Paper ID #13862

CASCaded Mentoring and Design Experiences (CASCADE)

Dr. MARIE ANNE L MUNDY, Texas A&M Kingsville

My education includes a Master of Science in Research & Evaluation and a Doctor of Philosophy inEducation with an emphasis in Higher Education and cognates in Research & Evaluation, and Psychologyfrom the University of Southern Mississippi. I have held positions as assessment and research coordinatorat the university level. I served as an M&E (Measurement and Evaluation) consultant for a non-profitcompany that worked in hurricane disaster zones in Mississippi and Louisiana for 8 years. In addition, atthe present time I am working as an internal evaluator for three different grants at Texas A & M UniversityKingsville. Presently, I am working in a tenure track position as an assistant professor at Texas A & MUniversity at Kingsville in the Ed.D. Leadership program in education and serve on IRB committees.

Prof. Sel Ozcelik, Texas A&M University Kingsville

Dr. Selahattin Ozcelik has been serving as Interim Associate Dean of College of Engineering at TexasA&M University-Kingsville. Prior to this, he served as chairman of Mechanical and Industrial Engineer-ing Department. Dr. Ozcelik’s expertise are in the general areas of robotics and controls.

Prof. Mohamed Abdelrahman, Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Dr. Abdelrahman is currently the Associate Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies and aProfessor of Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M University Kingsville. Dr. Abdelrahman has a diverseeducational and research background. His research expertise is in the design of intelligent measurementsystems, sensor fusion and control systems. He has been active in research with over 80 papers publishedin refereed journals and conferences. He has been the principal investigator on several major researchprojects on industrial applications of sensing and Control with focus on Energy Efficiency. He is a seniormember of IEEE, ISA, and a member of ASEE.

Dr. David Ramirez, Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2015

Page 26.331.1

CASCaded Mentoring and Design Experiences (CASCADE)

Page 26.331.2

Overview.

The Hispanic population which is underrepresented in engineering has been projected to grow.

Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TAMUK), a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), needs to

increase the number of engineering graduates and has decided to fulfill this objective through

CASCaded Mentoring And Design Experiences (CASCADE), a type of project based learning.

CASCADE utilizes design exercises and experiences along with cascaded peer-mentoring. The

CASCADE objectives include infusion of the design process for freshman through senior; an

increase of retention of engineering undergraduate students; and an increase in the 6-year

engineering undergraduate graduation rate. Strategies to achieve these objectives include

incorporation of design experience into targeted engineering courses at all levels; creation of an

innovative cascaded mentoring program; and linkage to the TAMUK Javelina Innovation

Laboratory (JIL). This paper provides demographic data, retention and graduation rates.

Preliminary numbers showing growth in retention and graduation rates are provided. The results

demonstrated that the design activities impacted retention and performance of engineering

undergraduate students, the mentors’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, students’ knowledge, skills,

attitudes.

Introduction: In order for the U.S. to maintain economic competitiveness, more U.S. citizens

with baccalaureate engineering degrees are needed for the future1-7 especially women and those

from minority groups (African American, Hispanics, Native American). In particular, Hispanics

are a growing part of the college-age US population but are underrepresented in engineering 4, 8,

9. A program is needed that will increase the number of engineering graduates ready for the

Page 26.331.3

workforce or graduate school by increasing retention 10, 11 of students at the greatest point of loss

- the first-to-second and second-to-third years of the engineering program. Nationally, efforts to

broaden participation of groups underrepresented in engineering majors and degrees awarded

(African American, Hispanic) have grown 8, 12-14. The projected large growth of the Hispanic

population places the HSI in a unique position to increase the number of diverse engineering

graduates 8.

Project-based learning, community or team building in classrooms and research experiences 15,16,

and design and building competitions 17 have been successful at increasing retention 18,

especially with female and underrepresented minority students 18, 19. Recently, the National

Academies convened experts in STEM education and published a report of promising practices

that included “in-class activities to actively engage students” to increase student performance

20,21. For more than two decades, efforts to enhance and reform undergraduate engineering

curriculum has shown that the use of design problems 22 and collaborative or active learning in

the classroom 23-29 result in greater retention and engagement of students, especially women and

minorities. Integrated curricula have been successful in engineering degree programs, with many

incorporating design into freshman and sophomore level coursework 27, 30. Research, such as

findings by Stevens et al. 31, indicates student comprehension of pre-requisite material came only

after applying the material.

Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TAMUK), a Hispanic Serving Institution, is offering

CASCaded Mentoring And Design Experiences (CASCADE), an NSF Science, Technology,

Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) to their engineering students. Page 26.331.4

The overall goal of CASCADE is to increase the quantity, quality, and diversity of TAMUK

students who successfully earn an engineering baccalaureate degree. CASCADE engages

engineering students in design exercises and experiences throughout their academic

undergraduate careers, and provides student support in an innovative configuration of cascaded

peer-mentoring. Incorporation of engineering design experiences across the undergraduate

curriculum with linkages to the university’s engineering innovation laboratory for access to

industry projects contributes to increased student retention and persistence to graduation.

CASCADE uses promising practices from research to create a retention program that includes

integrated curriculum, peer-mentoring, learning communities, and efforts that build innovation

and creativity into the engineering curriculum. CASCADE vertically aligns 32 problem-based

design efforts from the first-year to senior-year (capstone) courses. Research on engineering

student learning communities indicates increased retention and student satisfaction with their

first-year experience 18, 33, 34 CASCADE uses several research-based community building efforts,

and works with the existing TAMUK Javelina Engineering Student Success Center (JESSC) to

further build engineering learning communities that follow students through cohort experiences

in their majors. Retention efforts will include the use of peer mentoring 35 that pairs junior- and

senior-level engineering students from the Javelina Innovation Laboratory (JIL) with students in

the first- and second-year targeted courses. CASCADE offers a fundamental freshman exposure

to the design process, to provide vertically aligned design experiences through the sophomore

and junior year, and bring added engagement and understanding to the senior capstone design

experience through interaction with industry and peers involved with TAMUK’s Javelina

Innovation Laboratory (JIL). Exposure to these curricular design experiences are wrapped in a

supportive layer of peer mentoring to promote student success. Cascading vertically, Page 26.331.5

undergraduate seniors mentor juniors, juniors mentor sophomores, and sophomores mentor

freshmen. This STEP project is being piloted in four undergraduate engineering programs in the

TAMUK Frank H. Dotterweich College of Engineering (i.e., mechanical, civil, chemical, and

environmental).

