1 Developing into an engineer: the Academic Pathways Study* December 6, 2007 Sheri Sheppard *...

1

Developing into an engineer: the Academic Pathways

Study*

December 6, 2007

Sheri Sheppard

* Project within CAEE, an NSF funded Engineering Education Center, 1/1/03-12/31/08

2

AcknowledgementThis material is based on work supported by the National

Science Foundation under Grant No. ESI-0227558, which funds the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

CAEE is a collaboration of five partner universities: Colorado School of Mines, Howard University, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and University of Washington.

For further information see the CAEE Web site at http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee or contact Cindy Atman at caee@engr.washington.edu

3

Outline of Presentation

A. Framing of the APS B. "What have we learned about

engineering students and their transitions to the world of work? And what are the implications for educational practice?"

C. What is next…

4

The Pipeline Metaphor

1. Expresses the typical process students take in preparation to become engineers

2. Expresses the activity of students who prematurely exit the preparation process

3. Expresses the activities being done to repair the preparation process

12

3

5

The Pipeline Metaphor

1. Expresses the typical process students take in preparation to become engineers

2. Expresses the activity of students who prematurely exit the preparation process

3. Expresses the activities being done to repair the preparation process

4. Expresses the successful exit as an engineer

12

34

6

Subset of Pipeline

7

detached… attached…

8

APS Research QuestionsSkills• How do students’ engineering skills and knowledge develop

and/or change over time?

Identity• How do pre/engineering students identify themselves?• How do these students come to identify themselves as

engineers?• How do student appreciation, confidence, and commitment to

engineering change as they navigate their education?• What communities do engineering students belong to?• How does belonging to a community contribute to their identity?

Education• How do pre/engineering students navigate their educations?• What elements of students’ engineering educations contribute

to changes observed in their skills and identity?• What do students find difficult and how do they deal with the

difficulties they face?

9

OUTCOME

Data Affective CognitivePsychological Self-concept

ValuesAttitudesBeliefsDrive for achievementSatisfaction with college

KnowledgeCritical Thinking abilityBasic skillsSpecial AptitudesAcademic Achievement

Behavioral Personal habitsAvocationsMental HealthCitizenshipInterpersonal relationships

Career DevelopmentLevel of educationalattainmentVocational Achievements

Classification of Student Outcomes by Type of Outcome & Type of Data (from A. Astin *)

* A. Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited, 1993

…as affected by “E” environmental factors (institutional characteristics, curricular measures,Faculty environment, peer environment, individual involvement measures).

10

OUTCOME

Data Affective CognitivePsychological • Identity (as engineers)

• Values (Diversity, motivations)• Beliefs (about the profession)• Satisfaction with college

• Knowledge (about profession)• Confidence in engr. skills• Design related skills• Choosing a major• Choosing a profession• Grades

Behavioral • Navigational Strategies • Persistence in practice• Career & Educational Goals

Classification of Student Outcomes being studied in APS*

…as affected by “E” factors: gender, race & ethnicity, institutional structures, etc.

* Based on A. Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited, 1993

11

Academic Pathways Study (APS)Sheppard (Lead), Atman, Fleming, Miller, Smith, Stevens,

Streveler

– Large scale, multi-method, longitudinal study of undergraduate engineering students, class of 2007, UW, Howard, CSM, Stanford (160 students)

– Cross-sectional study at 24 institutions, small-large, (>5000 students)

• From the student’s perspective…

As related to Stanford class of 2007:• 40 of the 160 were at Stanford• 400 academic transcripts from actual and potential engr. Grads. analyzed

As related to Stanford undergraduate students, Spring 2007:• 200 freshmen-senior students included in APPLES• participants included persisters and non-persisters

12

The research team…

Colorado School ofMines

Kimberley Breaux, Brittany Claar, Monica Geist, Tawni Hoeglund,Heidi Loshbaugh, Emily Milian, Ronald Miller, Barbara Olds, RuthStreveler

