Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs
(USC Thesis Other)
A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION OF THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF
THREE CALIFORNIA MINORITY ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
By
Barbara A. Christie
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERISTY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH Y
(EDUCATION)
December 2003
Copyright 2003 Barbara A. Christie
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3133250
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3133250
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695
This dissertation, written by
Barbara A. Christie
under the direction o f h*m dissertation committee, and
approved by all its members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Director o f Graduate and Professional
Programs, in partial fulfillment o f the requirements fo r the
degree o f
DOCTOR O F PHILOSOPHY
Director
Date Decem ber 1 7 , 2003
Dissertation Commit ^
Chair
.v.. [ { f A . S .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the individuals who have inspired and supported ray
academic career. Special recognition goes to my family; past and present.
To my grandparents especially my grandmothers; Celia Calicchio and Margaret
Christie who did not have the opportunity of higher education.
To my parents; John and Lucille Christie, who helped me through five years of
classes, research and writing. Special thanks goes to Lucille who did a wonderful job
proof reading page after page.
To my two beautiful children; Elaine and Rick, who are an endless source of
inspiration.
To my sisters and their children and spouses; Carolyn, Anna, Tom, Kyle, Sevina,
Andrew, and Christie, Helen, Robert, Lauren, Aimee, and Jessica and my brother,
Joe. Special thanks goes to Anna and her husband Tom for taking Elaine and Rick
out during my last few days of writing.
To my extended family; Irma, Doreen, Lisa, Diana, Chris, Michelle, Roberta, Linda,
Richard, Marian, Patricia and their spouses and children.
To my dear friends; Greta, Ana, Patricia, Julie, Annie, Mercedita, Lupe, Monica,
Colleen, and Olga.
To my students and colleagues at Loyola Marymount University.
And last but not least, to my Committee Members; Dr. Bill McComas, Dr. Linda
Serra Hagedorn, and Dr. Tim Pinkston. Special thanks goes to Dr. McComas for
acting as my chair.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION
LIST OF TABI.ES
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER
I
II
III
IV
ii
v
vii
INTRODUCTION i
Background I
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 6
Specific Research Questions 10
Salient Points within the Study 10
Limitations 1 1
Definition of Terms 12
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Introduction 13
Gender and Retention 14
Underrepresented Ethnic Minorities
And Retention in Engineering 20
The Development of Model Programs
For Improving Retention 26
Development Models and Minority
Engineering Program Design 32
Summary 40
METHODOLOGY 43
Research Methods 43
Sample 44
Design of Study 45
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 51
Introduction 51
University of Southern California 52
University of California, Irvine 65
California State University, Northridge 77
Ml
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER Page
V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89
Introduction 89
MEP as a Cultural Enclave 91
Minority Engineering Programs and Students
Involvement 93
Recommendations 97
Questions for Future Study 105
Concluding Thoughts 107
REFERENCES 109
APPENDICES A: University of Southern California Case Study
B; University of California, Irvine Case Study
C: California State University, Northridge Case
Study
D: Description of Exemplary Minority
Engineering Program
114
138
158
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table. B m
1. Comparison of the Percentage of the Science and Engineering 4
Labor Force and the Percentage of the U.S. Labor Force by
Ethnicity
2. Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity and 6
Curriculum 1999
3. Demographics of the Institutions Selected for this Study 2002 52
4. Survey Responses from USC Qualifier/participants 56
5. Demographic Makeup of the 48 Qualifier/participants at USC 56
6. The Different Reasons Students Chose for Nonparticipation 57
In Events Sponsored Through the CED
7. USC Rating of Activities That Students’ Find Most Beneficial 58
8. Freshmen and Sophomore Engineering Students Participation 60
in Engineering Professional Organizations at USC
9. Possible Time Dedicated to Enrichment Each Month/USC 62
10. Survey Responses from the Qualifier/nonparticipants 69
11. Demographic Makeup of the 47 Qualifier/nonparticipants at UCI 69
12. The Different Reasons Students Chose for Nonparticipation 70
in Events Sponsored Through CODE
13. Rating of Activities That Students5 Find Most Benefic ial 71
14. Freshmen and Sophomore Engineering Students Participation 72
In Engineering Professional Organizations at UCI
15. Possible Time UCI Students Will Dedicate to Enrichment Each 74
Month
16. Survey Responses from the Qualifier/nonparticipants 80
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
T able Page
17. Demographic Makeup of the 37 Qualifier/nonpartieipants 81
at CSUN
18. The Different Reasons Students Chose for Nonparticipation in 81
Events Sponsored Through SDEC
19. Rating of Activities That Students’ Find Most: Beneficial 82
20. Freshmen and Sophomore Engineering Student Participation in 83
Engineering Professional Organizations at CSUN
21. Possible Time CSUN Students Will Dedicate to Enrichment 85
Each Month
22. Possible. Time USC, UCI & CSUN Students Will Dedicate to 96
Enrichment Each Month
23. Possible Time USC Students Would Dedicate to Enrichment 133
Each Month
24. Possible Time UCI Students Would Dedicate to Enrichment 153
Each Month
25. Possible Time CSUN Students Would Dedicate to Enrichment 173
Each Month
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
According to the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering the national
retention rate of engineering students generally is 68% and for underrepresented
minority engineering students (African American, Latino, Native American and
Pacific Islanders) is 37%, As a response to the severity of retention issues with
respect to underrepresented minority engineering students, colleges and universities
across the United States have developed special programs known as minority
engineering programs (MEPs). MEPs are designed to provide academic support,
personal counseling, social networking, career counseling and professional
development as a means to improve retention. This investigation, provides case study
examinations of the nature and impact of three California MEPs. This study also
analyses the reasons for the lack of participation by freshmen and sophomore
students who qualify for these programs. The methods used for this study included
extensive surveys and interviews of students, faculty and staff, site visits, and
examination of documents. Over 500 students were surveyed during lower division
engineering courses. Those students who gave permission for further interviews were
asked questions about their participation or nonparticipation and the reasons for their
behavior. Faculty members were interviewed about their knowledge and personal
involvement with their minority engineering programs on their campuses. Program
directors were interviewed to discuss program design and implementation. Of the
509 respondents, 132 were classified as MEP-eligible but nonparticipant freshman
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and sophomore engineering students. The results demonstrated that a high
percentage of those qualified to participate are unaware of the programs and events
on their campuses. During the interviews the students stated they are interested in
academic enrichment, social networking and professional development and were
willing to dedicate several hours each month to enrichment. The students also
commented that they feel the faculty should provide information on enrichment
programs available on campus. Conversely, faculty stated that it is not their
responsibility to inform students and were unfamiliar with the minority engineering
programs on their campuses. The MEP-qualifier participants interviewed stated that
the MEP Office on their campus provides support in the areas of academic
enrichment, social networking, personal counseling and career development.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation details the results of a qualitative study of minority
engineering programs designed to provide academic, personal, social, and
professional support to women and underrepresented minority (African American,
Latino, Native American, Native Pacific Islander) engineering students from three
universities in California,
Background
The world economy has grown increasingly dependent on technology with
the pace of technological advancement increasing at an explosive rate. Technology
based industries such as biomedical engineering, aerospace, and computers are the
nation’s fastest growing and now makes up fully one-sixth of the total United States
economy (Barret, 1997). Today, the United States is the world leader in the global
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) enterprise (AAAS,
2001).
Other countries stand ready to challenge this economic strength. One of the
main reasons is a shortage of U.S. workers to fill STEM jobs. Technically skilled,
workers on H-1B Visas are now making up for the U.S. worker shortfall. This supply
of talent could dwindle in the near future as other nations take steps to increase their
own STEM productivity (AAAS, 2001).
In order to continue responding to the needs of society and its economy, the
future United States workforce must be adequately prepared to support the continued
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
growth and development of future STEM enterprises. The majority of the current
STEM workforce, White, non-Hispanic men, is shrinking. In 1995, the projected
percentage of White men in the overall workforce was 36%. By 2050 White males
are projected to be 26% of the overall workforce, while in 1997 they made up 70%
of the STEM workforce (Day, 1996). Due to the demographic changes within the
United States over the next 50 years, the technology industry will increasingly seek
support front women and underrepresented minorities (African American, Latino,
Pacific Islanders, and Native American) in ways not seen before in U.S. history.
Women and underrepresented minorities provide an untapped reservoir of
talent. A society that neglects the native talent in any sector of its population does so
to its detriment. In the emerging information economy, universities and other
knowledge-producing and disseminating institutions are the ultimate source of
wealth, just as mineral deposits and ports were in the past (Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, and
Uzzi, 2000).
Women and minorities will have to develop the knowledge, skills and
abilities necessary to achieve in .STEM careers. In order to increase the
representation of underrepresented minorities and women in the future engineering
and technical workforce, the barriers that have historically prevented students of
color and females from selecting these fields in the past must be removed. This
dissertation discusses the barriers that currently exist and the different programs
designed to eliminate them.
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Statement of the Problem
It is estimated that over the next ten years there will be up to one million
unfilled engineering and technical positions. Data from the Bureau of Labor (2000)
predicts an increase of 100% for technical and engineering positions between 1998-
2008. The top four fastest-growing jobs by percentage include computer engineers
(108%), computer support specialist (102%), systems analysts (94%), and database
administrators (77%) (Bureau of Labor, 2000). The number of students graduating
from universities with engineering degrees in the United States is not increasing
proportionately to meet the demand.
The dearth of women and underrepresented minority students creates a
shortage of highly skilled STEM workers. As a result many businesses resort to
recruiting foreign engineers and scientists by bringing them to the United States on
H-1B visas. Although Congress raised the ceiling on H-IB visas from 65,000 to
115,000 for 1999, the ceiling of visas was reached by June 1999 (Congressional
Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science,
Engineering, and Technology Development, 2000).
The continual reliance on foreign engineers to fill necessary jobs is a risky
practice. The supply of foreign workers is uncertain and unpredictable especially in
light of recent events involving terrorism. The nation’s economic well-being, the
health of its citizens, the defense of its interests rely on a well-trained pool of talent.
Nurturing the intellectual talent available in our schools today is a more effective
method of increasing the pipeline of future engineering and technical workers than
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
continual dependence on foreign workers. The dependence on foreign workers is not
a stable solution to solving the problem of a shortage of trained engineers.
The demographic realities facing the United States today are that skilled
workers must be drawn from an increasingly diverse domestic population. According
to the U.S. Census, the workforce growth from 2000-2010 of the different ethnic
groups will be 36% for Latinos, 17% for African American, 6% for Whites, and 37%
for Asians. In comparison, the overall undergraduate enrollment by ethnicity across
the United States in 1997 was 9% Latino, 11% African American, and 1% Native
American (The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, September 1, 2000). In
1997, women made up 5.1% of the undergraduate population.
The increase in diversity of our workforce is not compatible with the
increases in the number of these ethnically diverse groups and women entering into
the science and engineering workforce. Due to the disparities in the percentage of the
actual population and the percentage of engineers in the workforce, the African
American, Latino, Native American, Native Pacific Islander, and female
demographic groups are defined as underrepresented.
and Percentage in U.S. Labor Force
Ethnicity Percentage of S & E Labor Force Percentage of US Labor
Force
White 83.6 63.9
Asian 9.9 4.1
African American 3.2 16.6
Latino 2.9 15.4
Women 23.0 53.7
Source; National Science Foundation, SESTAT, 1997 & U.S. Census, 2(500
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Individuals who have studied diversity issues in student population at
universities and within the workforce support the premise that all racial and ethnic
backgrounds benefit from institutional diversity efforts (Astin, 1993b, Camevale,
1999). Astin discusses the beneficial effects of diversity in Diversity and
Multiculturalism on the Campus: How Are Students Affected? Astin (1993b)
concludes that “emphasizing diversity either as a matter of institutional policy or in
faculty research and teaching, as well as providing students with curricular and extra
curricular opportunities to confront racial and multicultural issues, are all associated
with widespread beneficial effects on a student’s cognitive and affective
development” (p.48). The recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action
concerning the University of Michigan’s admissions policies concur with Astin.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O ’Connor, the swing vote in the case,
stated that universities represent the training ground for a large number of the
nation’s leaders and that society as a whole has a stake in diversity on campuses. “In
order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is
necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified
individuals of every race and ethnicity” (Schmidt 2003)
There is evidence that businesses and other organizations see a significant
return on their investment when diversity is achieved (Congressional Commission on
the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology
Development, 2000).
A culturally diverse workforce creates competitive advantage through greater
creativity and innovation; increased organizational flexibility thanks to higher
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
levels of divergent thinking; and better decision making based on multiple
perspectives (less 'group think') as well as a critical analysis of alternatives.
This competitive advantage holds true not just for American industry, but for
the national scientific and engineering enterprise as a whole (p. 12).
Purpose of the Study
Historically, America’s racial, and ethnic minorities have been
underrepresented in higher education in engineering fields. Doster (1998) discusses
the demographics of engineering graduates. The colleges in the United States
awarded 63,262 bachelor’s degrees in engineering in 1998. Of the students who
graduated with engineering degrees that year, 5% were Latino, 4% were African
American, and less than I % were Native American. In the class of 1998, women
accounted for 18.6% of the engineering degrees.
Table 2: Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Ethnicity and by Curjiculupi
1999
Curriculum Women African Latino Native Foreign
American American
Chemical 35.5% 6.1% 5.8% 0,6% 6.2%
Civil 22.1% 3.2% 8.2% 0.6% 5.4%
Computer 14,8% 4.1% 5.0% 0.4% 9.0%
Electrical 13.8% 7.8% 6.7% 0.5% 11.9%
Mechanical 10.5% 4.7% 6.2% 0.5% 6.9%
Total 51% 11% 9% 1% 3%
Undergraduate
Enrollment
Sources: Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering and Technology Degrees
& The Chronicle of Higher Education Sept. 1, 2000
The demographic results of the Computing Research Association
(Taulbee,1999) surveys of the 2000 recipients of computer science bachelor’s
degrees from PhP.-granting institutions in the United States and Canada show a
bleak picture of Latino and African American participation in. computer science.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to the surveys, only 4% of the graduates were African. American and 3%
were Latino.
W omen also have pervasively low involvement in the computer science
starting in high school and continuing into university level. Nationwide, according to
the College Board (1999) advanced placement Summary Report, only 17% of those
taking advanced placement test in computer science in 1999 were female, making
computer science the subject with the smallest proportion of female test takers
(Margolis and Fisher 2002). In the areas of information technology associated with
engineering, not business, women earned 15% of the computer engineering and 14%
of the electrical engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1999 (Commission on
Professionals in Science and Technology, 2000).
The two major reasons for the demographic data discussed above include
low percentages of underrepresented minorities and females entering into
engineering majors at four year institutions and low retention rates of
underrepresented minorities and females within college and university engineering
departments. According to the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering
(N ACME, 2001), the national retention rate of engineering students is 68% and the
national retention rate for underrepresented minority engineering students is 37%. In
response to the severity of the problem of underrepresented minority engineering
students’ low retention rates, colleges and universities across the United States
developed and implemented special programs. These special programs are designed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to improve retention. These programs are known as Minority Engineering Programs
(MEF),
The purpose of this study is to examine programs designed to provide
academic, social, personal and professional support to underrepresented students
studying engineering at undergraduate level and to analyze the lack of participation
by freshman and sophomore students who quality tor these programs. The problem
of attrition exists within the three engineering programs chosen for this study.
