Understanding the Risk of Attrition in Undergraduate Engineering: Results from the Project to Assess Climate in Engineering

Abstract

a BACKGROUNDResearch on student attrition from engineering has focused on a variety of factors including demographics, campus climate, interactions with faculty and peers, and learning experiences. It remains unclear, however, whether qualitative differences in risk of attrition response patterns exist among students. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)The following research questions are the basis for this study: (1) What can be learned about the risk of attrition from engineering by grouping students using a novel method and multiple measures? (2) How are individual characteristics, student experiences, and perceptions related to qualitative differences among students in their risk of attrition? DESIGN/METHODLatent class analysis identifies qualitative differences among engineering students on measures of risk of attrition. A variety of covariates predict membership in each class using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTSThree latent classes are identified with varying degrees of commitment to degree completion and interest in their engineering major. Individuals who are less confident, experience negative interactions with peers and instructors, and hold negative perceptions of engineering are less likely to be committed to engineering and more likely to be interested in other majors. Student experiences mediate the effects of key individual characteristics. CONCLUSIONSCertain types of student experiences are pivotal for a student's commitment to the major and commitment to degree completion. The risk of attrition is sensitive to a combination of student characteristics, experiences, and perceptions. The mediated relationships between risk of attrition and individual characteristics re-iterate the importance of including student experience variables to control for the context of a college.

Implementing a Challenge-Inspired Undergraduate Experience

“…Improving the undergraduate experience while increasing the number of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) trained professionals is a recurring goal 1 . While efforts to recruit pre-college students to STEM may increase initial interest, many students choose engineering to "change the world" and become disillusioned or lose interest 2 when faced with learning foundational concepts, which are presented without connecting the use of concepts to real-world problems. Currently, less than half of the three million students entering higher education to pursue a STEM field persist to earn a STEM degree 3 .…”

What is the Relationship between Mindset and Engineering Identity for First Year Male and Female Students? An Exploratory Longitudinal Study

“…During these first two years, students often encounter difficult coursework that may be not be overtly related to engineering (e.g., advanced calculus, physics; Suresh, 2006) while simultaneously developing their initial engineering identities. Students possessing a fixed mindset (e.g., intelligence based on genetics) versus a growth mindset (e.g., intelligence based on effort and hard work) are more likely to disengage when confronted with highly challenging coursework (Rattan, Savani, Chugh, & Dweck, 2015;Robins & Pals, 2002), which may be related to lower engineering identity. Implicit person theory argues that persons are more likely to persist with challenging tasks if they believe that intelligence is malleable (Robins & Pals, 2002).…”

Characterization of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Criteria in NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program Applications

“…Formative experiences within engineering can help students (especially those with an ambivalent engineering identity or those at risk of attrition) gain the experiences to help them see themselves as engineers 5 .…”