Howard University Karen Bland, Kimarie Engerman, Lorraine Fleming, Lisel Forbes,Sandria Gray, Marcus Jones, Sislena Ledbetter, Shante Mason, JaniceMcCain, Lamar Warren, Dawn Williams

Stanford University Tori Bailey, Helen Chen, Mia Clark, Laura Crenwelge, KristaDonaldson, Elizabeth Lee, Judy Lee, Larry Leifer, Gary Lichtenstein,Jini Puma, Sheri Sheppard, George Toye

University ofWashington

Daniel Amos, Cindy Atman, Theresa Barker, Philip Bell, LariGarrison, Andy Jocuns, Deborah Kilgore, Andrew Morozov, PortiaSabin, Jason Saleem, Reed Stevens, Ken Yasuhara

Olin College Özgür Eris, Debbie Chachra, Larry Ludlow, Camelia RoscaUniversity ofMinnesota

Karl Smith, Russ Korte

University ofRochester

Kevin O’Connor, Lisa Perhamus, Derek Seward

Purdue University Ruth Streveler. Karl Smith

13

APS’s Activities May 2006 – Sept. 2007

14

APS Research Methods

• Surveys• Structured interviews• Semi-structured interviews,

ethnographic observations• Engineering “thinking and doing”

tasks• Academic transcript evaluation• Exit interviews

15

Assessment of Research Questions By Methodology

Ethnography

w/Semi-structured Interviews

Structured Interviews

Engineering Design

Tasks

Surveys(PIE,

APPLE)

Cognitive (Skills)

Affective (Identity)

“E” Factors:

16

What have we learned:selected findings from the

APS team

• Cognitive--Persistence (Sheppard)– Decision Making & “persistence”– Persistence in a field

• Cognitive--Design Skills (Atman)• “E” Factors & Institutional Distinctions

(Fleming)• Affective--Identity (Stevens)

17

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Undergraduates’ Prior Exposure to Engineering and Their Intentions to

Major

Unsure Mostly Sure PositiveLisa, Linguistics Dana, Chemical Alexis, Math & ComputationJaime, Human Biology Kevin, Electrical Paula, CivilLeslie, Civil Grace, Product Design Sara, ElectricalGrace, Civil & Mechanical Todd, CivilJane, Physics Zach, MechanicalRobert, Mining Michael, Electrical*Anna, Mat'l & Metallurgy Kate, Mat'l & MetallurgyMark, Meteorology George, Physics

Thomas, Petroleum

Emma, Civil Christina, Electrical Max, PetroleumBill, Mechanical Marilyn, EnvironmentalRoger, Mechanical

Steve, Physics Nate, ChemicalOscar, ElectricalRudy, Undeclared*Hilary, ChemicalJoe, Mat'l & Metallurgy

Key: Coleman Students shown in RED; Mountain Tech Students shown in BLUE* Students who have left either Coleman or Mountain TechAll names are pseudonyms

Low

Moderate

High

INTENTION positiveunsure

low

high

EX

PO

SU

RE

For those with an identified interest in engineering,even most students who are unsure of majoring in engineering and who have little prior exposure to engineering choose to major in engineering

18

25,494 -- 52%

38,592 -- 58%

6,523 -- 40%

58,552 -- 59%

18,929 -- 53%

32,121 -- 44%

46,517 -- 56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A & H Bus Comp Sci Engr Other Other STM Soc Sci Undeclare

Toledo

Soc Sci

Other STM

Other

Engr

Comp Sci

Bus

A & H

Institution (All) Matriculation Year (All) Gender (All) Ethnicity (All)

Sum of N

Matriculation Major

Major at 8 Sem

Figure 1: Where students are at theend of 8 semesters, 1987-1999. (thenine MIDFIELD schools)

MATRICULATION MAJOR

Other STEM (44%)Engr. (59%)

M. W. Ohland, S. Sheppard,G. Lichtenstein, D.Chachra, Ö. Eris,

“We Can’t Teach Them ifThey Aren’t There:

Matriculation, Persistence,and Migration in

Engineering,” under reviewfor special edition of

Journal of EngineeringEducation on How People

Learn Engineering.