The study provides valuable information to individuals and organizations
interested in increasing academic and social integration within their institutions. The
results o f this study will be of value to practitioners including deans, professors, and
minority engineering program directors. They will provide insights that may help the
MEP Directors practice alternative techniques to retain students that have so far been
unsupported by the department financially and/or emotionally.
In order to produce a detailed description of selected minority engineering
programs, the most effective research method is a case study. In this case study, the
unit of analysis will be minority engineering programs. Program selection for this
dissertation is based on the different forms of higher education available to students
in the state of California. Students graduating from high schools throughout
California have the option of attending private or public institutions. The public
university system in the California includes nine University of California Campuses,
twenty-one California State Universities and one hundred and eight Community
Colleges.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The three units selected for study include: Center for Opportunities and
Diversity in Engineering (CORE) at the University of California, Irvine; Center for
Engineering Diversity (CED) at the University of Southern California: and Student
Development: and Equity Center (SDEP)/MESA Engineering Program (MEP)
at California State University, Northridge, According to the Engineering Workforce
Commission (2001), California awarded 1033 underrepresented minority
engineering baccalaureate degrees in 2000. This is the largest number of
baccalaureate degrees awarded to this population within the United States. Texas,
917 and Florida, 825 were second and third in baccalaureate degrees awarded to
underrepresented minority engineering students.
The focus of the study included an examination of each of the program’s
designs and methods of implementation. Along with the case study of the programs,
the dissertation also examines freshman and sophomore engineering students who
qualify for the programs but did not participate.
The main areas of study include methods of participant selection, goals of
the programs, program design, rationale of program design, implementation of the
program, and an analysis of the reasons why freshman and sophomore students
decide not to participate in their engineering department’s minority engineering
program. Freshman and sophomore students were selected because they have the
greatest attrition rate among collegiate students who have chosen STEM majors
(Gainen 1995). According to Smith (2001), the transfer and dropout rates for STEM
majors in the 1993-1999 cohorts were: 31 % in the first year, 16 % in the second
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
year, and 12 % in the third and subsequent years. Among students of color, the
attrition rate is higher than any other group (p. 5).
The study uncovers the ideologies and idiosyncrasies of these different
established programs and links the structure and design of each MEF with theoretical
models of retention. A comparison will be drawn between the different groups being
studied.
Specific Research Questions
The research questions for this study are as follows:
(1) W hat are the natures of the three established minority engineering
programs?
(2) What similarities and disparities exist within the established MEPs?
(3) Why do some underrepresented freshman and sophomore engineering
students decline to participate in the minority engineering programs on
their campuses?
(4) What are the characteristics of an ideal model MEP?
Salient Points within the Study
This study contributes to the field by providing a portrait of different
minority engineering programs. The salient points within the study include students’
lack of awareness of programs on their campuses, students’ desire to be involved in
enrichment programs that provide academic support, personal counseling, social
networking, and career counseling and professional development; MEPs’ create a
cultural enclave for the minority students who participate; faculty members’ have
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
limited knowledge of the minority engineering programs on their campuses; and all
three programs need a mandatory freshmen orientation course that provides
information to students about the culture of the engineering department and the
functions and benefits of the different enrichment programs available on campus.
Limitations
Although it is the goal of this study to help provide valuable information to
the higher education community, there must be a statement of limitation at this time.
The following limitations may play a role in this study.
This study only examines the minority engineering programs at the
University of California, Irvine, California State University, Northridge, and
University of Southern California. The institutions examined in this study do not
reflect all of the different minority engineering programs that exist around the United
States.
Only students who attended USC, UCI, and CSUN participated in this study.
Students were selected to participate due to the cooperative nature of their
engineering professors who allowed the researcher to take up valuable class time to
administer a survey. Students who had professors that would not allow for
administration of surveys during their courses did not have an opportunity to
participate in the study. The elements of this study are limited by the generalizability
of the study to other settings and populations.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Definition of Terms
In this study, the following terms apply:
Academic Excellence Workshops: An academic enrichment course designed
to teach students how to leant effectively in a cooperative group. Junior or Senior
students act as facilitators to freshmen and sophomore student participants. The
course curriculum usually covers a “gatekeeper” general science or mathematics
course such as general chemistry or calculus. The courses are normally 1 unit and are
not required.
M entors: Upper class students majoring in engineering who have volunteered
to provide academic, social and emotional support to freshmen students. This
relationship may be through consistent communication via the internet and/or
meetings on campus.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter will present a review of the literature regarding retention of
undergraduate students in general and retention of underrepresented science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) undergraduates in particular. The
chapter has several components. The first component will present statistics of
underrepresented students in STEM majors, the second component will discuss the
reasons for the poor matriculation and retention rates of underrepresented STEM
majors, and third component, will discuss the methods and practices of minority
engineering programs.
The statistic for the dropout rate of STEM majors is twice as high as the
overall drop out rate of all college students. According to a report sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (2000). almost half of the freshman STEM majors left
the disciplines before reaching their junior year. Over a period of six years, nearly 60
percent of the STEM majors either dropped out of college or transferred to a non-
STEM discipline for their degrees (C-IDEA, 2000). Women and underrepresented
minorities students (African American, Latino, Asian-Pacific Islanders, and Native
American) dropped out of STEM programs at the highest rates. Over a period of six
years, the drop-out/transfer rates were 63 percent for women and 57 percent for men;
72 percent for underrepresented minorities and 57 percent for non-minorities (C-
IDEA, 2000).
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gender and Retention
The opportunities of increasing the pool of women, in STEM workforce rests
in two areas; recruitment and retention. Women are more likely than men. to graduate
from high school, to enroll in college and to graduate from college, but are less likely
than men to choose science and engineering fields (Commission on Professionals in
Science and Technology 2000). Smith (2001) showed that a large difference exists
between men and women in their choices of majors, with only 18% of the women
choosing STEM majors in their first year at college compared to 34% of the men.
The difference is most dramatic in the engineering fields. Only 2.4% of the women
who entered college as freshmen in 1999 declared engineering as their major,
compared to the 15.2% of men (Higher Education Research Institute 2000). Despite
the growing proportion of women in the workforce, the relative proportion of women
in such fields as engineering, computer science, and physics lags far behind that of
men. Currently, only 19% of the science, engineering, and technology (SET)
workforce is female (Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women
and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development, 2000).
There are several theories that offer an explanation for the poor matriculation
and retention of women in STEM undergraduate majors. The areas that will be
addressed include mathematics courses taken in high school, lack of encouragement
by teachers and faculty, isolationism, self-efficacy, poor quality of the learning
environment, loss of interest, and lack of self-confidence.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In order to improve recruitment of females into STEM majors, the barriers
that prevent females from these majors must be examined. Fletcher & Anderson-
Rowland, 2001 state that barriers to female students enrolling in secondary level
science, technology, and mathematics courses include: lack of self-confidence,
ineffective learning environments, a lack of female role models in science-related
fields, and failure to recognize the relationship between science courses and societal
expectations of women.
One of the most obvious deterrents to studying engineering in college is the
lack of mathematics and science courses taken during high school. Curriculum
choices made in high school determine eligibility and academic preparedness for a
college engineering program. According to Lee and Burkham (1996) although the
gender gap in course taking has narrowed over time, high school girls continue to
elect somewhat fewer mathematics and science courses than boys. There is no
shortage of empirical correlates to explain this: for example, mathematics and
science characterized as “masculine” (Ehrhardt & Sandler, 1987); low parental
encouragement (Campbell, 1986; Jacobs & Eccles, 1985; Kahle, 1983); and lack of
teacher and counselor encouragement (Andrews, 1985; Casserly, 1975; Eccles-
Parsons, 1984; Erickson et a l, 1987; Haven, 1972; Luchins, 1976; Sherman, 1979;
Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985).
The quantity of mathematics courses that girls are enrolling in during high
school is increasing. A much-discussed gap between girls and boys’ average number
of mathematics courses taken appears to be diminishing. But gender differences
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
remain in kinds of courses token. An encouraging development is that more girls are
enrolling in algebra, geometry, precalculus, trigonometry, and calculus than in 1990,
However, girls are still more likely than boys to end their high school mathematics
careers with Algebra II (AAUW, 1999).
Even though male and female high school students take a similar average
number of science courses, males are more likely than females to have taken all three
of the core science courses— biology, chemistry, and physics-by graduation
(AAUW, 1999). Male students outscore females on the SAT with mean Math Scores
of 530 compared, to 494. Male students also take more AP exams in the sciences and
calculus (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994).
Despite the heavy science enrollment and participation of girls in science and
mathematics classes, girls are not always recognized or encouraged by their teachers
(Greenfield, 1996). Teachers, regardless of their gender, tend to interact more with
male students than with females. Teachers tend to systematically disengage female
students in science classes, white actively eliciting the involvement of the male
students (Barba, & Cardinale, 1991).
Females that overcome the barriers of high school and decide to attend
college as STEM majors must address new hurdles as undergraduates. According to
Smith (2001), the institution-wide graduation rates of 175 colleges and universities
in 1.999 were consistently higher for women than men. However, a lower percentage
of the women graduated from STEM fields with a disproportionate number
transferring to non STEM fields. The six-year institution-wide graduation rates were
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59% for women and 54% fo.r men; the six-year STEM discipline-specific graduation
rates were 35% for women and 4-0% for men,
Elaine Seymour (1995) discusses the retention rates of female students in The
Loss o f Women from Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate
Majors: An Explanatory Account. She states that female undergraduate students
report that feelings of psychological alienation or depression played a critical role in
their decision to leave SME disciplines, and that despite good academic
performance, they experience diminished self-esteem, self-confidence, and career
ambitions. For female students enrolled in engineering departments, studies have
indicated that they are more prone than men to drop out due to ancillary issues
concerning family, lack of female role models, and personal dissatisfaction with
grades. In addition, women are more likely to enter into engineering uninformed of
the challenges associated with the curricula (Fletcher, & Anderson-Rowland, 2001).
Female students are less familiar with the types and amount of jobs available
to engineering and technology majors.
Through gender role stereotyping, girls and boys learn early which
occupations are suitable for them, with the result of limiting career choices
and planning. In addition, girls suffer from limited career awareness because
they lack information on nontraditional career choices, particularly those
related to mathematics, science, and engineering (Bailey, 1992).
Landis (1991) discusses the diminished quality of the learning environment
as a significant barrier to student success in Retention by Design (1991). An
important part of the learning environment is the nature of student-faculty
interactions. Students will define their relationships with professors through their
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interactions. Such interactions include formal classroom behavior, and informal
contacts outside of the classroom. There is considerable evidence that the impact on
students of faculty norms, values, and attitudes, as well as faculty members’ impact
as role models, is enhanced when student-faculty interactions extend beyond the
formal classroom setting. The extent of social interaction between students and
faculty is significantly and positively related to educational aspirations at either the
end of the freshman year, end of sophomore year, or end of the senior year
(Pa,seared a and Terenzini, 1991).
Seymour (1995) found that among seniors, dissatisfaction with faculty as
teachers remains higher among women, 80.3%, than for men, 66.2%. This
dissatisfaction can help foster a lack or loss of interest in the discipline. Disinterest,
therefore may be a strong reason for the departure of female students from
engineering programs (p. 448).
During a four-year study of computer science students at Carnegie Mellon
University, Margolis and Fisher (2002) found, that women feel alienated from and
resistant to a culture they find insular, isolating, and ‘‘out of balance”.
“Scary” and “afraid” are words that recur again and again in women’s
interviews with they describe qualities associated with being a computer
science major. Louis, a second-year student, wants to do well in her major
and become a good computer scientist. But, she told us, she is unwilling
to “sacrifice the rest of my life for computing.” Moreover, she believes
many male students will make the sacrifice (p.70)
Women find themselves in a perplexing dilemma. Because young males have
flocked to computer science and have become compulsively attached to computing,
the computing culture reflects their domination and desires and projects the male
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
way as the way to be in computer science. Many women, on the other hand, prefer a
life that is not singularly focused (Margolis and F isher),
Erosion of self-confidence is a large issue for young women in STEM
majors. The women tend to lose confidence in their ability to ‘do science’, regardless
of how well they are actually doing. Women especially suffer when they have
insufficient independence in their learning styles, decision making, and judgments
about their own abilities. Women’s loss of confidence is especially severe in
historically male-dominated fields (Margolis and Fisher 2002). According to
Brainard and Carlin’s (1997) six-year study of women in science and engineering
classes at the University of Washington, many women suffered a steep drop of
confidence following their freshman year and never fully recovered.
Young women enter into STEM majors with less-well-developed personal
views of what they want out of college compared to young men. Women
experiencing feelings of self-doubt about studying STEM find it much easier than do
young men to get parental and peer support for wanting to move into a non-STEM
major. Women are more likely to be supported in the decision to switch or depart
from STEM majors by family and friends.
The social pressures on young men to persevere appeared to help them
through periods of doubt or crisis. Young women appeared to experience
fewer external constraints to stiffen their resolve to continue, and described
pressures from significant-others which favored their abandoning
an SME major. Some women reported having to fight such pressure
in order to continue (Seymour, 1995, p. 446).
Women, who persist in STEM fields, enter with sufficient independence to
adjust quickly to the more impersonal pedagogy. They tend to have a strong sense of
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
career direction, and develop attitudes and strategies that help them neutralize the
effects o f a diminished quality of the learning environment due to hostility
(Seymour, 1995),
The issues surrounding low rates of recruitment and retention of women in
STEM fields are complex and extensive. Without proper intervention at all levels of
education from elementary school to higher education, the statistics so far mentioned
most likely will continue. The design of the MEP must address the barriers faced by
females in an undergraduate engineering department.
One of the goals of an MEP is to be a resource for women within an
engineering department: and thus helping to stem the tide of transfer and drop out
rates. As a resource the MEP Office can provide cultural and social capital that
females may not find within their departments. The MEP Office hopes to help the
female students overcome banders by improving academic success, increasing
faculty/student relationships, developing self-confidence, expanding awareness of
different engineering careers, and providing a social network.
Underrepresented Ethnic Minorities and Retention in Engineering
As with females, underrepresented minority students have lower
matriculation and graduation rates in STEM majors. In 2001, freshmen engineering
enrollment topped 100,000 for the first time since 1985, but African Americans,
American Indians and Latinos represented less than 15% of first-year engineering
students (Engineering Workforce Commission). The president of the National Action
Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc (NACME), Dr. John Brooks Slaughter,
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stated that the total enrollment of engineering majors is up by 8.6%, but minority
enrollment only rose 3.5% (NACME 2001).
The results of the study by Smith (2001) showed that underrepresented
minority students lag behind non-minorities in retention rates. The six-year
graduation rates of STEM majors in 1993-99 cohorts were lowest for
underrepresented minority students. Thirty-eight percent of African Americans, 41%
of Latinos, 38% of the Native Americans STEM majors graduated in six years
((Smith, 2001, p. 2).
Many reasons have been promulgated for the failure of minorities to pursue
mathematics and science careers in greater numbers and to continue in these majors
once they start college. These reasons include: nonparticipation or under
participation in mathematics courses, poor access to well-prepared science and
mathematics teachers, handicapped by low expectations, unacquainted with the
behaviors that help college students succeed, and scarcity of minority faculty and
role models in engineering fields.