The CASCADE objectives are:

1. Infuse concepts of the design process across all four levels of the engineering undergraduate

curriculum (i.e., freshman through senior)

2. Increase first-year, second-year, and third-year retention of engineering undergraduate

students to 78%, 68%, 62%, respectively, and

3. Raise the 6-year engineering undergraduate graduation rate to 54%.

Strategies to achieve these objectives include:

• Incorporation of a freshman design experience into existing introductory engineering

courses,

• Integration of sophomore and junior design experiences into targeted engineering

courses,

• Creation of an innovative cascaded mentoring program designed to maintain consistent

access to peer mentors, thus providing continuous support for mentees as they progress

through the engineering program, and

• Linkage to the TAMUK Javelina Innovation Laboratory (JIL), which will provide access

to authentic design projects for curricular requirements as well as other venues for

student design experiences.

Page 26.331.6

CASCADE engages engineering students in design exercises and experiences throughout their

academic careers, and provides added student support through the cascaded mentoring program.

CASCADE offers an innovative fundamental freshman exposure to the design process, provides

design experiences that are vertically aligned through the sophomore and junior years, and brings

added enthusiasm and understanding to the senior capstone design experience through

engagement with professional practitioners. CASCADE links to TAMUK’s student-focused

innovation center, JIL, which ties to South Texas industry and business to allow for project ideas

and sponsorships of paid student internships. This allows students to develop innovative

solutions to scientific and technical problems posed by these South Texas industries,

governmental and nongovernmental agencies, and to pursue their own innovations.

Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TAMUK), a Hispanic-Serving Institution, is located in

South Texas, with a population that is 81% Hispanic36. Most of TAMUK’s approximately 6,200

(2010-2011) total students (53% male, 47% female) are from South Texas, and the student body

reflects area demographics: 62% Hispanic, 27% white, and 5% African American 37. TAMUK is

accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools,

and is listed as 43rd in Hispanic Outlook magazine’s annual Top 100 institutions for bachelor’s

degrees awarded to Hispanics 38. CASCADE aligns with TAMUK’s institutional mission to

“develop well-rounded leaders and critical thinkers who can solve problems in an increasingly

complex, dynamic and global society” 39. The Frank H. Dotterweich College of Engineering

(COE) at TAMUK offers programs in chemical, civil, mechanical, electrical, and architectural

engineering that are accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET, as well

as programs in environmental engineering, industrial engineering, natural gas engineering, Page 26.331.7

computer science, industrial technology and industrial management. The American Society for

Engineering Education ranks the College 12th in the nation in awarding engineering bachelor’s

degrees to Hispanics 40. Institutional information provided by the TAMUK Office of Institutional

Research, is provided in Tables 1-4. TAMUK FTE undergraduate enrollment data for Fall 2010,

as well as the number of engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded in the 2010-2011 academic

year are provided in Table 1. Student demographic data for Fall 2010 are detailed in Table 2.

Historical data on student retention and persistence in the COE (Tables 3 and 4) provide baseline

information for establishing project benchmarks and outcomes.

Table 1: Fall 2010 Enrollment and Engineering Degrees Awarded for TAMUK*

Total Undergraduate Enrollment

(FTE)

Undergraduate Engineering

Enrollment (FTE)

Undergraduate Engineering

Degrees Awarded

(2010-2011 academic year)

4824 853 167

Table 2: Demographic Data for TAMUK Undergraduate Students (Fall 2010)

Undergraduate

Enrollment

%Female %Hispanic %African

American

%Asian %International

Students

%Other

TAMUK 5291 46.2% 66.0% 6.7% 1.0% 1.8% 24.6%

TAMUK

Engineering

888 16.6% 59.1% 4.3% 1.6% 4.84% 30.2%

Table 3: TAMUK First-time, Full-time Freshmen Retention Rates, Engineering Majors

Page 26.331.8

First-time

Engineering

Freshmen

Average %

Continuing

to Second Year

Average %

Continuing to

Third Year

Average %

Continuing to

Fourth Year

Average 6-Year

Graduation Rate

Mean SD

134 20.36 68% 58% 52% 44%

Table 4: Number of Engineering Graduates

Academic Year

2006-2007

Academic Year

2007-2008

Academic Year

2008-2009

Academic Year

2009-2010

Academic Year

2010-2011

137 123 139 149 167

CASCADE seeks to increase the number of well-qualified engineers for South Texas. Project

strategies focus on implementation of design experiences throughout the engineering

undergraduate curriculum with linkages to JIL to provide access to authentic design projects.

This is overlaid with an innovative cascaded mentoring program to support student success.

