First-Year Student Persistence and Retention Influenced by Early Exposure to Engineering Practitioners Co-Teaching Entry-Level Courses: A Four-Year Indirect Assessment

摘要

The engineering education literature lacks long-term studies on persistence and retention impacts realized by teaching first-year engineering students about possible post-graduate career options via exposure to practicing engineers. At the University of North Texas (UNT), incoming mechanical and energy engineering (MEE) students (both freshman and transfers) participated in a mandatory two-course sequence which included a significant component that highlighted the everyday work of various practicing engineers. Classes were team-taught by faculty and local engineers from industry and government. Faculty shared their research activities and academic experience while practicing engineers discussed their industry work. Indirect assessment of students' persistence and retention preferences was evaluated using an anonymous survey administered on the first day of class and then re-administered on the last day of class. A one-year pilot study spanning two semesters was conducted during the 2007 - 2008 academic year. In this pilot, students self-reported constant pre/post levels of interest in engineering, but they also reported a statistically significant decline in desire to remain in the MEE program. This outcome was unexpected. This apparent inconsistency is explained by the hypothesis that familiarizing first-year engineering students with the activities and duties they may encounter in their careers as practicing engineers encouraged and reinforced their commitment to their chosen engineering major - positive and unwavering persistence. However, this same exposure coupled with other experiences in their engineering curricula made students aware that their chosen major may not be the best match for their interests or abilities, and there may be a better choice within other available engineering majors - negative retention within the major. The term "soft weeding" was invoked to denote empowering students to make informed decisions about their chosen major through a low-risk introductory course before they pursue a program to which they are poorly matched. The goal of "soft weeding" is to allow students to correctly place themselves in the best-fit engineering major to avoid frustration and poor performance in later upper-division courses and eventual withdrawal. Conclusions from the pilot study could have significant bearing on the design of introductory engineering courses for freshman and transfer students. The study could also inform administrative policy at engineering colleges; whether it is advantageous for students to choose a major early or instead complete common engineering core courses and declare a major after becoming better acquainted with the various available program options. Unfortunately, the pilot study only interrogated a single class of students over two semesters. With no comparison population available, this cohort could have held biases that make it difficult to extend the pilot study conclusions to the general engineering student population of any undergraduate program. We therefore report here the results of an extended four-year study, performed in identical fashion to the one-year pilot study. Pre/Post indirect assessments were given to four unique cohorts of students in entry-level 'Engineering Practice' courses between Fall 2007 and Spring 2011. The four-year study results are evaluated utilizing nonparametric statistical analysis compared to the reassessed pilot study to confirm and strengthen its validity by using a larger, more diverse student population less prone to the bias of a single class cohort.