Similar to the female students, the nonparticipation or under-participation in
mathematics courses such as algebra II, pre-calculus and calculus is likely one of the
greatest reasons for underrepresented minority students not having access to
engineering, mathematics or science degrees. Only half of the minority students plan
to take math beyond the amount required to graduate from high school. Minority
students are less likely to think that the decision to take math and science classes is
an important one (Markow & Moore, 2001).
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Minority students remain significantly less likely than nonminority students
to recognize the career consequences of not taking the right mathematics courses.
Only 37% of minority students realize that they must take prerequisite math classes
in order to be able to take advanced classes later (Markow & Moore, 2001).
A disproportionate number of minority students are enrolled in general and
remedial classes. This practice further limits minority students’ exposure to activities
involving higher-order thinking skills and to an array of topics in mathematics and
science that standardized tests and assessments usually include. This disparity often
results in poor test performance in mathematics and science (Clewed, Anderson, &
Thorpe, 1992).
Underrepresented minority students have less access to prepared teachers,
and advanced mathematics courses. In schools with the highest minority enrollments,
students have less than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher
who holds a license and a degree in the field in which he or she teaches (Darling-
Hammond, 1996). Minority students (44%) are less likely than nonminority students
(55%) to attend schools that offer advanced placement or college level mathematics
courses (Markow & Moore, 200.1),
A recent report at Stanford University, Betraying the College Dream, How
Disconnected K-12 and. Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student
Aspirations (2003) discussed students’ preparation for university. The report’s
findings showed that there is a disparity between socioeconomic groups in many
areas associated with college preparation, These included knowledge of the
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
necessary curriculum, talking to counselors and teachers about college, and
knowledge about the cost of tuition. The percentage of students who knew at least 3
course requirements for admission to the more-selective universities and less-
selective universities varies by socioeconomic status. For the University of
California, Davis, 61% of high SES students, and 47% of low-SES students knew at
least three course requirements for admission. For California State University,
Sacramento, 53% of high-SES students and 44% of low-SES students understood
about course requirements. The percentage of students who knew state-level
transition policies were 31%) for high-SES, 24% for low-SES, 33% for honors
students, and 24% for non-honor students.
In California, most students rely on their teachers to provide them with
information about college admission requirements. According to Betraying the
College Dream (2003), 79% of students spoke with a teacher at least once about the
college admissions process and only 62% stated they had spoke with a counselor at
least once about the college admissions process. The report shows that many
students are not provided with adequate support to navigate entrance into college.
Minority students often report that neither teachers nor classmates expect
them to do well in science (Culotta, 1992). Landis (1991) agrees with Culotta, in
stating that low expectation by faculty is a barrier to minority students’ success as
engineering undergraduates. The results of a four year study at Carnegie Mellon
University by Margolis and Fisher (2002) showed that problems with curriculum and
teaching hurts all students, but they hurt women and minorities even more,
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Treisman (1992) found that many minority students were unacquainted with
the behaviors that help college students succeed. Treisman’s (1992) research showed
that African American students tended to study alone. Although they would follow
the advice to study a particular amount of time and turn in homework assignments,
they still failed calculus. These Berkeley students had the talent, and academic
preparation; high SAT scores, strong high school GPAs and 4 years of high school
mathematics, but their study patterns were not conducive to success in college
mathematics. The study patterns and behaviors they had developed in high school
could not translate to high marks in college calculus. Minority students often
misunderstand the role and purpose of academic and personal support services
provided by their institution (Cleweil, 1989). Minority students are less familiar with
the methods of operations within their university-its norms, demands, and
requirements.
The scant supply of engineering faculty and professional engineers of color
leaves young minority students without role models. In 1997, the U.S. science and
engineering labor force is 83.6% White, 9.9% Asian, 3.2% African American, 2.9%
Latino, and less than 1% Native American (National Science Foundation, SESTAT).
The number of Fh.Ds awarded in engineering in the 1999-2000 was 5,929. The
gender and ethnic breakdown of the 5,929 Ph.D.s is as follows: 84% male and 16%
female, 1% African American male and .05% African American female, 1% Latino
and .02% Latina, and .01% Native American male and .01% Native American
female (Engineering Workforce Commission of the American Association of
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Engineering Societies, inc. 2000), Ironically, foreign nationals receive for more
Ph.Ds in engineering from universities within the U.S. than ethnic minorities. In
2002, foreign nationals were awarded over 50% of the engineering Ph.D.s: 43% male
and 7% female (American Society of Engineering Education Statistics). Without
improving the percentage of minority Ph.D.s, in engineering, the goal of providing
more role models in engineering departments will, be difficult to fulfill.
According to May and Chubin (2003) minority engineering students are less
likely to interact with faculty than non-minority students. This poses a serious
barrier, since faculty-student interactions is one of the most significant factors
affecting student retention. Minority students also report that: they do not receive the
same benefits as non-minority students when they interact with professors. A study
of graduate students at UC Berkeley found that four of nine white students felt the
faculty interaction had inspired them to excel academically, while only one in nine
minority students reported such experiences (May and Chubin, 2003).
To increase the percentage of first-year engineering student from 15% to
30% will require several major improvements in the Kindergarten through 12t h
grades including: improving underrepresented students knowledge of how to prepare
for an engineering degree, increasing minority students’ mathematic abilities,
increasing teachers’ and counselors’ expectation of minority students, and providing
trained science and mathematics teachers to all students. At the undergraduate level
in order to improve the retention rates of underrepresented students from 28% to
43%, the MEP Directors must analyze the reasons for low retention rates within the
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
underrepresented community. The programs design must compensate for factors
affecting the underrepresented community including; the lack of role models within
an engineering department for minority students; low expectations by professors;
inadequate preparation by high schools; and unfamiliarity with the culture and norms
of an engineering department.
The Development of Model Programs for Improving Retention
The retention rate statistics have been a concent of higher education
institutions for three decades. The major contributors to the development of models
to improve student attrition include: Vincent Tinto, Alexander Astin, George D. Kuh,
Patrick G. Love, John M. Braxton, Raymond Landis and Philip Uri Treisman. The
focus of the literature includes students’ academic and social integration in general
and students’ affective-behaviors (leadership, choice of major, choice of career, and
use of leisure time) in particular.
Vincent Tinto (1982, 1987) formulated a student integration theory of
persistence based on the relationships between students and institutions. Tinto
believes that retention involves two commitments on the part of the student (Tinto,
1987). The first is the student’s commitment to the goal of obtaining a college
degree. The second is the student’s commitment to the institution he or she is
attending. Tinto’s research has shown it is the strength of the match between
student’s motivation and academic ability and the institution’s social and academic
characteristics that determines the probability of the student finishing at the college.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tinto (1987) has two major categories for the matches between the student
and the institution. His categories are the student’s degree of academic integration
and the student’s degree of social integration. The degree of academic integration is
defined as the match between the student’s academic goals and the institution’s
academic program. The student’s degree of social integration is the degree to which
the student fits or meshes with the school’s social and institutional framework
(Wetzel, O ’Toole, & Peterson, 1999).
In his article, Limits to Theory and Practice in Student Attrition, Tinto (1982)
states:
As to the causes of leaving, evidence continues to mount that students’
decisions to withdraw are significantly affected by the degree of their
intellectual and social integration into the life of the institution. And of
the various factors which appear to influence those forms of integration,
informal interaction with other students and with the faculty outside the
classroom seem to be particularly important. Simply put, the more time
faculty give to their students, and students to each other, the more likely
are students to complete their education (p. 697).
Alexander Astin examined the effects of college attendance on cognitive and
affective development in What Matters in College? (1993a). His research finds that
several factors have a positive effect on student retention. Astin states that student
involvement is essential to retention. Student involvement includes hours per week
spent studying or doing homework, time spent participating in college internship
programs, and doing independent research project and participation in student
organizations. Astin’s findings also showed a correlation between student’s place of
residence and retention rates. Another factor that Astin addresses is student-faculty
interaction.. He found that there are different forms of interactions, informal and
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
formal and that contact between students and their professors is tied to retention
rates. Lastly, Astin discusses peer group interaction; academic interaction in .
cooperative learning groups and social interactions and their effect on retention rates.
Astin (1985) feels that there is a critical connection between quality of a learning
environment and the level of student involvement. An excellent learning
environment, according to Astin, includes a high level of student involvement. The
five measurements Astin uses for testing involvement includes: amount of energy
devoted to studying; amount of time spent on campus; amount of participation in
student organizations; amount of interaction with faculty; and amount of interaction
with other students.
The number of hours spent studying is positively related to nearly all academic
outcomes: retention, graduation with honors, enrollment in graduate school, and self-
reported increases in cognitive and affective skills (Astin, 1993a). Participation in a
college internship program has its strongest effect on self-reported growth in job
skills. It also produced positive correlations with college GPA, the likelihood of
graduating with honors, and completion of the bachelor’s degree.
Working on an independent research project has its strongest positive correlation
with attainment of the bachelor’s degree, commitment to the goal of making a
theoretical contribution to science, and self-reported growth in preparation for
graduate or professional school (Astin. 1993a).
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The three effects that arc directly attributable to living in a campus residence hall
are positive effects on attainment of the bachelor’s degree, satisfaction with 'faculty,
and the willingness to re-enroll in the same college (Astin, 1993a).
Astin (1993a) showed similar results to those of Tinto (1992) on students-faculty
interaction and their effects on retention rates. Such interactions include formal
classroom behavior, and informal contacts outside of the classroom. Astin found that
student-faculty interaction has a strong correlation with every academic attainment
outcome: college GPA, degree attainment, graduation with honors, and enrollment in
graduate or professional school. Additionally, student-faculty interaction has a
positive effect on behavioral outcomes including being elected to a student office,
and career outcomes including career choices and major field choices in all of the
fields of science.
The data Astin (1993a) collected during his research for What Matters in
College, clearly underscore the importance of the peer group. The power of the peer
group offers a possible explanation for the data from classroom research showing
that cooperative learning approaches produce outcomes that are superior to those
obtained through traditional competitive methods of pedagogy.
Astin (1993a) also discussed certain practices students should avoid during
college in order to reduce the possibility of dropping out.
There are also certain identifiable practices that seem to have negative impacts
on students’ cognitive and affective development practices: watching television
taking multiple-choice exams, working full-time, working off campus, and
commuting. Discouraging or minimizing such activities will not only enhance
learning but also reduce the dropout rate. Once again, all of these findings
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reinforce the critical role of student ‘'■involvement'’ in the college
expcrience(p,424).
Each organization has a culture. Bolrnan and Deal (1997) discuss the
symbolic frame of organizations in Reframing Organizations,
Symbols embody and express an organization’s culture-the interwoven
patterns of beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that define for members
who they are arid how they are to do things. Culture is both a product and
a process. As a product, it embodies accumulated wisdom from those
who came before us. As a process, it: is continually renewed and
re-created as newcomers learn the old ways and eventually become teachers
themselves (p. 217).
Universities too have defined cultures and students will find themselves embedded
within that culture. Learning how to navigate within the different cultures of their
institution is part of college life.
Kuh and Love (2000) use a cultural perspective to examine student departure.
The authors provide an explanation of student willingness to commit to or departure
from college through sociocultural lenses.
That is, while decisions to voluntarily leave institutions are made by
individuals, such decisions are also shaped by cultural forces. Some of these
forces are inextricably linked to previous experiences with families,
neighborhoods, ethnic and racial groups, social classes, churches,
and schools and in anticipation of groups and organizations that individuals
hope to join, such as institutions, major fields, social clubs or organizations,
and social-oriented affinity groups (p. 199).
According to the authors, there are eight cultural propositions that are
consistent with research on college student persistence. To summarize their
propositions, students will make meaning or interpret the world around them through
their values, assumptions, and beliefs about what they expect from college. If a
student’s actual college experience is incongruous to his/her assumptions about
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
college, the student may depart. Student persistence is correlated to the value of a
college education within their culture and family. This proposition is consistent with
Seymour’s (1995) findings that females are more likely to depart: from engineering
because it is more sociocultuaily acceptable for them to depart than males who have
more sociocultural ties binding them in engineering. How much cultural capital a
student brings with them to college will reflect their abilities to make consistent
meaning of the college experience. If a student is lacking cultural capital their
abilities to negotiate the cultural space of college and what it takes to succeed will be
compromised.
The fifth proposition strikes to the heart of this study stating the following:
students who traverse a long cultural distance must become acclimated to dominant
cultures of immersion or join one or more enclaves (Kuh & Love 2000). A person’s
willingness and ability to leave one cultural setting may be necessary conditions for
subsequent persistence in another cultural setting.
Another way to negotiate cultural distance is to join a group
or subculture that values, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions that are
congenial with, one’s culture of origin. This can effectively reduce the
cultural distance a student must travel and make navigating the institutional
culture on a daily basis less intimidating. We call these groups cultural
enclaves (p.205).
Students can benefit from enclaves because they can “scale down” the
institution and help students acquire the skills necessary to negotiate the social,
physical, and cognitive landscape of the campus.
Kuh and Love’s (2000) address the importance of a student’s development of
a cultural connection. Their findings address student’s sense of membership or
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
affiliation with others in the institution, '['he sense of belonging to one or multiple
groups includes shared values, assumptions, perspectives, beliefs, and meaning-
making systems related to negotiating the cultural spheres of the institution and its
components. Cultural connections may translate to a sense of belonging to the
institution as a whole but ultimately is mediated through students’ interpersonal
interactions with faculty, peers, and others (Kuh & Love, 2000).
Development Models and Minority Engineering Program Design
Of the 287 universities in the United States with accredited undergraduate
engineering programs, fewer than 100 have established formal programs designed to
improve the academic performance and retention of minority students. Raymond
Landis, the former Dean of the School of Engineering and Technology at California
State University, Los Angeles, has written extensively on enhancing engineering
student success through Minority Engineering Programs. In 1991, Landis wrote
Retention by Design: Achieving Excellence in Minority Engineering Education, to
inform deans, staff and faculty members how to implement a minority engineering
program. Each minority engineering program is supported through the universities,
and/or private and public funding. MEPs are either part of the Academic Sector or
Student Services Sector of the university. They may have a full-time director or a
professor or administrator dedicating a percentage of time toward the program.
Among faculty, individuals who show a commitment to undergraduate education and
ethnic diversity are also selected to assist in recruiting underrepresented minority
students in science and engineering academic disciplines (Tobias, 1992).
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Landis (1991) describes a MEP as ineffective when, the program only follows
a student service delivery model. This model includes providing services including
tutoring, counseling, and advising. The counseling services would include
scholarship, internship, and career counseling. The advising would include
overseeing student organizations. An ineffective program does not involve
engineering faculty. Engineering faculty and administrators typically maintain a
polite distance from these programs because they feel that the staff director knows
better how to meet the needs of minority students (Landis, 1991).
Landis believes that a student service approach does not deliver enough
overall impact.
The ineffectiveness of programs that focus primarily on delivering services
to their students is exacerbated by the fact that many of the services
offered require student initiative. As a result, there is a strong tendency
for the students who need the services the least to get them the most;
whereas the students who need the services the most, get them the least (p,7).
Another concern Landis has for the service delivery approach is that it ignores
the most significant barriers to minority students’ success in engineering study in
predominantly white institutions. According to Landis, these barriers include the
diminished quality of the learning environment resulting from, ethnic isolation, lack
of peer support, lack of role models, and low faculty expectations.