Initially, CASCADE will pilot the curriculum implementation of design experiences in the civil

engineering (CEEN) and mechanical engineering (MEEN) departments, and will subsequently

expand to include the chemical and environmental engineering departments (CHEN and EVEN,

respectively). See CASCADE project depiction in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Design of CASCADE STEP Project

Page 26.331.9

In support of project objectives and outcomes, several strategies were implemented. Curricular

integration of design experiences was initially piloted in Civil and Mechanical engineering

courses in the Spring of 2013, and then in Chemical and Environmental engineering

undergraduate courses. See CASCADE project in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5: CASCADE Project 2013-2014

YEAR

LEVEL

Year 1 Year 2

Fall '12 Spring '13 Fall '13 Spring '14

Freshman UNIV 1101 AEEN 1310

MEEN 1310 Page 26.331.10

Sophomore CEEN 2301 MEEN 2302

Junior CEEN 3311 CEEN 3145

Table 6: Description of Courses 2013-2014

Course Code Course Title

FRESHMAN LIST OF COURSES

UNIV 1101 Learning Global Context 1

AEEN 1310 Computer graphics & app

MEEN 1310 Engineering graphics 1

SOPHOMORE LIST OF COURSES

CEEN 2301 Mechanics I Statics

MEEN 2302 Mechanics II Dynamics

JUNIOR LIST OF COURSES

CEEN 3311 Strength of Materials

CEEN 3145 Counstruction Materials

At the lower levels (i.e. freshman, sophomore, and junior), exposure to curricular design

experiences included a supportive layer of peer mentoring to promote student success. A student

mentor (called a “design mentor”) was assigned to each student design team in the specified

course. The project design experience was first integrated into courses in Spring of 2013. Design

mentors met with their student teams at specified times during class/lab hours and at least one

additional hour per week. The course instructor and design mentors coordinated efforts when

guiding the teams and the teams were closely monitored for proper implementation of the steps Page 26.331.11

of engineering design process. Each team reported on their progress to both their instructor and

their design mentor.

Objective 1: Infuse concepts of the design process across all four levels of the engineering

undergraduate curriculum (i.e., freshman through senior).

Comprehensive studies of engineering programs suggest that incorporating the design experience

throughout the undergraduate’s academic career will not only better prepare the students for their

senior capstone design project, but will help build their identity as engineers and better prepare

them for professional practice 41, 42. Research points to several contributing factors which play a

role in improving student learning during engineering design experiences, including the impact

of active, project-based, and hands-on learning methodologies, and the development of a sense of

community and a peer support network23, 43-45. Cooperative learning approaches that are hands-

on and interactive are particularly appealing to underrepresented students 46-49. First-year

engineering design was highlighted as one of six key areas in engineering education innovation

at the 2011 ASEE Annual Conference 50. Pioneered in the 1990’s and implemented in several

NSF Engineering Education Coalitions 23, 51, 52, incorporating a design experience into the first-

year curriculum is still not mainstream 53. However, numerous institutions have successfully

implemented freshman design experiences into the curriculum and found improvements in

student retention and six-year graduation rates 43, 54-57. Also, though not a widespread practice,

various institutions have incorporated design experiences into the sophomore- and/or junior-level

engineering curricula 58-63. Continuously engaging students in design experiences as they

progress through their undergraduate curriculum can provide deeper learning experiences that

emulate professional practice 42. However, most academic institutions have limited opportunities

Page 26.331.12

for curricular design experiences prior to the capstone design course; TAMUK engineering

faculty note that many seniors in the capstone course are significantly lacking in design skills.

Presumably, this is due to a lack of comprehensive exposure to the design process during the first

three years of their curriculum.

The engineering departments modified their respective Introduction to Engineering course by

adding Freshman Capstone Design (FCAD) exercises to familiarize and expose students to the

engineering design process. The course was modified to emphasize the importance of

engineering design by introducing FCAD projects; both teaching engineering concepts and

providing opportunities to develop student communication and collaboration skills. The FCAD

projects were designed similar to senior capstone design projects, but at a level suitable for

freshmen. Students were grouped in teams of 5-6 students, with each team given a design

problem. The CASCADE team worked with the course instructor, the JESSC director, and a

consulting person (industry, faculty, or JIL) in coordinating all aspects of the FCAD projects.

Design project selection occurred in consultation with scientists and researchers from the COE,

JIL, government labs, and industry. While the lectures were taught by the instructors, the design

projects were closely supervised by both the instructors and the CASCADE PI team. Student

teams worked on the projects during the course lab hours in designated departmental

laboratories. For each design team, CASCADE funds were available for hardware costs.

Computer labs were available for engineering calculations and machine and electrical shops were

available for manufacturing.

Page 26.331.13

Design experiences were incorporated into the sophomore and junior curricula. In all targeted

courses, design projects were selected from the available projects provided by participating

industry partners, or a JIL government sponsor. As was the case for the Freshmen, students were

assigned to teams, with the course instructor assigning portions of a design project to each team.

The projects were one semester in length, and aligned with the curriculum syllabus. Design

activities followed the recognized steps of the engineering design process. In the second year,

CASCADE instituted this strategy in Civil (CEEN) and Mechanical (MEEN) engineering. Table

7 provides baseline and benchmarks for infusing design experiences into the engineering

curriculum for the four targeted TAMUK departments.

Table 7. Baseline and Benchmarks for Integrating Design Experiences into the Engineering

Curriculum

Level Baseline 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Freshman Very limited In 2 depts In 4 depts Institutionalization

in progress

Institutionalization

in progress

Institutionalized

Sophomore None In 2 depts In 2 depts In 4 depts Institutionalization

in progress

Institutionalized

Junior None In 2 depts In 2 depts In 4 depts Institutionalized

Senior Capstone JIL-enhanced

capstone

JIL-enhanced

capstone

JIL-enhanced

capstone

JIL-enhanced

capstone

JIL-enhanced

capstone

Objective 2: Increase first-year, second-year, and third-year retention of engineering

undergraduate students to 78%, 68%, and 62%, respectively.

CASCADE utilized the strategies of peer mentoring to create the Cascaded Mentoring program.

Peer mentoring is a documented strategy that supports student retention, providing benefits for

Page 26.331.14

both the mentee and the mentor 35, 64-66. It can be particularly effective for minority students who

often have a scarcity of role models 67. Renowned retention specialist, Vincent Tinto, noted in his

book, Leaving College, the importance of mentoring during the freshman/sophomore years68.