19

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Declared Major by Area of Academic Interest (AAI)

Number of Majors

Humanities (h)Social Sciences (s)Natural Sciences (n)Math and Physical Sciences (p)Engineering (e)

Preliminary Areas of Academic Interest (PAAI)

_ 72%

_ 31%

_ 66%

_ 50%

e p n s h

_ 61%

Figure 2:Stanford class of 2007---Majors at 9quarters*

72% with preliminary interest

in engineering

* K. Donaldson, S. Sheppard, “Exploring the Not-So-Talked-AboutUndergraduate Pathway: Migrating Into Engineering,” 1st InternationalConference on Research in Engineering Education, June 23-24, 2007, Honolulu,Hawaii.

20

Figure 3:Stanford class of 2007---Majors at 9quarters

52% with preliminary interest

in engineering

88% with preliminary interest

in engineering

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ChemE CE CS EE Eng EnvE IDM MS&E Mat.Sci. ME

Engineering Majors at Stanford University

Number of Majors

_93%

_52%

_52%

_57%

_67%

_88%

_ 81%_ 53%

_ 81%

What are the gender and race & ethnicity make-up in these various engineering fields?

21

As of June 2007, complex and still forming lives…

• For example, of the "40" at Stanford, as of June2007….

• 14 are going to graduate school…• 23 are working or looking for work…• 3 students are still working on completing their

undergraduate degrees…• 1 student is on leave-of-absence…

These quick numbers include one subject who is doing a co-term AND plans on working full-time next year --- thus the41 rather than 40.

• We are looking at how exposure and intention topractice affects decision to enter into engineeringwork

How typical is this of the 400?How typical is this of Stanford students?How typical is this of engineering majors nationally?

22

APPLES with Cross-sectional Sample, sample findings…

female male17b. How certain are you of your plans after graduation? 1.45 2.89(0=not sure at all, 1=Somewhat sure, 2=Pretty sure, 3=Absolutely sure)

(Cohort 3 schools)

23

What have we learned:selected findings from the

APS team

• Cognitive--Persistence (Sheppard)– Decision Making & “persistence”– Persistence in a field

• Cognitive--Design Skills (Atman)• “E” Factors & Institutional Distinctions

(Fleming)• Affective--Identity (Stevens)

24

Design Skills & Perceptions

• Year 1 – Women more context-oriented than men ٭– Women equally capable with design details

٭

• Year 4– Conceptions of engineering practice– Preparedness for engineering practice

• Year 1 vs. Year 4, longitudinal– Changes in conceptions of design

25

Engineering Design: Freshmen Take 1

Survey Question:

You have been asked to design a playground. You have a limited amount of time and resources to gather information for your design. From the following list, please put a check mark next to the five kinds of information you would MOST LIKELY NEED as you work on your design…

26

Information Categories by Gender

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Budget**Material costs**

Labor avail. & cost**

Utilities**

H'capped accessibility**N'hood demographics**Info. about the area*

% participants

all APS M (N=92)all APS F (N=51)

`

*p < 0.10 or **p < 0.05, Fisher exact

27

Engineering Design: Freshmen Take 2

Ten Minute Paper and Pencil Engineering Task:

Over the summer the Midwest experienced massive flooding of the Mississippi River. What factors would you take into account in designing a retaining wall system for the Mississippi?

28

Examples of Detail and Context

Design detail– “cost of materials”– “check the budget available for the operation”– “how to contain the river water that has flooded out”

Design context– “aesthetic appeal – is it going to draw local

complaint?”– “the surrounding habitat – make sure little or no

damage is done to the environment”– “would wall impact use of the river by industry?”