An effective action approach seeks to improve academic performance and
graduation rates by removing or reducing barriers faced by minority engineering
students. The structure of an effective action, model is as follows; academic advising
and registration systems that will cluster students in. common sections of their key
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
classes; a freshman orientation course to build community and teach academic
survival skills; a student: study center; and Academic Excellence Workshops.
Research supports collaborative learning groups effectiveness on improving the
educational environment Astin (1993a) and Tinto (1987), Collaborative learning
groups can include learning communities, peer mentoring, and cooperative learning
approaches. A learning community is a cluster of students with similar majors who
are scheduled into the same courses during the semester. The benefits of arranging a
learning community include strong peer support, improved socialization between
students, improved academic performance, improved retention, enhanced student
satisfaction with the learning experience, improved oral communication skills, and
higher student self-esteem (Landis, 1991).
A freshman orientation course to build a sense of community and teach
academic survival skills is part of an effective MEP. According to Landis, this course
should be a 1 unit mandatory course. The course is designed to enhance student
success by addressing five primary themes: community building; professional
development; academic success strategies; personal development; and orientation to
the university and the engineering program. The course curriculum includes goal
setting, strengthening your commitment to engineering, keys to success in
engineering, employment models, engineering as a career, and the future of the
engineerin g profession.
A major focus of the freshmen orientation course is community building.
This process of shifting students’ perspectives from being ‘individual-
centered’ to being ‘group-centered’ and from being in competition with each
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other to providing cooperation and mutual support is extremely important.
Not only will this shift enhance their effectiveness as engineering students
but also as engineering professionals (p. 10).
The academic survival skills include time management, time on task,
mastering the material, and efficiently preparing for and taking tests. Students need
to realize that learning is a reinforcement proeess-that we learn by many exposures to
concepts over a long period of time, not by cramming for tests at the last minute
(Landis, 1991). The course should emphasis to students that their study time is very
important and when they negotiate it away they are borrowing time from the future.
An engineering college can further improve the educational environment for
minority students by establishing an MEP student study center, it is a benefit to the
students by promoting collaborative learning. The center provides a place for
students to study alone or in-groups, attend student group meetings, communicate
about upcoming events and plan activities. The study center has the additional
benefit of sending signals that minority students are accepted and valued by the
institution (Landis, 1991),
Academic excellence workshops (AEW) are designed to improve student
achievement. The typical workshop involves six to twelve students who are enrolled
in an introductory mathematics or general chemistry course. One or two
upperclassmen experienced in the subject matter facilitate the workshops. Students
are given supplemental exercises in mathematics or chemistry and work in
collaborative, study groups to solve the problems. The goals of the workshops are to
have students develop group study skills, increase content knowledge, and increase
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
peer interaction among the science and engineering students. The program structure
is modeled after work done by Triesman at University of California, Berkeley,
Although Landis (1991) stresses the need for building students into a
supportive community, he does not dismiss the importance of MEPs delivering
individual services to their students. He recognizes the importance of helping
students to find scholarships, summer internships, and personal counseling reinforces
the research findings of Astin (1993) and the positive effects these services have on
retention,
Treisman has conducted research on the study habits of African American
students studying calculus in college. Treisman 5 s (1992) study compared the
behaviors of African American students and Asian students.
What did ‘studying math’ mean for the Black and Chinese students? For the
Black Students it meant th is : you wake up. You go to class. You take notes.
You get your homework assignment. You go home. You do your homework
religiously and hand in every assignment on time. You put in six or eight
hours a week of studying for a calculus course, just what your teacher says,
and what happens to you? You fail (Treisman, 1992, p.366).
Treisman found that the African American students typically worked alone.
Conversely, the Asian students spent much of their time studying in-groups.
What about the Chinese students? They studied calculus for about 14 hours a
week. They would put in 8 to 10 hours working alone. In the evenings, they
would get together. They might make a meal together and then sit and eat or
go over the homework assignment. They would check each, others’ answers
and each others’ English. (Treisman, 1992, p. 366).
In response to the results of the study, Treisman began to offer an intensive
workshop course known as the Mathematics Workshop Program (MWP), as an
adjunct to the regular calculus course. The workshops provided students with a
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
challenging, yet emotionally supportive academic environment: (Treisman, 1992).
Although mathematical, insight may be derived from many sources, the most
dramatic advantages of working in groups were observed in the ways group
members corrected misperceptions or errors in their strategies for working problems
(Fuliilove & Treisman, 1990). There is a correlation between participation in an
MWP and persistence and graduation. The proportion of MWP students starting as
freshmen in 1978 who had earned degrees or who were still enrolled in mathematics-
based majors by the spring of 1985 semester was 65 percent. The comparable rate
among non-MWP students who entered the university during this period was 41
percent, and the rate among African American students who entered the university in
1973 was 39 percent.
Peer interactions within MEPs will include minority engineering professional
organizations, peer-mentoring, attendance of MEP events, and tutoring and academic
excellence workshops. The minority engineering professional organizations play a
critical role in engineering departments. The National Society of Black Engineers
(NSBE), Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), Mexican American
Engineers and Scientists (MAES), and the Society of Women Engineers (SWE)
provide students an avenue to increase peer relationships, develop leadership skills,
and network with engineering professionals at regional and national conferences.
These organizations produce periodicals that provide students with information about
scholarships, careers in engineering, minority engineering student campus leaders,
internship opportunities, and outstanding minority professional engineers,
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to McNairy (1996) students of color require members of the
academic community who validate their presence, are sensitive to their needs, and
take appropriate actions to assist them. McNairy (1996) also states that an increasing
body o f research reveals that if students have just one significant individual on
campus with whom they can interact, the potential for their persistence is enhanced.
The importance of a mentor within the engineering community cannot be
understated.
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) did a major study on the unsupportive culture of
science and engineering departments. According to their study, students identified a
number of needs which they seek to meet by approaching faculty and other advisors:
advice on academic and career alternatives and how best to pursue them; accurate
information on required courses and appropriate sequencing in order to fulfill
particular degree requirements; help in understanding the academic material
presented in particular classes; practical help or advice with problems that impinge
on academic performance-especially problems with finances, employment, time
conflicts, health and other personal matters; and someone to take a personal interest
in them progress, problems, and overall career direction (p. 134).
The failure to find adequate advice, counseling, or tutorial help was cited as
contributing to one-quarter of all students who switched out of SME (science,
mathematics and engineering) majors. The lack of adequate advice was also a source
of frustration by half of the SME population from the Seymour and Hewitt study
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1997). This issue was the second most commonly cited concern for SME majors
after poor teaching by SME faculty (74%).
One of the most difficult problems for freshmen is to learn how the campus
system o f advising, counseling and tutoring services works quickly enough in order
to prevent small problems from becoming larger ones (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997):
Everything deterred me from going on. I was feeling like there was nobody
I could go talk to ... I thought, “Well, I’d better switch now. I don’t want
to end up a year down the road still in this major when it’s not going to
work out.’ If I had had a good counselor who understood, and who could
have made sortie suggestions, 1 would probably not have dropped out of
aerospace. I could have taken the classes I’m taking right now, and decided
later. I felt like Fd wasted a semester, but didn’t : know what else to do. If I’d
had a wood counselor, I know I could have got it all straight in my mind
(p. 134).
The results from the Seymour and Hewitt (1997) study showed what students
wanted from advisors, above all else, was personal attention:
What you actually want is to spend some time with an advisor who takes
the time to know you personally, understand where you’re trying to go
and advise what you need to do to get there.
I was thinking, ‘genetic engineering,’ and he was a biological statistician.
But he was a nice man. I remember him saying, ‘Well, tell me something
about yourself.’ He was the only advisor that ever really spent more than
five minutes with me. (p 141),
There are occasions for faculty members to work with the MEP Office:
attending faculty/student lunches, acting as a guest speaker for workshops, traveling
with students to conferences, and acting as an advisor for a minority professional
engineering organizations; NSBE, SHPE, MAES, or SWE. The minority engineering
organization advisors provide advice on how to coordinate student trips to
conferences, fundraise and plan special events. Often the advisors are the minority
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
faculty members within the department. They are often the most familiar having had
past and/or current; affiliation with the organization.
Granting agencies and university funds are used to finance add-on programs
established for underrepresented students in STEM majors. Often minority
engineering program directors work with the university relations department on their
campus to secure funding from outside the university. Universities have acquired
federal grants, state appropriated funds, financial gifts from industry, as well as
grants from private organizations in order to operate their minority student program
initiatives in science and engineering (Tobias 1992). The funding is used to defray
the costs of summer bridge programs, Academic Excellence Workshops, travel and
housing to attend conf erences, food costs for events, and pre-college programs. The
shared costs of running a Program to the university are the salary of the director, and
support staff, and necessary office space.
Summary
The goal of the MEP Office is to provide support to a community that has
historically faced added challenges due to ethnicity and gender. These challenges
include having to overcome barriers such as lack of role models, ethnic and gender
isolation, and low expectations by faculty. The strength of an MEP is its programs
and initiatives that connect the students to the University in general and the School
of Engineering in particular. Research cited indicates that students who are
academically and socially integrated within the University persist through graduation
(Astin, 1993a and Tinto, 1987). The literature examined for this study underline the
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
theories behind the design of minority engineering programs. The work ofTinto,
Astin, Kuh, Love, Landis, Seymour, and Treisman provide the foundation for the
development of effective minority engineering programs. Their key findings involve
student integration and affective behavior.
An effective MEP Office integrates students by providing the following
services: academic support services; personal counseling and social networking;
career counseling and professional development. Academic support services involve
tutoring programs or Academic Excellence Workshops, academic guidance,
academic survival skills workshops, Summer Bridge Programs, and a Freshmen
Orientation to Engineering Course.
Personal counseling includes helping students with roommate problems,
family issues, stress management, financial aid concerns and confidence building.
Social networking helps develop a supportive class. Peer interaction is positively
correlated to increased retention. Faculty/student interactions, formal and informal,
strengthen students’ commitment to an institution. The MEP Office develops a
cultural enclave for students who are less familiar with the nuances of a university
environment. Many underrepresented engineering students are facing the challenge
of familiarizing themselves with two separate cultures: one being the culture of the
four-year institution and the other, the culture of the engineering department. The
task of acclimatizing to two separate cultures simultaneously in order to achieve
success academically, socially and emotionally can prove to be overwhelming for
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. The MEP Oifiee can act as a bridge for the students who participate,
helping them navigate through the institutional and departmental cultures.
The career counseling and professional development increase students’
understanding of the field of engineering. Most students know very little about
engineering and have a difficult time relating the introductory courses such as
physics and calculus to their future as an engineer. Providing information about
engineering will motivate students and help develop a commitment to the degree.
Internships and research experiences increase knowledge, skills and abilities in topic
areas and provide hands-on experiences.
The three minority engineering programs will he evaluated on their ability to
increase academic and social integration of underrepresented students. The research
will use the Landis Model of an effective MEP. Whether or not the MEP provides a
cultural enclave will also be examined. Students who do not participate in the
programs will be examined including the impacts of nonparticipation on students’
academic and social integration.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The research method selected for this study is a qualitative case study. The
characteristics of a case study include an intensive, holistic description and analysis
of a single unit or bounded system (Merriam, 1998).
The first research question for the study addressed the mechanics of an
organization. How are minority engineering programs designed and implemented
within the targeted institutions? The purpose of the first question in this case study
was to produce detailed descriptions of each of the three minority engineering
programs being studied. During this case study the researcher provided thick
description of the phenomenon. Special consideration in analysis of data will be
taken to establish themes.
The second research question examined the behavior of some
underrepresented minority and female students. Why do some underrepresented
minority and female freshman and sophomore engineering students decide not to
participate in the minority engineering program on their campuses? The purpose of
the second question in this case study aimed to provide explanations for the
phenomenon of freshman and sophomore students nonparticipation in the minority
engineering program on their campuses.
The research methods included began with qualitative data and utilized
quantitative data as follow-up to interpret the qualitative data. The research
techniques used to collect data with respect to the research problem included
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
surveys, interviews, observations, and review of documents, In a case study the
primary research method is observation. The study focused on the values, norms,
symbols, and celebrations of the organizations along with their individual structures
and operational behaviors.
Sample
The subjects for the first question of this study were the University of
California, Irvine (UC1), California State University, Northridge (CSUN), and
University of Southern California’s (USC). The organizations to be studied include
UCTs Center for Opportunities and Diversity in Engineering (CODE), CSUN’s
College of Engineering and Computer Science Student Development and Equity
Center (SDEC) and the USC’s Center for Engineering Diversity (CED). These
institutions were selected because they represent the different forms of public and.
private higher education that are available to high school graduates in Southern
California. California provides two separate four-year public systems: California
State University system and the University of California system. The key informants
at the different institutions of this study will include program directors, students,
administrators, and faculty.
The subjects for the second question of this study were underrepresented
minority and female freshman and sophomore engineering students. These students
were selected for two reasons: they qualify for minority engineering programs and
freshman and sophomores have the highest attrition rates in most universities.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W omen and underrepresented minorities students (African American, Latino,
and Native American) have low retention rates within engineering majors.
Underrepresented minorities have a 37% national retention rate and females have a
46% national retention rate. In comparison, the overall retention rate for engineering
majors is 68% (NACME, 2003 & Society of Women Engineers, 2003).
Freshman and sophomore students were selected because they have the
greatest attrition rate among collegiate students who have chosen STEM majors
(Gainen, 1995). According to Smith (2001), the transfer and dropout rates for STEM
majors in the 1993-1999 cohorts were: 31% in the first year, 16 % in the second
year, and 12 % in the third and subsequent years, Among students of color, the
attrition rate is higher than any other group (p. 5).
Design of the Study
The purposes of research include exploration, explanation, description, and
prediction. There are different methods of research that may be utilized. There are
two major research perspectives: quantitative and qualitative, The quantitative
perspective derives from a positivist epistemology, which holds that there is an
objective reality that can be expressed numerically. The quantitative perspective
emphasizes studies that are experimental in nature, emphasize measurement, and
search for relationships (Glatfhorn, 1998), A qualitative perspective emphasizes a
phenomenological view in which reality inheres in the perceptions of individuals.
Studies deriving from this perspective focus on meaning and understanding, taking
place in naturally occurring situations (McMillan, 1996).
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research methods techniques used to collect data with respect to the
research problem included surveys, interviews, and review of documents. Freshman
and sophomore engineering students were asked respond to surveys given during the
beginning of an engineering course. Each student was asked to voluntarily provide
an e-mail address on the survey 'form in order to respond to a personal interview.
Faculty, engineering administrators, and minority engineering program directors
were personally interviewed. Documents examined included institutional
demographic data, catalogs, brochures, and web sites.
The five characteristics of qualitative research are (I) it investigates patterns
of meaning in human experience, (2) the researcher is the primary instrument for
data collection and analysis, (3) it usually involves fieldwork of some kind, (4) it
involves inductive research strategies, and (5) the final product of qualitative
research is richly descriptive (Merriam, 1998).
The research method chosen for this study is a qualitative case study. The
characteristics of a case study include an intensive, holistic description and analysis
of a single unit or bounded system (Merriam, 1998). A case study may combine
other types of qualitative research methods including basic or generic research,
ethnographic research, phenomenological research and grounded theory. The
research will begin with the primary qualitative data. Quantitative data will be
utilized as follow-up to interpret the qualitative data.