The mentors can unobtrusively monitor the progress of their students, both academically as well

as in a social context. A cooperative learning structure can encourage and enable other students

to succeed. In this environment, a team’s success is the success of all students on that team 69.

Minorities are dropping out at a higher rate than their majority counterpart and degree

completion rates in Science and Engineering fields are 24 percent lower for underrepresented

minorities. This offers a challenge to Hispanic Serving Institutions73. Research has also

demonstrated that retention rates are lower at some institutions and higher at more selective

ones.73 It was decided that a 10 point spread, approximately 15 % increase, would be a viable

objective.

Table 8 provides the average retention over 2 years for selective universities. Table 9 provides

baseline and benchmarks for increasing retention rates in the four targeted engineering

departments.

Table 8. Average Retention over 2 years for selective universities 74

University Washington University 2006,2007

University of Southern California 2004, 2005

University of Maryland 2005, 2007

First Year 86.0% 96.5% 83.65%

Second Year 77.0% 91.5% 70.35% Page 26.331.15

Third Year 73.5% 67.5% 65.40%

Table 9. Baseline and Benchmarks for Engineering 1st, 2nd and 3rd Year Retention Rates

Retention Baseline

5-year average

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

First Year 68% 68% 70% 73% 75% 79%

Second Year 58% 58% 60% 63% 65% 68%

Third Year 52% 52% 54% 57% 59% 62%

Objective 3: Raise 6-year engineering undergraduate graduation rate to 54%.

Exposing students to industry-based projects via the TAMUK JIL serves as the project strategy

to increase the six-year engineering graduation rate. CASCADE provides opportunities for

student involvement in JIL-related activities and projects, helping build their identities as

engineers and preparing the students for professional practice49. The JIL addresses the nation’s

needs by providing a young cadre of engineers with the experience and drive to innovate in

nearly all of the fourteen “Engineering Grand Challenges.”70. And because TAMUK is a HSI in

a predominantly Hispanic region, it provides a mechanism to encourage more young Hispanic

students to enter or remain in one of the engineering (or other STEM) disciplines; thus,

broadening participation in engineering fields. Table 10 lists baseline and project benchmarks for

the TAMUK 6-year graduation rate. Since some reports and studies suggest a national rate near

55% 71, 72, CASCADE is targeting a six-year graduation rate of 54% by project end.

Table 10. Baseline and Benchmarks for Six-Year Graduation Rate for TAMUK

Engineering

Page 26.331.16

Methodology

An evaluation plan utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data was implemented using

internal evaluation tasks focused on data collection via surveys. The quantitative data was

analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics while the qualitative questions were analyzed using

coding and themes. The following evaluation questions were addressed: (1) How have project

activities impacted retention and performance of engineering undergraduate students? (2) How

have the project’s mentoring activities impacted the mentors’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and

educational and career plans? (3) How has integration of design experiences into targeted

courses impacted students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, performance in the senior design course,

and educational and career plans?

Bloom created a taxonomy for the cognitive domain which deals with knowledge. Gagne

divided learning into three components: verbal information, intellectual skills, and cognitive

strategies. Ausubel categorized learning into the components of rote learning and meaningful

learning. Reigeluth synthesized these various learning taxonomies into memorize information,

understand relationships, apply skills, and apply generic skills. In addition to knowledge and

skills, students need support that is comprised of attitudes, motivations, feelings and self-

confidence. All three, knowledge, skills and attitude are involved in the learning process75.

Graduation

Rate

Baseline

5-year average

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Six Year 44% 44% 45% 47% 50% 54%

Page 26.331.17

(1) How have project activities impacted retention and performance of engineering

undergraduate students?

Table 11: Enrollment/ Retention data for CEEN2301

Spring

2011

Fall

2011

Spring

2012

Fall

2012

Spring

2013

Fall

2013

Spring

2014

Fall

2014

Total Enrolled in Course 42 53 34 50 46 62 72 71

Pass Rate (Including grade

A, B, C, D, CR, & S) 39 48 30 43 41 53 61 59

Retained in 1st year 38 49 29 45 43 58 65* NA

Total % Retained 90.5% 92.5% 85.3% 90.0% 93.5% 93.5% 90.3%* NA

* These numbers are preliminary

It appears that the total percent in the CEEN2301 is creeping upwards. The final numbers for

Spring 2014 is not yet available (Table 11).

Table 12: FTIC Retention Rate for College of Engineering

Cohort Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

1st Year Retention 67.3% 70.4% 69.7% 71.5%

2nd

Year Retention 55.6% 54.7% 59.1% NA

3rd

Year Retention 48.1% 52.7% NA NA

Although final numbers for Fall 2013 and Fall 2013 is not yet available, the numbers do suggest

that first year retention is increasing (Table 12).

Table 13: The number of distinct Bachelor Graduates in Engineering

Academic Year # of Degrees Awarded

Page 26.331.18

2007 137

2008 123

2009 139

2010 149

2011 167

2012 164

2013 180

2014 188

The number of degrees awarded has increased (Table 13).

(2) How have the project’s mentoring activities impacted the mentors’ knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and educational and career plans?

