What is the Effect of Establishing Programs that Address Sense of Belonging on Undergraduate Engineering Retention?

Frontiers in Education Conference October, 2015

Dr. Eugene Judson ∙Ms. Bethany Smith ∙ Mr. John Ernzen ∙ Dr. James Middleton ∙ Dr. Stephen Krause ∙ Dr. Robert J Culbertson

Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering & Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State University

Supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. 1226586

Why is There a Need to Address Sense of Belonging in Engineering?Engineering 2-Year Persistence and 4-Year & 6-Year Graduation Rates

2007 Cohort: 50% depart in first 2 years and 8% depart in last 4 years OR 85% departure of all leavers occur in first 2 years and 15% in last 4 years

Conclusions: Strong need for increase in evidence-based retention interventions Effectiveness of innovations may begin to be assessed after 2 years

First Time Freshman

2-Year Persistence Rate

4-Year Graduation Rate

6-Year Graduation Rate

1998 644 45% 11% 34%2004 765 50% 18% 38%2007 720 50% 26% 42%2009 890 57% 32% NA2011 1197 58% NA NA2014 2450 NA NA NA

2

How Does 2-Year Persistence Correlate to 6-Year Graduation Rate?

Conclusions: 2-year persistence is a good predictor of 6-year graduation rate Significant differences exist between disciplines 3

2007: A New Suite of Strategies• Co-Curricular Experiences (research opportunities,

engineering camp, professional societies)• Course Curricular Experiences (two mandatory

introductory courses focused on study skills and beginning design)

• Student Support Programs (residential community, tutoring center, undergraduate teaching assistants)

• Purpose: To keep status quo in retention, in spite of increasing enrollment

Research Question and Methods• What is the effect of establishing programs

that address sense of belonging?• We focused on 2-year retention

– High correlation with graduation– Using ASU online database, examined . . .

• entire engineering student body, then• by gender• by ethnicity

2-Year Engineering Retention

47.7% Retained 2 Years 1998 - 2006

Freshmen

FreshmenFreshmen

56.5% Retained 2 Years 2007 - 2014

Freshmen

Freshmen Freshmen

26.3% Graduated in Engineering within 4 Years, 1998 - 2006

Freshmen

FreshmenFreshmen

39.2% Graduated in Engineering within 4 Years, 2007 - 2010

Freshmen

FreshmenFreshmen

4-Year Engineering Graduation Rate

34.9% Graduated in Engineering within 6 Years,

1998 - 2006

Freshmen

FreshmenFreshmen

43.5% Graduated in Engineering within 6 Years,

2007 & 2008

Freshmen

FreshmenFreshmen

6-Year Engineering Graduation Rate

2-Year Retention, Overall

Reforms

Instituted

Retention in engineering at ASU has been increasing since 1998.

Before Reforms

Retention rate was on the rise during these years at a rate of 0.9% per year.

After Reforms

The rate of increasing retention rose to an average of 1.6% per year.

Before Reforms, By Gender

The rate of retention was 0.6%/year for women and 1.0%/year for men.

After Reforms, By Gender

The rate of retention growth increased for males (1.0% to 1.9% per year) but stayed the same for females (0.6% per year).

Before Reforms, By Ethnicity

The growth in retention rates were similar for both groups. Overall retention for URMs (underrepresented minorities) was consistently lower than that of Asian and White students.

After Reforms, By Ethnicity

Average increase in retention grew by about 0.4% per year for both groups. The gap in the retention rates, however, did not close.

Conclusions• 2007 strategies seem to have increased the rate at

which retention is growing– Increased retention has been paralleled by rising

graduation rates– Simultaneous with growing class size

• Possible future investigation: different effects across the subgroups– Large jump for males, little to no effect for females?– Did not close or shrink retention gap between minority

groups?

Thanks for listening!