The first research question concerned the design and implementation of the
minority engineering program, The collecting of data involved interviewing the
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
program directors and administrative staff of tire engineering departments, and
examining of web sites, brochures and catalogues. There were three site visits made
to each o f the institutions. Directors were extensively interviewed and observed
working with students. A tour of the MEP Office and facilities associated with the
MEP Office were also conducted.
The interview questions for the key informants addressed program design and
implementation. The key informant interviews provided information about; the
rationale of the program design. The observation of the program design included
institutional commitment to the minority engineering program, focus on the removal
of barriers to student success, involvement of the corporate community, freshmen
orientation course, peer interactions, summer bridge programs, and the special
attention to early academic and social integration of freshmen.
The methods of data collection for the second question included surveys and
interviews. Lower division engineering programs were selected from the course
catalogue of each of the sample institutions. The times, locations, and professors
teaching the lower division engineering courses were identified by searching the fall
2002 and spring 2003 course lists. Professors were contacted by phone to set up a
time to administer the surveys to their students. Seventy-five percent of the
professors telephoned responded positively and allowed their students to be
surveyed. Students from eighteen lower-division engineering courses were surveyed:
8 from USC, 6 from CSUN and 4 from UCI.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The surveys were given during the first ten minutes of the classes. The
students were allowed to decline from taking the survey. Most students cooperated
and filled out the surveys. Five hundred and nine total surveys were completed.
The survey questions addressed the following: past participation in academic
enrichment activities in high school; students current participation in campus
organizations, including the MEP; knowledge of availability of campus academic
and social resources; activities that students find most beneficial; and list of reasons
for nonparticipation.
The 509 respondents were broken up into four different groups;
qualifier/participant, qualifier/nonparticipant, nonqualifier/participant and
nonqualifier/nonparticipant. A qualifier was an underrepresented minority (African
American, Latino, Native American, or Asian Pacific Islander) or female freshman
or sophomore student. A nonqualifier was a represented engineering student such as
a white or Asian male and/or junior or senior or underrepresented junior or senior.
The underrepresented student was classified as a nonparticipant if he/she had not
registered for the MEP, had little to no contact with the MEP Director over the past
several months, and had participated in two or less events sponsored by the MEP
Office over the past several months prior to the survey. Using this categorical
method, of the 509 respondents, 132 were qualifier/nonparticipant freshman and
sophomore engineering students(48 from USC, 37 from CSUN, and 47 from U O ).
The survey included a section for students to provide an e-mail address
and/or phone number. Students were asked if they would be willing to respond to
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
further interview questions. Of the 132 qualifier/nonpartieipants, 86 agreed to an
interview (34 from IJSC, 30 from CSUN, and 22 from UCI). The interview questions
examined many issues including; the student’s reasons for non-participation; the
student’s current knowledge about the MEP on their campus; whether or not they
have friends who participate in the MEP; the amount of time they would dedicate
toward academic, social, and/or professional development each month, their feelings
about if belonging to a professional engineering organization is beneficial: and do
they feel their professors could advertise the different programs on campus more. A
summary of results will appear in the Appendix section of this dissertation.
Engineering Department professors and administrators from the three
universities were interviewed about the Minority Engineering Program on their
campuses. The phone numbers and web addresses were located on the institutions
web sites. The professors were selected from a variety of engineering majors offered
by the institution. Only professors who worked closely with undergraduates were
interviewed. Interview questions included whether or not professors advise their
students to utilize the MEP in the Engineering Department; what they feel are the
benefits of the MEP; if professors in the department appreciate the MEP Office; and
feelings about the professors role in providing students with information and
advisement about utilizing enrichment programs on campus and/or professional
engineering organizations to participate in. The survey and interview results were
gathered and analyzed along with the other documents.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This study will contribute to the development of theory on the nature and
design of minority engineering programs. It will also generate new theory on the
patterns of beha vior of underrepresented freshmen and sophomore engineering
students. Appendix D of this study will provide an example of a Model Minority
Engineering Program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter is divided into three sections. Each section includes the data and
findings from one of the three universities chosen for this study: University of
Southern California (USC), University of California, Irvine (UCI), and California
State University, Northridge (CSUN). The data and findings are from surveys and
interviews from students, faculty members and administrators, There are two parts to
each section: Part I: Description of the Minority Engineering Program (MEP) and
Part II: Results of Surveys and Interviews Regarding Qualifiers Nonparticipation.
The data from Part I was collected through interviews, observations, and
written text such as catalogues and brochures. The data from Part II consisted of 509
surveys filled out by students from the three institutions being studied. Of these
surveys only a select group was examined for this dissertation. The study group
included students who qualify for the Minority Engineering Program but do not
participate. A qualifying student for this study was an underrepresented minority
(African American, Latino, Native American, Asian Pacific Islander, or female)
freshman or sophomore student in an engineering field. The underrepresented
student was classified as a nonparticipant if he/she had not registered for the MEP,
had little to no contact with the MEP Director, and had participated in two or less
events sponsored by the MEP Office over the past several month prior to the survey.
Using this categorical method, of the 509 responses, 133 were
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
qualifier/nonparticipant freshman and sophomore engineering students. Ail data
results will be summarized within three ease studies found in Appendix A, B and C.
Students were classified as qualifier/participants if they were an
underrepresented minority or female engineering students who had registered with
the MEP Office, visited the director two or more times over the past few months
prior to the survey and were active in more than two events sponsored through the
MEP Office during the fall of 2002 and/or spring 2003 semesters.
Table 3: Demographics of the Institutions Selected for this Study 2002
u s e UCI CSUN
Engineering Depart. Population 1,850 2 ,1 0 0 1,700
URM Engineering Population 294 249
474
Total Engineering Population Surveyed 189 199 121
Engineering Qualifier/participants 22 18 10
Engineering Qualifier/nonparticipants 48 47 37
University of Southern California’s Center for Engineering Diversity
Program Description/USC
The Center for Engineering Diversity (CED) is dedicated to promoting
scholastic and personal excellence among underrepresented (African American,
Hispanic and Native American) students in the School of Engineering. CED provides
a wide range of services that foster the development of a community of scholars
while preparing students for an engineering career arid/or graduate school. CED
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
offers academic and career counseling, academic and professional development
workshops, industry networking opportunities, scholarships, a Summer Bridge
Program and a 24-hour a day Study Center.
Academic Support Efforts
The academic support efforts of University of Southern California’s Center
for Engineering Diversity (CED) include academic counseling, a Summer Bridge
Program, tutoring, study center, Academic Success Workshops and graduate school
counseling. CED staff is available for academic counseling including developing a
plan of study, and providing information about tutoring support on campus. The
Summer Bridge Program (SBP) is a two-week residential summer program for
underrepresented minority engineering students, SBP provides entering freshmen
with academic enrichment in gatekeeper courses: physics, calculus and computer
science. The courses are taught by USC Professors. The Student Center is a location
for students to meet and study in groups. Academic Success Workshops (ASW) are
student facilitated academic enrichment sessions. The ASW’s are designed to help
students learn how to study in cooperative groups and help students develop a
support networks within the engineering community. CED provides and information
and sponsors workshops about how to apply to graduate school, and fund graduate
school.
Personal Counseling and Social Networking
CED provides personal counseling and social networking for students.
Students may visit CED for personal counseling to help cope with family, individual,
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and financial problems that can interfere with academic achievement. The Study
Center gives students access to computers, copy machine, and a meeting location for
collaborative study groups or social meetings, CED works closely with minority
engineering professional organizations: National Society of Black Engineers
(NSBE), Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and The Society of Hispanic
Professional. Engineers (SHPE). Together, CED and these organizations plan events
that foster community within the School of Engineering.
Career Counseling and Professional Development
Career counseling and professional development offered by CED includes
career exploration and guidance, career workshops, an Industry Advisory Board,
internship information, job opportunity information, resume writing, and raock
interviews. CED has several events throughout the year with corporations to inform
students about the field of engineering. During SBP students are introduced to
engineering career possibilities during field trips and panel discussions by
professional engineers, CED helps students with internship and job applications.
Students may attend resume writing workshops and mock interviews. Each spring
CED supports the Engineering Career Expo. The Advisory Board helps CED with
workshop support, industry tours, and a channel for students to develop career
networks.
Survey Data
The surveys were administered to eight lower-division engineering courses:
Introduction to Digital Logic, Material Science Laboratory, Introduction to
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Computer Methods in Civil Engineering, and Introduction to Digital Circuits. There
were 189 total surveys given to University of Southern California Undergraduate
Engineering Students. Of the 189 students surveyed, 169 were freshmen or
sophomores. Of these 103 were considered nonqualifiers: 99 were White male or
Asian male freshmen or sophomores and 4 were White male or Asian male juniors or
seniors. Sixteen other students were not included in the study because although they
were underrepresented minorities, they were juniors.
The results of this study from USC examined 70 students who fell into two
categories: qualifier/participant freshman or sophomore and qualifier/nonparticipant
freshman or sophomore. From the surveys given to USC students, 22 students were
qualifiers/participants (31%) and 48 (69%) students were qualifiers/nonparticipants.
The research group for USC was composed of 31 freshmen and 17 sophomores.
A qualifying/participant was an underrepresented engineering student who
had registered for the Center, had visited the CED Office two or more times during
the semester the survey was administered and was active in more than two events
sponsored through the Center during the fall 2002 or spring 2003 semesters. A
qualifier/nonparticipant was an underrepresented engineering student who had not
registered with CED, had little to no contact with the CED Director during the
semester the survey was administered and had attended two or less events during the
fall 2002 or spring 2003 semester.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4: Survey Responses from USC Qualifier/nonparticipants... (N-48)
Have you registered to be a member
of CED?
Did you receive e-mail from the
CED Office over the past few months?
How often have you gone to speak with the
CED Program Director
over the past several months?
The number of events you attended
over the past se veral months sponsored by the
CED. _ _ _
The major research group for this study was the qualifier/nonparticipants.
The demographic makeup of this group consisted of 31 freshmen and 17
sophomores. The gender and ethnic demographics are found in table 5.
Table 5: Demographic Makeup of the 48 Oualifiers/nonparticipants at USC
Male Female
African American 4 (8%) 1 (2%)
Caucasian 0 (0%) 12(25%)
Latino 4 (8%) 2 (4%)
Asian Pacific Islander 7 (14%) 6 (12%)
Asian 0 (0%) 11 (23%)
Other 0 {()%) 1 (4%)
56
Yes No
6% 94%
Yes No Unsure
13% 81% 6%
2 or more 1 time 0
times
2% 6% 92%
2 events 1 event 0
6% 30% 64%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The qualifier/nonparticipants gave different reasons for not participating in
events sponsored by CED. The major reasons included being unaware of the event,
not knowing anyone who would be at the event, and timing. The students felt the
events are not at a convenient time or conflicted with their work schedules. Twenty-
one percent of the students felt that their professors not showing any interest in their
attending impacted their decisions. Whether extra credit was offered for attending an
event also influenced student attendance.
Table 6: The Different Reasons Students Chose for Nonparticipation in Events
isored through the CED _ ....._ ....................... _ ..._ ... ...N= 48
Number Cl
Unaware of the event 43
Live off campus and commute 3
Did not know anyone who would be at the event 20
%
90%
6%
42%
The event was not at a convenient time
Time conflicted with work schedule
13
7
27%
15%
Was not interested in the event 13 27%
Did not find the event relevant to me 11 23%
Felt the event was repetitious to other events 2%
My professor/professors did not show interest
in us attending
10 21%
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6: continued
There was no extra credit for attending the event 10 2 1 %
The survey also gave students an opportunity to fill in their own responses for
the reasons they did not participate in CED events. There were three students who
filled in responses, “Don’t know what the Center is?” “Not much encouragement,”
“ I didn’t understand what the purpose of various events was, the name doesn’t
explain what the purpose is ..
One of the questions on the survey requested students to rate activities that
they find most beneficial. The students were asked to place a number by each
category; 1 being least and 6 being most. Fifteen students responded to this
question. The results of the question are in Table 7.
Table 7: USC Rating of Activities That Students' Find Most Beneficial ( M least - 6
most)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Academic support
Social events
Building confidence events
Improving skills such as test taking
or essay writing
Increasing knowledge about engineering
as a career/profession
Helping to prepare for my future in
graduate school or as an engineer
0% 13% 0% 13% 30% 46%
20% 0% 27% 20% 20% 13%
13% 20% 30% 20% 6% 6%
27% 6% 27% 13% 27% 0%
6% 21% 6% 27% 27% 6%
13% 6% 13% 20% 27% 20%
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The students’ answers to the question regarding rating the most beneficial
activities showed a strong preference for academic support activities. The students
also felt that events focusing on increasing knowledge about engineering as a
career/profession and helping to prepare for the future would be beneficial. The
engineering students from USC were moderately interested in social events. They
expressed the least amount of interest in building confidence events.
The last section of the survey focused on student participation in engineering
professional organizations: American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE),
American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME), Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE), National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), Society of Hispanic
Professional Engineers (SHPB), Society of Women Engineers (SWE), Tan Beta Pi
(TBP), and The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE). Students
could also fill in other professional organizations they have participated in over the
past year. Astin (1985), states that there is a critical connection between quality of a
learning environment and the level of student involvement. An excellent learning
environment, according to Astin, includes a high level of student involvement. The
five measurements Astin uses for testing involvement includes: amount of energy
devoted to studying; amount of time spent on campus; amount of participation in
student organizations; amount of interaction with faculty; and amount of interaction
with other students.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8: Freshmen and Sophomore Engineering Students Participation in
Engineering Professional Organizations at USC
2 or more 1 0
Qualifier /nonparticipant 4 (8%) 10 (2 1 %) 34 (71 %)
N=48
Qualifier/participant 4(25% ) 5 (31%) 7(44% )
N = i6
Nonqualifier/nonparticipant 0(0% ) 14(14%) 84 (86%)
N~98 _ _
The results of this study show that freshman and sophomore engineering
students from the University of Southern California are not involved in engineering
specific student organizations. Of the 40 qualifier/nonparticipants who responded to
the question asking if they planned to run for an executive board position next year,
only 8 students responded positively.
Interview Data/USC
The interviews given to the students provide further insight into the students’
behavior. Of the 70 qualifiers/nonparticipants and qualifiers/participants freshman
and sophomore students from USC who responded to the survey, 47 agreed to
further interview questions by e-mail. Of the 47 e-mails sent out to the students, 4
could not be delivered, 22 students responded and 21 did not respond. The 21
students who did not respond received one e-mail request to participate in an
interview each week for three weeks. The answered varied but there were patterns
that developed.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The responses to interview questions from the 17 qualifiers/nonparticipants
had sim ilar responses. The themes that developed during the interviews include; lack
of information about CED, misinformation about CED, not having friends who
participate, a willingness to spend time on enrichment programs, a need for the
program to meet the individual needs of each student and a desire to learn more
about programs and events. When asked why they had not joined the Center for
Engineering Diversity (CED) most stated they had no idea the program existed.
Due to the fact that so few of the students knew about CED, the second
interview question asking them what they knew about the center had similar
responses. Most of the students stated that they did not have friends who were
participating in CED
The third and fourth interview question asked about their involvement in
engineering organizations on campus and whether or not the student feels that the
organization are beneficial. The responses of the students indicated that they are very
interested in programs that benefit them academically, socially, and professionally.