In the first Spring 2013 group, 5 mentors responded to the Project Design Pretest for Mentors, 4

were male and 1 was female. As regards Race/Ethnicity, 3 were Hispanic, 1 was Asian and 1

was White. Of the 6 mentors that responded to the Project Design Posttest for Mentors, 5 were

male and 1 was female. As regards Race/Ethnicity, 4 were Hispanic, 1 was Asian and 1 was

White. In the 2013-2014 group, 10 mentors responded to the Project Design Pretest for Mentors,

3 were female and 7 were male. As regards Race/Ethnicity, 7 were Hispanic, 2 were Asian and 1

1 was White. Four engineering disciplines were represented: 3 Civil, 5 Mechanical, 1

Architectural, and 1 Environmental and Architectural. Of the 15 mentors that responded to the

Project Design Posttest for Mentors, 13 responded to the gender question and of these 5 (38.5%)

were female and 8 were male. As regards Race/Ethnicity 13 responded and of these, 12 were Page 26.331.19

Hispanic and 1 was White. Four engineering disciplines were represented: 7 Civil, 2 Mechanical,

2 Architectural, and 1 Environmental and Architectural (Table 14).

Table 14: Demographics for Mentors

Spring 2013 2013 - 2014

Factor Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

N % N % N % N %

Gender

Female 1 20 1 17.0 3 30 5 38.5

Male 4 80 5 83.0 7 70 8 61.5

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 3 60 4 66.7 7 70 12 92.3

Asian 1 20 1 16.7 2 20

White 1 20 1 16.7 1 10 1 7.7

Engineering Disciplines

Civil 3 30 7 58

Mechanical 5 50 2 17

Architectural 1 10 2 17

Environmental Architectural 1 10 1 8

After the first semester utilizing CASCADE, the mentors completed a survey utilizing Survey

Monkey. After the mentoring was completed, the six mentors indicated the best descriptors of

their knowledge of project design with 1 considering themselves as extremely knowledgeable, 2

were knowledgeable, 2 had adequate knowledge and 1 had minimal knowledge. Since

mentoring, 1 of the mentors indicated a little interest in project design, while 4 stated they were

Page 26.331.20

interested in project design and 1 was very interested in project design. Of the six mentors, all

showed interest in a future career in engineering; 3 were interested in an engineering career, and

3 were very interested in an engineering career. All demonstrated a motivation to remain in

engineering; with 1 fairly motivated to remain in engineering, 2 quite motivated and 3 very

motivated. The mentors were also asked to rate their own growth in the areas of problem solving,

collaboration and engineering design. In problem solving 1 rated the growth as minimal, 1 rated

it as adequate and 1 rated it good (Mean = 3.5, SD = .84). In collaboration or working on a team,

1 rated the growth as minimal, 4 rated it good and 1 rated it excellent (Mean = 3.8, SD = .98). I

out of the 6 mentors perceived an adequate growth in engineering design while the remaining 5

perceived they had a good growth in engineering design (Mean = 3.8, SD = .41). Overall this

appears to have been a good learning experience for the students.

In 2013-2014, a question was asked about their knowledge of project design before mentoring

resulting in: 2 (25%) had minimal knowledge, 3 (37.5%) had adequate knowledge, 2 (25%) were

knowledgeable and 1 (12.5%) was extremely knowledgeable. After mentoring their know ledge

of project design grew as 100% of those that responded perceived that they had at least adequate

knowledge of the project design with 2 (15.4%) perceiving adequate knowledge, 9 (69.2%) were

knowledgeable and 2 (15.4%) were extremely knowledgeable. This suggests a growth when

compared with Spring 2013 with 17% extremely knowledgeable, 33% knowledgeable, 33%

adequate knowledge and 17% minimal knowledge.

Asked on their interest in project design before they worked as a mentor they responded as

follows: 1 (11%) somewhat interested in project design, 1 (11%) a little interested in project

Page 26.331.21

design, 5 (56%) interested in project design, 2 (22%) very interested in project design,. The same

question asked after their mentorship resulted in: 3 (23%) somewhat interested in project design,

4 (31%) interested in project design, 6 (46%) very interested in project design, The mentorship

resulted in the mentors changing from 22% to 46% very interested.

When asked to indicate the best descriptor of their interest in a career in engineering pre-

mentoring, they responded with a 2 (22%) interested and a 7 (78%) very interested in a

engineering career. After mentoring 1 (7.7%) was not at all interested, 1 (7.7%) was interested,

10 (76.9%) were very interested, and 1 (7.7%) did not have enough information to determine if

interested in an engineering career.

When queried, pre-mentoring, whether they were motivated to remain in Engineering, they were

all motivated with 1 (10%) fairly motivated, 2 (20%) quite motivated, and 7 (70%) very

motivated. When queried post-mentoring whether they were motivated to remain in Engineering,

1(8%) was not motivated, 1 (8%) was somewhat motivated, 2(13%) were quite motivated, and 8

(53%) were very motivated.

(3) How has integration of design experiences into targeted courses impacted students’

knowledge, skills, attitudes, performance in the senior design course, and educational and career

plans?

In the first Spring 2013 group, of the 11 participants that responded to the Project Design Pretest

for Participants, 10 (91%) were male and 1 (9%) was female. As regards Race/Ethnicity, 2

Page 26.331.22

(18%) were Black or African American, 8 (73%) were Hispanic, 1 (9%) was White. Of the 22

participants that responded to the Project Design Posttest for Participants, 2 of the participants

provided their ID number but did not respond to any of the questions and were dropped from the

survey. Of the 20 left, 16 (80%) were male and 4 (20%) were female. As regards

Race/Ethnicity 19 responded, 16 (84%) were Hispanic, 1 (5%) was Asian and 2 (11%) were

White (Table 15).

Table 15: Demographics for Participants

Spring 2013 2013 – 2014

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

N % N % N % N %

Gender

Female 1 20 1 17.0 11 14.1 11 22

Male 4 80 5 83.0 67 85.9 39 78

Race/Ethnicity

Asian 1 20 1 16.7 2 2.6 1 2

African American 3 3.9

Hispanic 3 60 4 66.7 52 68.4 37 72.5

Native American 1 1.3

White 1 20 1 16.7 18 23.7 11 22.4

Engineering Disciplines

Chemical 1 2

Civil 30 38.5 33 66

Environmental 1 1.3 1 2

Mechanical 42 53.8 7 14

Architectural 5 6.4 6 12

Civil & Architectural 1 2

Page 26.331.23

Total 5 6 78 50

Their awareness of project design before taking the project included 3 (33%) who had only

heard the term project design, 4 (45%) who knew only a few things about project design, and 2

(22%) who had only some basic skills related to project design; only 9 responded to this

question. Their awareness of project design after enrolling in the course included 1 (5%) who

had only heard the term project design, 6 (30%) who knew only a few things about project

design, 7 (35%) who had only some basic skills related to project design, and 6 (30%) who had

read up on the project design and felt quite comfortable.

