A Model of Co-Curricular Support for Undergraduate Engineering Students

Abstract

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.

Development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument: Rethinking Measures of Integration

“…Students from diverse backgrounds also informed the development of the model by sharing their experiences with regard to support received during their undergraduate education. Combined, the perspectives of practitioners and students provided a more holistic view of support for students across the undergraduate curriculum and focused the MCCS on “college efforts to support diverse students instead of on students' ability to assimilate into the engineering culture” (Lee & Matusovich, , p. 424).…”

Person or thing oriented: A comparative study of individual differences of first‐year engineering students and practitioners

“…Broadening participation in engineering has long been a goal of engineering education (Lichtenstein, Chen, Smith, & Maldonado, 2015). This goal is highlighted by grant opportunities offered by funding agencies like the National Science Foundation and the presence of cocurricular support centers (Lee & Matusovich, 2016) for students from underrepresented groups. Although such programs are numerous, this work concerns a specific reframing of the engineering profession, one centered on meeting human needs.…”

Exploring the Association of a Cultural Engineering Student Organization Chapter with Student Success

“…This institutional support with complementary aims shapes the role of the NSBE Chapter and some NSBE members are also active participants in MEP programs. The interaction of MEPs and cultural engineering student organizations such as NSBE and the combined impact of their programs, activities, and services warrants further investigation [16], [18], [19].…”

“…University support programs that target students from URM groups, such as Minority Engineering Programs (MEPs), explicitly identify cultural student organizations as an avenue to increase the quantity of student interactions outside the classroom in addition to other initiatives [15], [18]. With aligned goals in the recruitment and retention of URM engineers, minority engineering student organizations and MEPs tend to interact in some capacity at PWIs.…”