The benefits to belonging to a professional engineering organization would
probably be just getting more information about what you want to do, more
job options, and more help getting jobs. I do not belong to one because I
a) don’t know what I want to do, and b) don't have time.
It is probably good to be in engineering professional organizations because
you make good connections with other students and learn a lot of things
about the school of engineering through your interactions. I wish 1 had joined
engineering professional organizations.
I would like to participate in programs that would help my professional
connections for after graduation.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I would like to [participate] because I think it would he helpful, far
networking and getting a job in the future and to get more help now,
however, I just really don’t have the time.
I would like to be immersed in an atmosphere geared toward my interests.
Although, half of the students were concerned about time constraints and
participating in organizations, when asked in question five about how much time you
would dedicate to enrichment programs if you had the time to do so each month, the
students had the following responses:
Table 9: Possible Time Dedicated to Enrichment Each Month/USC N= 1 7
Hours per month # of students ___ % of group
I-5 5 .29%
6-10 9 53%
II-15 2 12%
Unsure 1 6%
Question six in the interview asked what, are the biggest reasons for you not
participating in more enrichment programs on. campus. The students had varying
responses but like question number three, the students had many comments relating
to time constraints, lack of information about the program, and school work load.
I don’t know about them, and no extra time in which to participate in them,,
and events arc often scheduled at times when I am in class or have other
activities.
Not interested, no incentives for joining, don’t know about them.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 am Involved in non-engineering organizations like the Ballroom Dance
Team and the University Residential Student Community (URSC). Plus, I
have some personal goals that I am trying to get in order in my spare time.
The faculty interviews were conducted by telephone and during site visits to the
University of Southern California. Eight individuals were contacted: seven
professors, and one undergraduate student advisor. The respondents were from
several different disciplines including chemical engineering, civil engineering,
electrical engineering and materials engineering. Each of the individuals interviewed
works with undergraduates.
The themes that developed during the faculty interviews include: a select group of
professors within the School of Engineering being familiar with CED, lack of
knowledge of CED and it’s mission and an inability of professors to advise students
to participate in CED due to a lack of knowledge about tire program.
The first interview question requested if the professors advised students to utilize
the Center. The responses were mixed but most of the professors did not advise
students to use the Center. The main reason for not advising the students was that the
professors were not familiar with the Center and could not state the benefits the
Center could offer students.
Three years ago I sent someone to the Center but not recently.
I advise students about the technical aspects of my courses. I do not advise them
on a broader level.
I do not know anything about the Center. I cannot state how it is beneficial.
I never thought 1 should advise students to utilize the Center.
I’m not plugged in on the program.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One of the professors slated that he was worried about the type of advice the
engineering students would receive from the Center. He stated that academic and
career advisement should be done by each of the specific engineering departments.
He feels the Center is beneficial as a place to keep students involved. This professor
went on to say that no one has directed him to advise students to utilize the Center
and that “if you are expecting faculty to do that you better tell them that they should
be doing so.”
When asked the question if the professors within their department appreciated the
Center, the professors had mixed comments. Most could state one individual who
was very involved in minority issues, and others felt that the department really did
not appreciate the Center and the professors were unfamiliar with what the Center
does. One professor said that only the “informed faculty” know about the Center.
Another professor stated that the Center is not promoted well.
When asked the question regarding advising students to participate in
professional engineering organizations such as the Society of Mechanical Engineers,
the professors felt much more comfortable. They were familiar with the benefits of
participating in the organizations and believed professors do play a vital role in
helping to promote the organizations.
The results of the faculty interviewed for this study demonstrate that the Center is
not well known to the professors. If professors are to be ambassadors for the Center,
they must first be aware of the mission, goals, services provided and benefits of the
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Center. They need proper information before they can provide advice to students
about utilizing the Center. The case study for CED is found in Appendix A.
University of California. Irvine’s Center for Opportunity & Diversity in Engineering
Program Description/UCI
The Center for Opportunity and Diversity in Engineering (CODE) is a
discipline based academic support program designed to recruit, retain, and graduate
students. The mission of CODE is to provide academic support and professional
development to students, facilitate their transitions and graduation in engineering, to
promote diversity, and to inspire life-long learning (CODE web site). CODE
achieves its mission through building and sustaining academic communities. CODE
encourages their students to take classes together, study together, and socialize
together. Students are also encouraged to participate in one of the CODE clubs
because membership assists in the development of the technical skills and enhance
the “soft” skills needed for success in engineering.
Academic Support Efforts
The academic support efforts of UCFs CODE include Comprehensive
Tutoring Program, Freshman Orientation Course, Student Study Center and
academic workshops. The Comprehensive Tutoring Program offers individual
tutoring in engineering and mathematics courses. Junior and senior engineering
students tutor engineering underclassmen. The CODE Director teaches the Freshmen
Orientation Course in the fall and spring. Students are taught study skills, stress
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
management, time management, and goal setting. The Student Study Center is open
24 hours a day for students to work in collaborative study groups.
Personal Counseling and Social Networking
The personal counseling and social networking provided by CODE includes
Lake Arrowhead Retreat, Freshmen Orientation Course, scholarship counseling,
Student Study Center, and support for minority engineering clubs. The Lake
Arrowhead Retreat offers an opportunity for students to develop new friendships and
foster old friendships during the fell semester each year. One of the goals of the
Freshmen Orientation Course is for student to create a cohesive freshmen networking
social group. The freshmen learn to rely on each other study partners as part of the
course. CODE provides information about scholarships on the CODE website,
conducts scholarship workshops and helps students with their scholarship
applications. Students may apply for book scholarships through the CODE Office
each semester. They are need-based book scholarships of up to $200. The CODE
Director has an open door policy and will meet with students to discuss family
matters, roommate problems or financial concerns. The Student Study Center acts as
a social nucleus for the engineering students. It is open 24 hours a day and has
computers, food service and white boards. CODE works very closely with the
minority engineering organizations: National Society of Black Engineers (NSRE),
Society of Mexican American Engineers and Scientists (MAES), Filipino Uniting
Student Engineers in an Organized Network (FUSION), Society of Hispanic
Professional Engineers (SHPE), and Society of Women Engineers (SWE). There are
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
several minority engineering organizations and CODE cosponsored events
throughout the year including the annual banquet,
Career Counseling and Professional Development
CODE provides a variety of career counseling and professional development.
CODE has an Industry Advisory Board, internship counseling, job opportunity
counseling, Freshmen Orientation Course, and professional development workshops.
The members of the Industry Advisory Board meet with UCI minority engineering
organizations once a quarter. They provide advice and encouragement to the
students. Learning about the different engineering fields is part of the Freshmen
Orientation Course curriculum. CODE sponsors professional development
workshops with professional engineers as guest speakers. CODE works with students
on internship applications, resume writing and improving interviewing skills. CODE
also coordinates student/faculty summer research through the Hohnes-CODE
Summer Research Funding.
Survey Data
The surveys were administered, to four lower-di vision engineering courses:
Civil Engineering Practicum II, Network Analysis II, Objective-Oriented Systems
and Programming, and C Programming. There were 199 total surveys given to
University of California, Irvine Undergraduate Engineering Students. Of the 199
students surveyed, 159 were freshmen or sophomores. Of these 111 were
nonqualifiers: 82 were White male or Asian male freshmen or sophomores and 29
were White male or Asian male juniors or seniors, Eleven other students were not
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
included in the study because although they were underrepresented minorities, they
were juniors or seniors.
The results of this study from UCI examined 77 students who fell into three
categories: 47 students were qualifier/nonpartieipant freshman or sophomore (61%);
18 students were qualifier/participant freshman or sophomore (23%); and a third
subgroup unique to UCI consisted of 12 nonqualifier/participant freshman or
sophomore (16%).
A qualifier/participant was an underrepresented minority (URM) engineering
freshman or sophomore student who registered for CODE, visited the program
director two or more times over the past few months prior to the survey, and was
active in more than two events sponsored by the CODE Office during the fall 2002
or spring 2003. A qualifier/nonpartieipant was an URM engineering freshman or
sophomore student who had not registered with CODE, had little to no contact with
the program director, and had attended two or less events during the fall 2002 or
spring 2003. UCI had a third group: nonqualifier/participant. This group consisted of
Asian or White Males who participated in events or programs sponsored through the
CODE Office two or more times and had contact with the program director at least
once.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10: Survey Responses from the Qualifiet'/nonparticipants (N=47)
Yes No
Have you registered to be a member of CED? 2%
V />C
98%
Did you receive e-mail from the CODE Office
over the past few months
...
28%
. ...in .
68%
unsure
4%
2 or more
times
1 time 0 times
How often have you gone to speak with 0% 6% 94%
the CODE Program Director
over the past several months?
2 events 1 . event 0 events
The number of events you attended 15% 47% 38%
over the past several months sponsored by the
Center?
The major research group for this study was the qualifier/nonparticipants.
The demographics of this group consisted of 13 freshmen and 33 sophomores. The
ethnic demographics are found in Table 11.
Table 11, Demographic Makeup of the 47 Oualifiers/nonparticipants at UCI
Male Female
African American 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Caucasian 0 (0%) 7(15%)
Latino 6(13% ) 0 (0%)
Asian Pacific Islander 17 (36%) 3 (6%)
Asian 0 (0%) 14 (30%)
Other 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The qualifier/nonparticipants gave different reasons for not participating in
events sponsored by CODE. The major reasons included being unaware of the event,
not knowing anyone who would be at the event, and timing. The students felt the
events are not at a convenient time or conflicted with their work schedules. Twenty-
one percent of the students felt that their professors not showing interest in their
attending impacted their decisions. Whether extra credit was offered for attending an
event also influenced student attendance.
Table 12; The Different Reasons Students Chose for Nonparticipation in Events
Sponsored Through the CODE _ .._ ...N= 47
Unaware of the event
Live off campus and commute
Number Choosing Response
33
%
49%
Was not interested in the event 15 32%
Did not find the event relevant to me 11 23%
Felt the event was repetitious to other 4%
My professor/professors did not show interest 10
There was no extra credit for attending the event 11
21%
23%
One of the questions on the survey requested students to rate activities that
they find most beneficial. The students were asked to place a number by each
category; 1 being least beneficial and 6 being most beneficial. Eighteen students
responded to this question on the survey.
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13: Ratine of Activities That Students! Find Most BeikTiri, i! (1 least 6 t nost)
1 2 3 ...... "4 ..T “
Academic support 6% 6% 0% 11% 22% 56%
Social events 17% 22%" 0% 11% 28% 22%
Building confidence events 11% 0% 22% 33% 28% 6%
Improving skills such as test taking 28% 28% 22% 17% 0% 6%
Increasing knowledge about engineering
as a career/profession
0% 17% 28% 28% 17% 11%
Helping to prepare for my future in
graduate school or as an engineer
22% 17% 28% 17% 0% : 17%
The students’ answers to the question regarding rating the most beneficial
activities showed a strong preference for academic support activities. The UCI
students also selected social events and budding confidence events as highly
beneficial The students seemed least interested in improving skills such as test
taking and essay writing.
The last section of the survey focused on student participation in engineering
professional organizations. The students were asked to check off all of the
professional engineering organizations they participate in within the School of
Engineering.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tafok 14: Freshmen and Spphomoie Engineering Students Farm ip mon in
Bw inecring lYofesMoiuil Organisations at. t J O N= or
2 or more 1 ___ 0
Qualifier /nonparticipant 3(7% ) 7 (16%) 33 (77%)
N= 43
Qualifier /participant 7 (39%) 4 (22%) 7 (39%)
N =!8
Nonqualifier/participant 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 9 (75%)
N=!2
Nonqualifier/nonparticipant 0(0% ) 17(18%) 79(82%)
The qualifier/participant group had the highest percentage of participation in
different engineering professional organizations at UCI. Thirty-nine percent of this
group also stated they would run for an executive board position with at least one
organization. The results of the survey demonstrate that the qualifier/participant
group has been, most active of any other group within the School of Engineering.
Interview Data/UCI
The interviews given to the students provided further insight into the
students’ behavior. There were 32 students who allowed for a further interview by e-
mail and/or telephone. Fourteen students responded to the interviews. During the
interview, the students were asked to elaborate on their survey responses.
The answers varied but there were patterns that developed; lack of
information about CODE; misinformation about CODE; not having friends who
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
participate, a willingness to spend time on enrichinent programs, a need for the
program to meet the individual needs of each student and a desire to learn more
about programs and events from professors.
The responses to the interview question asking for students to state why they
had not joined CODE showed that 21% of the students did not know the program
existed, 64% knew of the tutoring provided by CODE but did not know any more
about the program and 15% did not realize they could participate;
Basically I heard that CODE was just an organization that provides
tutoring for your engineering classes. That’s pretty much all I heard
about them.
I know that CODE offers tutoring for some of the classes I’m taking,
but I don’t really know what else they offer.
I have not been an active member of the Center for Diversity &
Opportunity in Engineering in the Engineering Department because
I have no knowledge of what they do.
I have not utilized it (CODE] because I didn’t realize it was free until
I actually went and asked around about it.
Fifty percent of the students who responded to the interview stated they have
friends who participate in CODE. The third interview question asked about student’s
participation in engineering professional organizations on campus and whether or not
the student feels the professional organizations are beneficial. Several of the
students’ responses are below:
The benefits would include meeting more people in engineering, making
more contacts with the engineering community which might be useful
later when I look for a job, and learning more about the field of engineering.
The benefit of belonging to a . engineering organization is that it’s a great
asset to put on a resume if you were an officer of the organization.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Networking is also another good benefit.
I think that it would help me “network” with other students and probably
employers. It; would also help me meet other engineering students.
When asked about participating in more events and/or programs that help
them socially, professionally, academically, and build confidence in your
engineering skills, all of the respondents stated yes. The responses varied in the type
of support the students were interested in which was similar to the question on the
survey asking for students to rate which events they would find most beneficial.
I would like to meet other computer engineers in both professional and
social environments. It would be fun to meet new people.
I think it would be nice to meet more people in engineering. Next summer
I want to get an engineering internship so it would be nice to have a program
that would help me figure out how to get that accomplished.
Yes, I would like to participate in programs that enrich me because I for one
don’t feel like I’ve made the full transition from high school to college.
I still feel like I’m in the phase where I could learn more about my
profession. Right now I don’t know anything about engineering and what is
out there for me after I graduate.
The fifth question on the interview asked students to state how much time
they would dedicate to enrichment programs each month, Table 15 gives the results
to this question.
Table 15: Possible. Time UCI Students Will Dedicate to Enrichment Each Month
N=14
Hours per month # of students % of group ___
1-5
4
29%
6-10 7 50%
11-15 3 21%
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lastly, question on the interview asked if the students feel their professors
could advertise these programs more than they do. Thirteen students stated yes, only
one student felt it is not up to professors to advertise the events/programs
Yes, I believe professors could advertise these programs more than they do
I haven’t heard of any professors mention any programs, so yes, I do feel
they could advertise more. But with a school this size, it doesn’t seem like the
professors care too much.
Professors could definitely advertise these programs and the clubs in their
classes themselves, that would greatly help the general apathy that plagues
our campus, and engineering in particular.