In the pretest, 1 (9%) of the participants was not at all interested in project design, 3 (27%) were

somewhat interested in project design, 5 (46%) were interested in project design and 2 (18%)

were very interested in project design. In the posttest, 1 (5%) of the participants was a little

interested in project design, 3 (15%) were somewhat interested in project design, 8 (40%) were

interested in project design and 8 (40%) were very interested in project design.

In the pretest 3 (27%) were interested in a career in engineering while 8 (73%) were very

interested in a career in engineering. In the posttest 11 (55%) stated that they were very

interested in a career in engineering, 7 (35%) were interested in a career in engineering, 1 (5%)

was a little interested in a career in engineering and 1 (5%) felt there was not enough information

to determine if interested in an engineering career.

In the pretest, 6 (55%) were very motivated to remain in the discipline, 4 (36%) were quite

motivated and 1(9%) was fairly motivated with 5 enrolled in Civil and 6 in Mechanical. Of the

11 participants 7 had not thought of transferring to another engineering discipline while 4 had

Page 26.331.24

sometimes thought of it. In the posttest, 14 (70%) were very motivated to remain in the

discipline, 4 (20%) were quite motivated, 1(5%) was fairly motivated, and 1(5%) was somewhat

motivated with 10 enrolled in Civil and 10 in Mechanical. Of the 20 participants 12 had not

thought of transferring to another engineering discipline while 7 had sometimes thought of it,

and 1 had thought of transferring fairly often.

After the course was completed, they indicated the best descriptors of the amount of learning that

could be attributed to the project; 2 learned a little bit, 6 learned something, 8 learned quite a lot,

and 4 learned an amazing amount about engineering and project design (Mean = 3.7, SD = .92).

They also rated their growth in problem solving skills: 1 perceived no growth, 1 perceived

minimal growth, 5 perceived adequate growth, 7 perceived good growth, and 6 perceived

excellent growth (Mean = 3.8, SD = 1.11). In collaboration or working on a team, 1 rated the

growth as no growth, 1 rated it as minimal, 2 rated it adequate, 6 rated it good and 10 rated it

excellent (Mean = 4.15, SD = 1.14). 3 out of the 20 participants perceived an adequate growth in

engineering design, 10 perceived a good growth, while the remaining 7 perceived they had an

excellent growth in engineering design (Mean = 4.2, SD = .70). The participants were also asked

to rate their own growth in the area of project design proficiency. In problem solving 2 rated the

growth as adequate and 12 rated it good, and 6 rated it as excellent (Mean = 4.2, SD = .62).

Overall this appears to have been a good learning experience for the students.

Conclusions It is too soon to discover the extent of the impact of the project activities on

retention as all the numbers are not yet in. However, it appears that the total percent in the

CEEN2301 is creeping upwards. Although final numbers for Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 is not

Page 26.331.25

yet available, the numbers do suggest that first year retention is increasing. As to the

performance of engineering undergraduate students, graduation numbers appear to be rising.

The project’s mentoring activities have had an impact on the mentors’ knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and educational and career plans. Mentors’ perception of their knowledge of project

design increased in the second year. Interest was shown in the project design, a future career in

engineering and motivation to remain in engineering. The mentors perceived growth in the areas

of problem solving, collaboration and engineering design. Overall this appears to have been a

good learning experience for the mentors.

The integration of design experiences into targeted courses has impacted students’ perception of

their knowledge, skills, attitudes, performance in the design course, and educational and career

plans. Their awareness of and interest in project design increased while interest in an engineering

career decreased after the course was completed. High motivation to remain in the discipline

increased from 55% to 70%. After the course was completed, they indicated that learning could

be attributed to the project (Mean = 3.7, SD = .92) and they perceived a growth in problem

solving skills (Mean = 3.8, SD = 1.11). Students perceived a growth in collaboration or working

on a team (Mean = 4.15, SD = 1.14) and a growth in engineering design (Mean = 4.2, SD = .70).

Overall this appears to have been a good learning experience for the students.

Conclusion

The data collected so far shows that infusion of design practices in to the engineering curriculum

starting from freshman year and inclusion of peer mentoring do have positive impact on retention

Page 26.331.26

rates. The data also shows that engineering students as early as freshman, both mentors and

students, improved their problem solving and team-work skills, and increased interest in project

design. These activities increased the motivation among students to stay in the discipline, hence

increased the retention rates.

The learnings gleaned from the research thus far suggests that the input of a project design and

peer mentoring results in an increase in the number of degrees awarded, retention, awareness of

and interest in project design, and motivation to remain in the discipline. In addition, the

participants indicated that learning could be attributed to the project and they perceived a growth

both in problem solving and collaborative skills. As Texas A & M Kingsville is a Hispanic

serving institution, the interventions, project design and peer mentoring can be utilized by

engineering departments in other HSI universities. Most likely these interventions, project design

along with cascaded peer mentoring can also be transferred to other STEM disciplines as well.

Bibliography

1. National Science and Technology Council. Ensuring strong U.S. scientific, technical, and engineering

workforce in the 21st. century. 2000 [cited 2006 January 10]; Available from:

http://www.ostp.gov/html/workforcerpt.pdf

2. National Science Board, The science and engineering workforce: Realizing America's potential 2003,

National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA.

