring, it looks too hard. . . We want to try not to make it that, and one of the ways is to use, of course, people, but it is to use technology toward the way of making it fun, making it interesting, and making it so you can do it. It doesn’t really need any special talent. Everybody can do it. -- faculty member

44. Preparing the Engineers of 2020 For more information:Project Web Page:http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/e2020Funding Source: NSF DUE-0618712FNSF DUE-0618712 e: NSF DUE-0618712