Y es!!!! Professors don’t tell me of these tilings. It is more word of mouth to
get into some of these organizations.
Yes, professors advertising can boost participation. I never heard any of my
professors advertise anything beyond class material. By professors
advertising these programs it gives the student a sense that these programs
are very beneficial to students.
Yes, and I think they should also tell the students exactly what happens at
these events so that more students will be interested. One thing I've
discovered is that I’d would be more likely to attend such an event if I knew
more about them. Another thing the professors can do is offer extra credit for
attending these events to provide additional motivation for students. I don’t
mean giving extra points just for attending, but having some kind of an
assignment that involves the event.
Six engineering faculty members and two administrators were interviewed at
UCI. The themes that: developed during the interviews include: a select group of
professors within the School of Engineering being familiar with CODE, lack of
knowledge of CODE and it’s mission, and an. inability of professors to advise
students to participate in CODE due to a lack of knowledge about the program.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Only half of the professors were familiar with CODE and could discuss the
benefits of CODE to students. These professors had made a point to become familiar
with CODE and worked with the CODE director often. One called herself an
“Outreach Nut.” The two administrators were very familiar with CODE. Examples
of the responses to the interview question about the benefit of CODE to students are
as follows:
The students who have parents or siblings who have gone to college have
heard about college, they have a social circle where somebody has gone to
college some point in time and told them about college. CODE is essentially
a location for first generation college students to find a home on campus.
CODE is a way for minority students to get: connected. My definition of a
Good MEP department is one that is about the individual. The best MEP
Directors are those that look at each of the individuals that participate in the
Program and tailor the program activities around the individual. If a person’s
needs are met, that is what is important. The GPA points are not as important
as the individual receiving the support in the particular area that benefits
them.
CODE benefits students by building community. Michelle acts like a mother
to the students. She will help connect the students to professors doing
research, and give them advice about which classes to take when. For
instance, she tells students to take a Intro to Programming in the summer
when there may only be forty students in the class.
Only half of the professors felt the other professors in their department
appreciated the CODE Office. The last question on the professor interviews asked if
they felt they play a vital role in advising students to participate in enrichment
programs and professional engineering programs on campus. The comments were
mixed. The professors felt very comfortable discussing professional engineering
programs with the students. The professors who were not familiar with CODE did
not want to advise students to participate. One professor stated that he would like to
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be asked first by the students about CODE and that he would fe d awkward telling a
student to go to CODE without first being asked about it. The case study for CODE
is found in Appendix B.
California State University, I Soithridge’s Student Development and Equity Center
Program. Description/CSU, Northndge
The Student Development and Equity Center includes the following two
programs: Educational Opportunity Program Satellite (EOP) provides academic
advisement, tutoring services, workshops, and career exploration and development
for all EOP students majoring in Engineering or Computer Science. MESA
Engineering Program (MEP) provides a wide range of student services including
transition assistance from high school to the University, freshmen orientation
experiences, academic advisement, tutoring services, scholarship information, career
development, and a network of students and alumni to help promote student success.
MEP also works with the student chapters of minority professional organizations
such as NSBE and SHPE to encourage opportunities for student leadership for its
members (CSIJN Catalogue, 2002).
Academic Support Efforts
The academic support efforts of CSUN’s Student Development and Equity
Center include academic counseling, EOP Summer Bridge, tutoring, Study Center,
and. graduate school counseling. SDEC’s director counsels students on course
selection, and provides academic advise on study skills, time management, and stress
management. The EOP Summer Bridge is an academic enrichment program for
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
entering freshmen and transfer students. Students may choose between academic
enrichment in English or mathematics during the summer. They will also be given
information on how to successfully transition from high school to college including
study skills, goal setting, work habits, and time management. SDEC sponsors a full
service tutoring facility. The Tutoring Center has a full-time staff manager. Students
may sign up for tutoring in mathematics, science and engineering courses. The Study
Center is a location where students may meet to work in collaborative groups to
study for exams or work on group projects. The SDEC provides graduate school
counseling to all students who are interested in learning about preparing and
applying to graduate school.
Personal Counseling and Social Networking
SDEC provides personal counseling and social networking for students.
Students may visit SDEC for personal counseling to help with family issues,
roommate problems, financial concerns, and other issues that may interfere with
academic performance. During the EOP Bridge Program students develop a social
group for friendship, and to develop a study support group. SDEC sponsors social
events during the year such as the annual welcome picnic. SDEC works closely with
minority engineering professional organizations: NSBE, SWE and SHFE.
Career Counseling and Professional Development
Career counseling and professional development offered by SDEC includes
career guidance, career workshops, internship information and research program,
resume writing, and interviewing skills development. The SDEC director will work
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with the students individually to provide counseling on how to build a resume while
in college, SDEC helps students apply to internships, SDEC received funding
through the Office of Naval Research to provide research positions for science and
engineering students. SDEC sponsors workshops throughout the year for students to
learn about engineering as a career. Professional engineers from local corporations
act as the guest speakers for the workshops,
Survey Data
The surveys were administered to six sections of four lower-division
engineering or computer courses: Data Structures & Program Design, Engineering
Statistics, Introduction to Electrical Engineering, Introduction to Engineering and
Introduction to Mechanics. There were 121 total surveys given to California State
University, Northridge Undergraduate Engineering Students. Five of the 121 could
not be used because the students omitted their ethnicity. Of the 116 surveys which
could be utilized; 48 were considered nonqualifies. Twenty-eight were White male
or Asian male freshmen or sophomores and 20 were White male or Asian male
juniors. Twenty-one other students were not included in the study because although
they were underrepresented minorities, they were juniors or seniors.
The results of this study from California State University, Northridge
examined 47 students who fell into two categories: qualifiers/participant freshman or
sophomore and qualifier/nonpartieipant freshman or sophomore. From CSUN, 10
(21%) students were qualifiers/participants, and 37 (79%) were
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
qualifiers/nonparticipants. The research group was composed of 26 freshmen and 21
sophomores,
Qualifying/participant as underrepresented minority and female engineering
students who had registered for SDEC/MEP, visited the program director two or
more times over the past few months prior to the survey and participated in more
than two events sponsored through MEP during the fail 2002 and spring 2003
semesters, A qualifier/nonpartieipant was an underrepresented minority or female
engineering student who had not registered with SDEC/MEP, had little to no contact
with the program director, and had attended two or less events during the fall 2002
and spring 2003 semesters.
Table 1.6: Survey Responses from the Oualifier/nonpaiticipants (N=37)
Have you registered as a member
Yes
5%
No
95%
of SDEC/MEP?
Yes No
Did you receive e-mail from the MEP
Office over the past few months?
5% 95%
2 or more
times
1 time 0 times
How often have you gone to speak with the
MEP Program Director,
over the past several months?
0% 16% 84%
2 events 1 . event 0 event
The number of events you attended over the 5%
past several months sponsored by MEP
14% 81%
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The major research group for this study was the qualifier/nonparticipants.
The demographic makeup of the CSUN group consisted of 16 freshmen and 21
sophomores.
Table 17: Demographic Makeup of the 37 Oualifiers/nonparticipants from CSUN
Male Female
African American 3(8% ) 0 (0%)
Caucasian 0 (0%) 2 (5%)
Latino 20 (54%) 2 (5%)
Asian Pacific Islander 7 (19%) 2 (5%)
Asian 0 (0%) 1 (3%)
Other 0 (0%) 0 (0%
The qualifier/nonparticipants gave different reasons for not participating in
events sponsored by SDEC/MEP. The major reasons included being unaware of the
event, living off campus, not knowing anyone who would be at the event and timing.
The students felt the events were not at a convenient time or conflicted with their
work schedules.
i. a i/iv t o , i u v w i u w V 'U t ivvaawiit>
Sponsored Throueh SDEC
O lU UkUW V, ItWDU SLU I 1 N KJI i p a l tiViJJUliUX I HI L/Yvlitd
N=37
.Number Choosine Response %
Unaware of the event 33 89%
Live off campus and commute 20 54%
Did not know anyone who would be at the event 11 30%
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 18: continued
The event was not at a convenient time 7 19%
Time conflicted with work schedule 7 19%
Was not interested in the event 4 11%
Did not find the event relevant to me 1 3%
Felt the event was repetitious to other 0 0%
events I have already attended on campus
My professor/professors did not show interest in us 4 11 %
attending
There was no extra credit for attending the event 4 11 %
One of the questions on the survey requested students to rate activities that
they find most beneficial. The students were asked to place a number by each
category; 1 being least and 6 being most. Twenty students responded to this question.
Table 19: Rating of Activities That Sudents’ Find Most Beneficial (1 least - 6 most)
1 2 3 4
5 6
Academic support 20% 5% 0% 5% 15% 55%
Social events 10% 10% 15% 25% 10% 30%
Building confidence events 10% 30% 15% 15% 20% 10%
Improving skills such as test taking
or essay writing
25% 10% 15% 15% 15% 20%
Increasing knowledge about engineering
As a career/profession
10% 15% 10% 25% 20% 20%
Helping to prepare for my future in
graduate school or as an engineer
20% 5% 15% 10% 15% 35%
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The students’ answers showed a strong preference for academic support
activities. There were many students who also rated social events and help to prepare
for their future in graduate school or as an engineer as highly beneficial. The
participation of freshman and sophomore engineering students in professional
engineering organizations was very weak. Below is a table showing the low
percentage of student participation.
Table 20: Freshmen and Sophomore Engineering Student Participation in
Engineering Professional Organizations at CSUN
2 or m o re I _________ J ) _____________„
0 (0%) 5 (17%) 27 (73%) N=32
1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%) N«10
0 (0%) 3 (11%) 24 (89%) N= 27
Interview Data/CSUN
The interviews given to the students provided further insight into the
students’ behavior. There were 30 CSUN students who allowed for a further
interview by e-mail and/or telephone. Fourteen of the students responded to the
interview questions. During the interviews, students were asked to elaborate on what
they had stated on their surveys.
The patterns that developed during the students interviews include: lack of
information about SDEC, misinformation about SDEC, not having friend s who
participate, willingness to spend time on enrichment programs, a need for the
83
Qualifier /nonparticipant
Qual ifier /parti cipant
Nonqualifier/nonparticipant
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
program to meet the individual needs of each student and a desire to learn more
about programs and events from professors.
Ten of the fourteen students were unfamiliar with SDEC and could not
provide any comments about what the Center does. The four students who were
familiar with the Center stated they have not worked with the Center due to work or
time conflicts, or being lazy. Most of the respondents did not have friends who were
participating in the Center.
I know nothing about the Center and have no friends who participate.
I have not utilized this organization because most of the events seem
to conflict with other plans. Also I have no friends to go with, 1 am
really not the type to walk into a room of strangers by myself tin start
introducing myself.
I normally only visit when I need to contact the executive board members
from NSBE. My failure to utilize the Center is due to pure laziness. I might
have one maybe two Mends that utilize the Center. My knowledge of the
Center is that they provide study rooms for students within the program.
The responses to the question regarding whether or not the student feels they
would like to participate in more events and/or programs that help them socially,
professionally, academically, and build confidence in their engineering skills were
all positive.
I’d love to take advantage of any opportunity to make myself more
“marketable” in the industry. After all, the goal is not just about learning and
graduating. Ultimately, I’m in it for the money. Any program that enhances
my skills, self-confidence, communication skills, or makes me more visible,
will open more doors for me once I get out into the field.
1 don’t care about the social and confidence building aspects of such
programs/events, but I do think it’s a good idea to have programs to help
students academically and professionally. For example, it would be great if
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
there was a job fair exclusively for the engineering department, where
students could interact with and ask questions to potential employers.
Definitely interested. Participation builds character and confidence.
Professionally it can help you in the future. You are bound to meet people
that you are going to run into in the future.
The students were asked to give a further explanation about the biggest
reasons for not participating in some enrichment programs on campus. The responses
resembled those from the survey: lack of time, inconvenient timing of the events,
unaware of the events or unfamiliar with what the program is about.
The biggest reason is the inconvenient timing of these events. I think that
these academic programs/events should have more convenient hours. For
example during the week instead of on weekends.
Time. Again, my schedule does not allow for much time to research, or spend
time with the organizations. Most of my free time is spent on homework and
chores at home.
Unaware of the programs and what they have to offer.
The students were asked to provide the amount of time they would dedicate
to enrichment programs each month. The responses to this question are found on
Table 21.
Table 21: Possible Time CSUN Students Will Dedicated to Enrichment Each Month
N=14
Hours per month # of students % of sroup
1-5 6 43%
6-10 4 29%
11-15 2 14%
Unsure 2 14%
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The last question on the interview asked if the students feel their professors
could advertise these programs more than they do. All fourteen students stated yes.
Some elaborated with the following comments:
Yes!!!! Professors don’t tell me of these things. It is more by word of
mouth that we get into some of these organizations.
Yes. And I think they should also tell the students exactly what happens at
these events so that more students will be interested. One thing I’ve
discovered is that I would be more likely to attend such an event if I knew
more about them. Another thing the professors can do is offer extra credit for
attending these effects to provide additional motivation for students. I don’t
mean giving extra points just for attending, but having some kind of an
assignment that involves the event.
Yes, they’re probably more familiar with what the programs have to offer and
can refer students that may need help in a certain discipline.
Yes, professors advertising can boost participation. I never heard any of my
professors advertise anything beyond class material. By professors
advertising these programs it gives the student a sense that these programs
are very beneficial to students.
The faculty interviews included six CSUN engineering professors. The six
professors had mixed responses. The themes that developed during the faculty
interviews include: a select group of professors within the College being familiar
with SDEC, lack of knowledge of SDEC and it’s mission and an inability of
professors to advise students to participate in SDEC due to their lack of knowledge
about the program.
Only half of the six professors had a strong relationship with SDEC and
could discuss the benefits of the Center. They have made a large effort to become
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aware of SDEC and it’s mission, They advised students to attend events and
participate.
The professors with the greatest knowledge of the Center were the two professors
who taught the freshmen engineering orientation, course; Introduction to
Engineering. One of professors teaching the course in the spring 2003 stated that she
wished she had asked the SDEC director to speak with the students about the Center.
She said she would make a point to invite her the next time she taught the course.
A recently hired professor was completely unfamiliar with SDEC and/or
MEP. He had received no formal introduction to the Center and could not advise
students to participate because of his limited knowledge. He also was unaware if any
of the professors at CSUN were involved or appreciate the Center. He said he was
confused about what all of the different programs do and what the missions of the
different organizations are. He does not go out of his way to search out the
information about enrichment programs because he is busy enough as it is.
I have never actually told a student about MEP. I have suggested
students to participate with the Lennox Users Group which is an
unofficial group of people that get together to learn. The professional
organization that I tell students about is Association for Computing
Machinery (ACM). Another thing I occasionally do is tell students
when Northrop Grumman or Edwards Air Force Base are here.
All of the professors responded positively to the question, asking if professors
play a vital role in providing students with information and advise about utilizing
enrichment programs on campus and/or engineering professional organizations. Yet
without being properly informed about SDEC and the events it sponsors, the
professors do not make efficient advisers for SDEC.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Faculty not only encourage students to become involved in professional
societies on campus, but serve as faculty advisors to the organizations.
Faculty are also in a position to inform students about the programs available
on campus. We interact with the students more than any other group/office on
campus,
I think they could and some probably do, 1 think 1 am probably guilty of
not doing enough besides telling students about ACM and the companies
that come in.