3. US Department of Labor, The STEM workforce challenge: The role of the public workforce system in a

national solution for a competitive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce.

2007, Washington, DC: author.

Page 26.331.27

4. U.S. Department of Education (2009) Students who study science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. Stats in Brief July, 1-25.

5. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, in National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,

and the Institute of Medicine. 2007, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

6. National Academyof Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Rising above

the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5.2010, Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

7. National Science Foundation - National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Science and

Engineering Degrees: 1966-2008. Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 11-316. 2011, National Science

Foundation: Arlington, VA.

8. Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce

Pipeline, Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America's science and technology talent at

the crossroads. 2010, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

9. National Academy of Sciences, Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a

brighter economic future. 2005, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

10. Neilsen, N., Planning Committee on Evidence on Selected Innovations in Undergraduate STEM Education,

and National Research Council, Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics education: Summary of two workshops 2011, Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

11. Heilbronner, N.N., Pathways in STEM: Factors Affecting the Retention and Attrition of Talented Men and

Women from the STEM Pipeline. 2009, ProQuest LLC.

12. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in

science and engineering: 2011 digest, National Science Foundation, Editor. 2011: Arlington, VA. p. 20.

13. Einaudi, P., Two decades of increasing diversity more than doubled the number of minority graduate

students in science and engineering. NSF InfoBrief, 2011. NSF 11-319(July 2011): p. 1-9.

14. Jackson, S.A., The quiet crisis: Falling short in producing American scientific and technical talent. 2004,

Building Engineering & Science Talent. Page 26.331.28

15. Landis, R., Retention by design: Achieving excellence in minority engineering education. 2005, California

State University: Los Angeles, CA. p. 1-27.

16. Tolley, P., Blat, C., Sharer, D., Tranjan, F., Strategies for success: Enhancing minority student success in

science, engineering, and technology (SET) professions. in annual meeting of the American Society for

Engineering Education. 2004. Salt Lake City, UT: American Society for Engineering, Washington, DC

20036, United States.

17. Lovencin, W., F. Najafi, and N. Safai. A review of strategies employed on minority recruitment and

retention in engineering education. 2007. Honolulu, HI, United States: American Society for Engineering

Education, Chantilly, VA 20153, United States.

18. Courter, S.S. and G. Johnson. Building community and retention among first-year students: Engineering

first-year interest groups (eFIGSs). 2007. Milwaukee, WI, United States: Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers Inc., Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, United States.

19. Horwitz, S., Todger, S., BIggers, M., Binkley, D., Frantz, C.K., et al., Using peer-led team learning to

increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science, in

Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 2009, ACM:

Chattanooga, TN, USA.

20. National Academies and National Research Council Board On Science Education, Evidence on Promising

Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. 2008.

21. National Research Council, Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathmatics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. 2011: Washington, DC. p. 97.

22. Demel, J.T., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., Orfield, G., Bang, M., Hodari, A., Bath, C., DeCarvalho, W.,

Bringing about marked increases in freshman engineering retention. In 2002 ASEE Annual Conference and

Exposition: Vive L'ingenieur, June 16, 2002 – June 19, 2002. 2002. Montreal, Que., Canada: American

Society for Engineering Education.

23. Froyd, J. and M. Ohland, Integrated engineering curricula. Journal of Engineering Education, 2005. 94(1):

p. 147-164.

Page 26.331.29

24. Froyd, J., Conkey, A., Srinivasa, A., Maxwell, D., Shyrock, K., Caso, R., Marotta, E., Howze, J., A project-

based approach for first-year engineering courses. ASEE/AaeE Global Colloquium on Engineering

Education, 2005.

25. Froyd, J., et al. A project-based approach to first-year curriculum development. in 35th Annual Frontiers in

Education. 2005. Indianapolis, IN: IEEE.

26. Felder, R.M., Forrest, K.D., Baker-Ward, L., Dietz, e.J., Mohr, P.H., A longitudinal study of engineering

student performance and retention: I. Success and failure in the introductory course. Journal of

Engineering Education, 1993. 82(1): p. 15-21.

27. National Academy of Engineering, The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. 2004,

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

28. Swan, C., K. Paterson, and A. Bielefeldt. Panel - measuring the impacts of project-based service learning

in engineering education. in ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 2009. San Antonio, TX.

29. Froyd, J.E., Li, Z., Srinivasa, A., Bassichis, W., Hodge, J., Maxwell, D., How do students in a project-

based first-year engineering curriculum perform in a sophomore engineering mechanics course?, in ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition. 2006: Chicago, IL.

30. Building Engineering and Science Talent, A bridge for all: Higher education design principles to broaden

participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 2004: San Diego, CA. p. 48.

31. Stevens, R., O'Conner, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., Amos, D., Becoming an engineer: Toward a three-

dimensional view of engineering learning Journal of Engineering Education, 2008. 97(3): p. 355-368.

32. Shah, J.J., S.V. Kulkarni, and N. Vargas-Hernandez, Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual

design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2000. 122(4): p.

377-384.

33. Astin, A.W., Preventing students from dropping out. First ed. 1975, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 204.

34. Olds, B.M. and R.L. Miller, The effect of a first-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation

rates and student satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Engineering Education, 2004. 93(1): p. 23-

35.

Page 26.331.30

35. Watford, B., Slater, C., Kampe, J., Edmister, W., Lessons learned: Implementing a largescale peer

mentoring program. 2006. Chicago, IL, United States: American Society for Engineering Education,

Chantilly, VA 20153, United States.

36. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas in focus: South Texas, in Window on State Government.

2008: Austin, TX. p. 110.

37. Texas A&M University-Kingsville. About Texas A&M University-Kingsville. 2011; Available from:

http://www.tamuk.edu/about/index.html.

