Background Recently published reports call for an increase in the number of engineering graduates and suggest appropriate characteristics that these graduates should embody. Accomplishing such change first requires understanding why students choose to pursue engineering degrees. Purpose (Hypothesis) Framed in motivation theory, our purpose was to better understand how students choose engineering by answering the question: How do engineering students' engineering‐related value beliefs contribute to their choices to engage and persist in earning engineering degrees? Design/Method This research uses Eccles' expectancy‐value theory in a qualitative, longitudinal examination of undergraduate students' choices to enroll and persist in engineering majors. In particular, the focus of this work is Eccles' subjective task value (STV) construct, which incorporates the personal importance an individual assigns to engaging in an activity. Using a multiple case study method approach, participants included eleven students (five men and six women) at a U.S. technical school. Results Results demonstrate that different patterns exist in the types of value or personal importance that participants assign to earning an engineering degree. Moreover, a primary differentiating feature of these patterns is whether or not participants choose engineering because it is consistent with their personal identity or sense of self. Conclusions We conclude that values are very important in students' choices to become engineers. To increase persistence rates we must focus on values, especially by helping students connect their personal identities to engineering identities.

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 Transformative change in higher education requires a continuous interplay between educational research and educational practice. In considering how to engage researchers and practitioners in "cycles of educational practice and research" (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009), we focus on individuals and what motivates them to create and sustain innovations within the engineering education system.Purpose Through this study, we seek to better understand why faculty do or do not engage in the research-practice cycle. Specifically, we employ expectancy value theory and examine the success and value beliefs motivating individuals' choices. Design/MethodWe used mixed methods assessment data from two engineering education conferences that focused on promoting transformational change. Data included observational notes, open-ended written responses submitted after conference sessions, open-ended survey questions, and quantitative survey questions. For data analysis. we used descriptive statistics and open coding techniques.Results We identified expectancy of success and cost value and utility value as important to participants. Notably, the same motivation constructs generally matter for research, practice, and research-informed practice, although practice-informed research was nearly absent from the data. Participants cited strategies that are currently working to improve only some of the success and value categories.Conclusions Expectancy value theory provides a useful framework for understanding faculty choices in the research-practice cycles required for change and innovation in engineering education. Our findings indicate that in addition to improving individuals' competence with critical research and teaching practices, our field should also support collective efficacy and value beliefs.

To explore the ways context may shape career choices, we used a qualitative approach to analyze interviews with college-oriented high school students from the rural Central Appalachia region of Virginia. Using social cognitive career theory, we analyzed pathways to career choices and relevant contextual factors, using data from 24 interviews. Results revealed that participants’ pathways partially matched the model, though we also found variant pathways triggered by significant environmental influences and incomplete pathways due to variations in possible career plans. Explanatory factors included status as prospective first-generation college student, outcome expectations that included remaining local and having job stability, and an emergent factor of continuing generation Appalachian. The patterns that emerged with respect to contextual factors and career choice pathways highlight the importance of culture and context when examining how students make career choices. This research extends prior research by examining career pathways using student’s own words as data. Moreover, the patterns offer insights career coaches, counselors, and educators can use in supporting students’ post–high school career planning.

Motivation is frequently studied in the context of engineering education. However, the use of the term motivation can be inconsistent, both in how clearly it is defined and in how it is implemented in research designs and practice. This systematic literature review investigates the use of motivation across recent engineering education publications. Results show that the majority of engineering education publications referencing motivation as a concept do not provide a clear definition for the term, nor do they draw upon the existing body of literature surrounding motivation. Within the publications that do draw upon motivation literature, we found that a small number of frameworks were most prominent. We believe that both of these factors potentially inhibit the understanding of motivation in engineering education. Therefore, we provide a number of suggestions for how researchers and practitioners can work to rectify these trends.