29

Detail vs. Context Factorsby Gender

Factors by category andby gender

(all APS, N=51 F + 92 M)

significant difference, p < 0.02

F

Mdetail

detail

context

context

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

men

women

number of segments

30

Engineering Design..an emerging picture from the first year…

Considering context – gender differences– men: emphasis on details of solution such as material,

financial...– women: emphasis on contextual factors such as social,

natural...

Conceptualizing design – gender differences– men: emphasis on building, prototyping...– women: emphasis on gathering information, planning...

31

ETD Selected findings

• Year 1– Women more context-oriented than men ٭– Women equally capable with design details ٭

• Year 4– Low importance, preparation for contextual

issues ٭– High importance, preparation for “people” skills

» Year 1 vs. Year 4, longitudinal– Changes in conceptions of design

32

Conceptions of design:Important design activities

• Of the twenty-three design activities below, please put a check mark next to the SIX MOST IMPORTANT...

33

Important design activities, by year

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AbstractingSketching

SynthesizingDecomposing

ImaginingIterating**

Making trade-offsVisualizing**

BuildingPrototyping

Generating alternativesModeling

Seeking InformationEvaluating

Using creativityPlanning**

Goal SettingTesting

Making decisionsBrainstorming

Identifying Constraints**Communicating*

Understanding the problem

% participants selecting item as "most important"

Year 1 (89)Year 4 (89)

Significant changes asterisked (**p 0.01, *p 0.05).

Year 1 vs. 4

34

Important design activities, changes

Significant Year 1–4 changes asterisked (**p 0.01, *p 0.05).

Identifying constraints**EvaluatingModeling

Generating alternativesPrototyping

Making trade-offsIterating**

DecomposingSynthesizing

Sketching

up inYear 4

Communicating*Planning**

Using creativityBuilding

Visualizing**Imagining

Abstracting

down inYear 4

35

ETD Summary

• Complex gender differences– First-year women more context-oriented, but not

at the expense of focus on design details.– Implications on continuing challenge to recruit,

retain women.

• Meeting the ABET a–k and 2020 challenges – Seniors value and have learned traditional “core”

engineering, as well as some “people” skills (teamwork, communication).

– ...but not issues of societal/global context, contemporary issues.

36

What have we learned:selected findings from the

APS team

• Cognitive--Persistence (Sheppard)– Decision Making & “persistence”– Persistence in a field

• Cognitive--Design Skills (Atman)• “E” Factors & Institutional Distinctions

(Fleming)• Affective--Identity (Stevens)

37

Institutional FactorsFleming, Lead; Ledbetter, McCain, Williams

• Admission Policy• Access to Resources• Experiences Within University

Environment• Diversity Issues

38

18%

89%

100%

47%

65%

7%47%

11%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mtn Tech

Oliver U

Coleman U

UWest

Very

Somewhat

Not very/notat all

To What Extent Do You Consider Your School to be

Diverse?

39

Does Your Gender Affect Your Views of Becoming an Engineer?

Males

yes26%

no74%

Females

no50%

yes50%

40

Female Student’s ViewDoes your gender affect your views of becoming an engineer?

“… there are societies, like Society for Women Engineers…that does help change our perspective on being an engineer

…it’s ‘cause I’m female, because I’m a minority and I’m not used to being like that because I’m a white middle class individual

… it’s hard to become an engineer, it’s real intimidating to be ahm, working for… predominantly all males…it’s kind of a challenge to me,

…I can do this, I can pioneer this and be a female engineer, be just as good as a male engineer” Mountain Tech

41

Male Students’ ViewDoes your gender affect your views of becoming an

engineer?

“…if the females... have an advantage, just because [of] things like affirmative action … where they give certain advantages to some minorities, I wonder if it is a disadvantage being the majority?” University of West State-M

“It’s more natural for males to be engineers.” Coleman University-M

42

Diversity Summary• To most engineering students,

diversity means difference (school, gender, race , geographical, major field,

politics, religion). • Diversity can be an uncomfortable

topic for students to discuss.• Students recognize the impact of

diversity on their careers.

43

What’s Next?