38. Hispanic Outlook, Top 100 institutions for Hispanics, in The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education. 2010.

p. 19-29.

39. Texas A&M University-Kingsville, TAMUK mission statement. 2011.

40. American Society for Engineering Education, Profiles of engineering and engineering technology colleges.

2010, Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education. 510.

41. Atman, C.J., Sheppard, S., Turns, J., Adams, R., Freming, L., Stevens, R., Streveler, R., et al., Enabling

engineering student success: The final report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering

Education. 2010, San Rafel, CA: Morgan & Claypool.

42. Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., Sullivan, W., Educating engineers: Designing for the future of

the field, in Educating Engineers. 2008, Jossey-Boss.

43. Razzaq, Z. An effective teaching strategy for motivation and retention of engineering and technology

freshman. in ASEE Annual Conference. 2003. Nashville, TN.

44. Anwar, S., et al., Integration of project based learning into a freshman engineering design course. in

American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 2004. Salt Lake City, UT.

45. Richardson, J.D. Effect of a freshman engineering program on retention and academic performance. in

Frontiers in Education Annual Conference. 2002. Boston, MA.

46. Ellis, G.W. and B.B. Andam. Designing the engineering classroom for women. In Invention and Impact:

Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

Education. 2004. Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation.

Page 26.331.31

47. Beichner, R.J., Saul., J., Abbott., D., Morse, J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R., Bonham, J., Dancy, M., Risley, J.,

The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project., in

Research-based reform of university physics. 2007.

48. Borchert, R., D. Jensen, and D. Yates, Development and assessment of hands-on and visualization modules

for enhancement of learning in mechanics. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 1999.

49. Springer, L., M.E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan, Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in

science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,

1999. 69(1): p. 21-51.

50. American Society for Engineering Education. Plenary Presentation. in ASEE Annual Conference &

Exposition. 2011. Vancouver, Canada.

51. Dally, J.W. and G.M. Zhang, A freshman engineering design course. Journal of Engineering Education,

1993. 82(2): p. 83-91.

52. Marchman, J. and W.H. Mason, Freshman/senior design education. International Journal of Engineering

Education, 1997. 13(2): p. 143-152.

53. Brannan, K.P. and P.C. Wankat. Survey of first-year programs. in American Society for Engineering

Education Annual Conference & Exposition. 2005.

54. Knight, D.W., L.E. Carlson, and J.F. Sullivan. Improving engineering student retention through hands-on,

team based, first-year design projects. in ASEE Interntaional Conference on Research in Engineering

Education. 2007.

55. Carpinelli, L. and A. Perna. Engineering education coalitions: Perspective from a partner university. in

International Conference on Engineering Education. 2001. Oslo, Norway.

56. Piket-May, M. and J. Avery. Service learning first year design retention results. In Frontiers in Education

2001. Boulder, CO.

57. Pomalaza-Raez, C. and B.H. Groff, Retention 101: Where robots go...students follow. Journal of

Engineering Education, 2003. 92(1): p. 85-109.

58. Mandayam, S.A., A.J. Marchese, and J.L. Schmalzel. Nondestructive evaluation of aircraft skin: Product

design and development in the sophomore engineering clinic. In Frontiers in Education Conference. 1998. Page 26.331.32

59. Dahm, K., Riddell., W., Constans, E., Courtney, J., Harvey, R., Lockette, P., Impletmenting and assessing

the convergine-diverging model of design in a sequence of sophomore projects Advances in Engineering

Education, 2009. Winter: p. 1-16.

60. Starkey, J.M., S. Ramadhyani, and R. Bernhard, An introduction to mechanical engineering design for

sophomores at Purdue University. Journal of Engineering Education, 1994: p. 1-8.

61. Carroll, D.R., Integrating design into the sophomore and junior level mechanics courses. Journal of

Engineering Education, 1997. July: p. 227-231.

62. Rich, D.A. and J.A. Nestor. Analog and mixed-signal IC design in a junior electronics course sequence. in

ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 2003.

63. Pines, D. and H. Alnajjar. Evolution of an interdisciplinary sophomore design course at the University of

Hartford. in 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. 2008.

Pittsburgh, PA.

64. Edgcomb, M., Crowe, H., Rick, J., Morris, S., Wolffe, R., McConnaughay, K., Peer and near-peer

mentoring: Enhancing learning in summer research programs. CUR Quarterly, 2010. 31(2): p. 18-25.

65. Dannelly, R.S. and C.W. Steidley, A National Science Foundation-supported undergraduate CSMET

research project. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 2002. 17: p. 13-17.

66. Sales, J., Comeau, D., Liddle, K., Khanna, N., Perrone, L., Palmer, K., Lynn, D., Bridging the gap: A

research-based approach for teaching interdisciplinary science to undergraduate freshman students.

Journal of College Science Teaching, 2006. 35: p. 36- 41.

67. Castellanos, J. and A.M. Gloria, Research considerations and theoretical application for best practices in

higher education: Latina/os achieving success. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2007. 6(4): p. 378-

396.

68. Tinto, V., Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. 2 ed. 1993, Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

69. Vockell, E., Educational Psychology: A Practical Approach. p. online book.

70. National Academy of Engineering, Grand challenges for engineering. 2008: Washington, DC. p. 52.

71. Ohland, M.W., Brawner, C., Camacho, M., Layton, R., Long, R., Lord, S., Wasburn, M., Race, gender, and

measures of success in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 2011. 100(2): p. 225-252.

Page 26.331.33

72. National Academy of Engineering, The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society. 2006.

73. National Science Board, Science and engineering indicators, 2002. Retrieved from

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c2/c2s2.htm#gap

74. American Society for Engineering Education, Going the distance: Best practices and strategies for

retaining engineering, engineering technology and computing students, 2012. Washington, D.C.: American

Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from

75. Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.) Theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. 1999. Vol.2,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY.

Page 26.331.34