• Mountains of data to be analyzed. . . . stay tuned

• Possible Relationships to WASC:• Study of knowledge evolution• Curricular Flow-educational careers study (Dan McFarland)• Model for study in other fields

44

Extra slides

45

APPLES with Cohort 3 Schools, sample findings…

20. Source of Knowledge about Engr. ProfessionFamily Member (35%)

Intern (32%)Close Friend (29%)

From being a visitor (27%)From university-related experience (9%)

From being a co-op student (7%)Other (6%)

19b. Since entering college, how much knowledge have you gained about the engineering profession? 2.20 2.19(0=No knowledge, 1=Limited knowledge, 2=Moderate Knowledge, 3=Extensive Knowledge)

female male19a. Before college, how much knowledge did you have about the engineering profession? 1.43 1.30(0=No knowledge, 1=Limited knowledge, 2=Moderate Knowledge, 3=Extensive Knowledge)

46

What have we learned:selected findings from the

APS team• Decision Making & “persistence”;

(Sheppard)• Identity (Stevens)• Design Skills and Perceptions

(Atman)• Institutional Factors (Fleming)

47

Identity٭: Becoming an Engineer

Stevens, Lead; Amos, Garrison, Jocuns• Identification

– The practices by which an individual becomes identified with engineering (by her/himself and by others)

• Navigation– How individuals navigate a pathway to

becoming an engineer

• Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge– Actions when performed are counted by

someone as engineering knowledge

48

Identification (Changes over time)

• Increasing solidarity with other engineering students– We/they language, “Techies” and “Fuzzies”– Identity displays – websites, clothing, social

activities

• Increasing expression of views that they are different from non-engineering students– Engineering work is harder– Harder work justifies future lifestyle

49

Navigation at UWest

Different navigational pathways have a clear effect on identification of students as engineers

– Students not admitted during their first year can be lost during this pre-engineering phase.

– Once admitted to engineering majors, students are granted literal “keys to the clubhouse” — a critical rite of passage that changes how students identify themselves as engineers.

– Students also took a more agentive stance to coursework and learning once admitted.

50

Gender Identity/Navigation at UWest

• Women and men both form identities as engineers that seem quite similar across the genders and draw on stereotypical engineering image (problem solver, good at math, etc.)

• However, in competitive admission practices at UWest women students are believed to have an advantage over men; presence of organizations supporting women also seen by men as evidence that women need help.

• Men use this explanation of women having an advantage in admission to set up a rationale (that involves no fault of their own) for their potential failure to get into the major.

• It is suggested that some believe that women who get into the major may be less qualified than men who do not. This leads to women working to “prove themselves” or working to appear deserving of being in engineering. This seems cultivate some stereotype threat (Steele).

• Women go ‘underground’—seeking help from other women as a first resort, makes them sensitive to criticism of their male peers

51

Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge (Changes over time)

During first two years:– Technical subject matter prerequisites (mathematics,

physics, chemistry) outside of engineering. Little exposure to engineering coursework.

– Lecture-based teaching, individual-based problem sets and exams (except labs)

During latter two years:– Kinds of problems to be solved shifts to more open-ended

problems

– Students’ relationship to data changes. They go from mathematical puzzle solvers to data users to data collectors

– Biggest changes in accountable disciplinary knowledge come through in experiences of Capstone project course

52

Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge (Changes over time)

Examples of two UWest students handling this change over time:

– Adam struggled as problem-set based mathematics (school math) was displaced by group work and open-ended problems

– Simon came into his element with the AA capstone; he drew on his wind tunnel experience (he ran the wind tunnel at UWest) and was the expert in some of the tests (even in relation to the professors/instructors)

53

Identity Summary

• Complex relationships between– Identification– Navigation– Accountable Disciplinary Knowledge

• Pathways for individuals vary greatly

54

What have we learned:selected findings from the

APS team• Decision Making & “persistence”;

(Sheppard)• Identity (Stevens)• Design Skills and Perceptions

(Atman)• Institutional Factors (Fleming)