The results of reveal that students who qualify and have not participated in
the Center have little information about SDEC. Most have stated that they are
interested in academic, social and career building events and would participate if
they had more information.
The professors feel they cannot actively advertise the Center. There is an
information gap that prevents professors from passing on information to students
about SDEC. The professors’ lack of information coincides with the students’
inability to access information. The case study for SDEC is found in Appendix C.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAFFER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of the study has been to examine programs designed to
improve the academic and social integration of underrepresented students studying
engineering at undergraduate level and to analyze the lack of participation by
freshman and sophomore students who qualify for these programs. The problem of
attrition exists within the three engineering programs chosen for this study:
University of Southern California (USC), University of California, Irvine (UCI) and
California State University, Northridge (CSUN). Each of the institutions have
designed and implemented minority engineering programs to promote and facilitate
diversity by providing academic, social, and professional support services to students
that lack role models, and face ethnic and gender isolation.
The final chapter will synthesize the results of the case studies and suggest
reforms to improve the academic and social integration of students in general and
affective behavior in particular. The chapter will be divided into three sections: cross
study analysis, improving publicity and communication and suggestions for future
research.
While addressing the first research question the researcher found major
similarities between the design and implementations of the three programs: USC’s
Center for Engineering Diversity (CED), U C f s Center for Opportunities and
Diversity in Engineering (CODE) and CSUN’s Student Development and Equity
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Center (SDEC), There were also some distinguishing differences between the
programs. The goal of each of the programs is to improve the transition from high
school to college for students who lack social and cultural resources. The MEP’s are
designed to provide a support networks and cultural enclave. Each of the programs
provides academic support, personal counseling and social networking and career
counseling and professional development.
The second research question addressed student involvement in the different
MEPs. There were several patterns that developed as a result of the research. The
survey and interview results show that students who do not: participate are unaware
of the events. There was a high percentage from each institution that stated not
knowing anyone at the events made a difference in their decisions to participate.
Students rely on professors to provide information about enrichment program; and
professors are unaware of the programs and unwilling to advise students to
participate. The students from UCI and CSUN stated living off campus as a reason
for not participating at a greater rate than USC. Students from USC and UCI stated
that disinterested was a reason for nonparticipation at a greater rate than CSUN.
Lastly, USC and UCI students commented that their professors not showing an
interest in their attendance influenced their decision at a greater rate than students
from CSUN.
The faculty interviews revealed that much of the engineering faculty is
unfamiliar with the MEP Office and do not advise students to participate. They could
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
name individuals within their department who had a special relationship with the
MEP.
There were several patterns that appeared as a result of the research that
addressed the first research question; all three minority engineering programs create
a cultural enclave for the students who participate; students who participate have
access to academic support, personal counseling and social networking and career
counseling and professional development.
MEP as a Cultural Enclave
Throughout the research data collected for this study there was a consistent
pattern, of an MEP director being a “mock parent” and the MEP Office providing a
home away from home atmosphere for the participants. Examples of the MEP taking
on the role of a family included: the application form for CSIJN’s MEP states that
the students will be part of a “family”; students making comments about the program
director knowing their grades when their own parents did not know them; the notion
that the MEP director was watching over the participants was common; and the
students wanting to be with engineering “buddies” while in the Students Study
Center rather than in the library. Creating a sense of familiarity early on in the
students’ undergraduate experience is a common theme in the retention literature
discussed by Tinto, Astin, Kuh, and Seymour.
The students who have parents or siblings who have gone to college
have heard about college, they have a social circle where somebody
has gone to college some point in time and told them about college.
CODE is essentially a location for first generation college students to find
a home on campus, (engineering administrator)
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I know that if I need to cry to someone or talk tc th m about complications,
or even tackle any hard class, I have a bunch of j * . i pk to talk to, and
Ms. Moore has been very helpful to me, and it seems to everyone else who
walks through the door. (Female Sophomore African American)
Students who traverse a long cultural distance must become acclimated to
dominant cultures of immersion or join one or more enclaves (Kuh & Love 2000). A
person’s willingness and ability to leave one cultural setting may be necessary
conditions for subsequent persistence in another cultural setting.
Another way to negotiate cultural distance is to join a group
or subculture that values, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions that are
congenial with one’s culture of origin. This can effectively reduce the
cultural distance a student must travel and make navigating the institutional
culture on a daily basis less intimidating. We call these groups cultural
enclaves (Kuh & Love, 2000, p.205).
Students can benefit from enclaves because they can “scale down” the
institution and help students acquire the skills necessary to negotiate the social,
physical, and cognitive landscape of the campus.
Astin (1993) repeatedly states in his work that faculty/student interactions are
critical to retention. Yet, minority students tend to not relate to their professors as
well as to nonminorities. Having a cultural enclave within the MEP Office is
beneficial when the department and faculty cannot provide the enclave. According to
May and Chubin (2003) minority engineering students are less likely to interact with
faculty than non-minority students, This poses a serious barrier, since faculty-student
interactions is one of the most significant factors affecting student retention.
Minority students also report that they do not receive the same benefits as non-
minority students when they interact with professors. A study of graduate students at
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UC Berkeley found that four of nine white students felt the faculty interaction had
frequently inspired them to excel academically, while only one in nine minority
students reported such, experiences (May and Chubin, 2003).
Minority Engineering Programs and Students Involvement
Astin (1985), states that there is a critical connection between quality of a
learning environment and the level of student involvement. An excellent learning
environment, according to Astin, includes a high level of student involvement. The
five measurements Astin uses for testing involvement includes: amount of energy
devoted to studying; amount of time spent on campus; amount of participation in
student organizations; amount of interaction with faculty; and amount of interaction
with other students.
The students’ involvement within professional engineering organizations for
the different research groups was extremely low. The freshmen and sophomore
engineering students surveyed for this study had very weak participation in
professional engineering organizations. Only 89 students out of 400 who responded
to the question stated they participate in at least one professional engineering
organization (22%). The students who participate in minority engineering programs
had the highest percentage of participation. Twenty-six of the 50 students classified
as qualifier/participants stated they participate in at least one professional
engineering organization, (52%). The MEP director from CSUN encourages her
students to belong to one minority professional engineering organization: National
Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(SHPE), or Society of Women Engineers (SW'E), and one professional engineering
organization specific to their degree: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for example.
Living off campus was a reason for nonparticipation for UCI students (49%)
and CSUN students (54%). Both of these institutions have a high percentage of
students who commute to the campus. Commuting was less of an issue for USC
students (6%) which has a lower percentage of students who commute to campus.
The results of this study concerning commuting and student participation support the
findings of Tinto (1993) and Astin (1993). The students from the two institutions
with a high percentage of commuters also stated they could benefit most from social
events.
Not knowing anyone at an event was a major reason for nonparticipation by
students from all three institutions: USC-42%; CSUN-42%; and UCI-49%. The
results of this question are consistent with the developmental stage of first and
second year students.
The USC (21 %) and UCI (21%) students were more concerned about their
professors showing interest in an event than the CSUN (11%) students. Yet during
the individual interviews all of tire students (N=35) who responded to the question
about, their professors advertising the programs more than they do stated “yes”.
Samples of comments from the interview question related to professors advertising
programs in their classes are as follows:
Yes. I believe professors could advertise these programs more than they do.
(UCI student)
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yes, I do not think any of my professors have advertised any of these
programs,” (UCI student)
Professors could definitely advertise these programs arid the clubs in their
classes themselves, that would greatly help the general apathy that plagues
our campus, and engineering in particular. (UCI student)
Yes!!!! Professors don’t tell me of these things. It is more word of mouth to
get into some of these organizations. (CSUN student)
Yes, professors advertising can boost participation. I never heard any of my
professors advertise anything beyond class material. By professors
advertising these programs it gives the student a sense that these programs
are very beneficial to students, (CSUN student)
The results of the interviews are consistent with the conclusions from
Seymour and Hewitt (1997). Seymour and Hewitt’s study on. the unsupportive
culture of science and engineering departments found that science, mathematics and
engineering students are not receiving adequate counseling. According to their study,
students identified a number of needs which they seek to meet by approaching
faculty and other advisors: advice on academic and career alternatives and how best
to pursue them; accurate information on required courses and appropriate sequencing
in order to fulfill particular degree requirements; help in understanding the academic
material presented in particular classes; practical help or advice with problems that
impinge on academic performance-especially problems with finances, employment,
time conflicts, health and other personal matters; and someone to take a personal
interest in their progress, problems, and overall career direction (p. 134). The
conclusions expressed by Seymour and Hewitt’s study coincide with the findings of
the Comraitt.ee for Retention at USC.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finding the proper time for an event is a problem for USC and CSUN
students. A high percentage of students stated that inconvenient time and time
conflicts with work were major reasons for nonparticipation. A higher percentage of
students from USC stated a lack of interest as a reason for nonparticipation than at
CSUN. CSUN students also did not seem to rely on professors or extra credit to
increase participation (1 1%) as much as their USC counterparts (21%).
Students from all three institutions stated they are willing to commit time
each month to enrichment programs. The students also gave information about
which ty pes of enrichment interested them the most: academic, social, personal,
and/or professional
Table 22: Possible time USC. UCI & CSUN Students Will Dedicate to Enrichment
Each Month N=45
Hours per month # of students________ % of group
I-5 14 31%
6-10 21 47%
II-15 7 16%
Unsure 3 6%
This study .set out to examine three different minority engineering programs
and the qualifying students that do not participate. The researcher feels that each
program has developed cultural enclaves for the participants. Each program placed a
strong emphasis on counseling: academic, personal and career. The programs could
reach more students if they had a required Orientation to Engineering course. Much
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the misconceptions and lack of information that, was discussed by the
nonparticipants during their interviews could be eliminated if they had a first
semester orientation course.
Recommendations
Conditioning Students to Seek Guidance and Help
Seeking guidance and help does not come naturally to most students. Most
students have avoided extended contact with teachers, counselors and school
administrators throughout their K-12 educational background. They associate a
meeting after class with a teacher, counselor, and/or school administrator with “being
in trouble”. Freshmen and sophomore students have not learned to utilize different
individuals on their campuses who can provide guidance and support.
A recent report by Stanford University, Betraying the College Dream, How
Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student
Aspirations (2003) discussed students’ preparation for university. The report’s
findings showed that there is a disparity between socioeconomic groups in many
areas associated with college preparation. These included knowledge of the
necessary curriculum, talking to counselors and teachers about college, and
knowledge about the cost of tuition. The percentage of students who knew at least 3
course requirements for admission to the more-selective universities and less-
selective universities varies by socioeconomic status. The report also stated that for
the University of California, Davis, 61% of high SES students, and 47% of low-SES
students knew at least three course requirements for admission. For California State
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University, Sacramento, 53% of high-SES students and 44% of low-SES students
understood about course requirements. The percentage of students who knew state-
level transition policies were 31% for high-SES, 24% for iow-SES, 33% for honors
students, and 24% for non-honor students.
In California, most students rely on their teachers to provide them with
information about college admission requirements. According to Betraying the
College Dream (2003), 79% of students spoke with a teacher at: least once about the
college admissions process and only 62% stated they had spoke with a counselor at
least once about the college admissions process. The report shows that many
students are not provided with adequate support to navigate entrance into college.
Once students are attending university they need to eliminate past behavior of
avoiding contact with counselors and begin to seek out individuals and events that
will help them develop professionally, academically, socially and emotionally. The
professors are not likely to take on a guidance role for students at most institutions
and at research institutions in particular.
The results of this study show that underrepresented engineering freshmen
and sophomores rely on professors to provide information. The underrepresented
engineering freshmen and sophomore students continue to have a “teachers pass on
all information” mindset that they developed, during their K -12 experience. Without
some formal method of introducing information about guidance and support on
campus to students, this mindset will not be altered. In order to provide students with
the information about the support systems available at a university, students must be
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
given ari opportunity to take a University Lifestyle 101 course specifically designed
for engineers, namely a Freshmen Orientation to Engineering course which follows
the Landis Model. None of the institutions within this study had implemented an
ideal Freshmen Orientation Course. The university having the closest, example to a
Landis Mode! was California State University, Northridge. UCI had a strong
introductory course but it was not mandatory and only a minor percentage of
students participated.
Need for a Mandatory Freshmen Orientation Course
An effective action approach seeks to improve academic performance and
graduation rates by removing or reducing barriers faced by minority engineering
students. The structure of an effective action model is as follows: academic advising
and registration systems that will cluster students in common sections of their key
classes;
a freshman orientation course to build community and teach academic
survival skills; a student study center; and Academic Excellence Workshops.
The effectiveness of development of collaborative learning groups on improving
the educational environment concurs with the research done by Astin (1993) and
Tinto (1987). Collaborative learning groups can include learning communities, peer
mentoring, and cooperative learning approaches. A learning community is a cluster
of students with similar majors who are scheduled into the same courses during the
semester. The benefits of arranging a learning community include strong peer
support, improved socialization between students, improved academic performance,
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improved retention, enhanced student satisfaction with the learning experience,
improved oral communication skills, and higher student self-esteem (Landis, 1991).
A freshman orientation course to build a sense of community and teach
academic survival skills is part of an effective MEP. According to Landis, this course
should be a i unit mandatory course. The course is designed to enhance student
success by addressing five primary themes: community building; professional
development; academic success strategies; personal development; and orientation, to
the university and the engineering program. The course curriculum includes goal
setting, strengthening your commitment to engineering, keys to success in
engineering, employment models, engineering as a career, and the future of the
engineering profession.
A major focus of the freshmen orientation course is community building.
This process of shifting students’ perspectives front being ‘individual-
centered’ to being ‘group-centered’ and from being in competition with each
other to providing cooperation and mutual support is extremely important.
Not only will this shift enhance their effectiveness as engineering students
but also as engineering professionals (p. 10).
The academic survival skills include time management, time on task,
mastering the material, and efficiently preparing for and taking tests. Students need
to realize that learning is a reinforcement process-that we learn by many exposures to
concepts over a long period of time, not by cramming for tests at the last minute
(Landis, 1991). The course should emphasis to students that their study time is very
important and when they negotiate it away they are borrowing time from the future.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The data collected for this study showed that none of the three institutions has
a mandatory Freshmen Orientation Course covering all of above mentioned topics.
The Introduction to Engineering courses offered by the different institutions have a
strong focus on engineering as a discipline and exclude the academic skills
development that the Landis Model of a Freshmen Orientation Course offers, CSUN
has the closest match to a course utilizing the Model but it is not mandatory for all
freshmen.
Need for Self-Promotion
The students within the different engineering departments are unfamiliar with
the benefits of the programs. All three directors mentioned that their students have
many laudable accomplishments. The MEP students were the most active within
professional engineering organizations when compared to the other research groups
within this study. There must be a better method by which to communicate to the
nonparticipating students about the scholarships, internships, graduate school
fellowships, entry into medical school, and other major accomplishments that
participants have received over the course of time the director has worked at the
institution. Once the students are aware of the list of achievements of their peers,
they will be more likely to apply to and participate fully in the Minority Engineering
Program.
Faculty Advertising about the Minority Engineering Programs
The faculty members that were interviewed for this dissertation feel it is
important to address academic issues with their students. They feel most comfortable
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
discussing homework, upcoming test, test results, or academic questions. They felt
less comfortable addressing students’ social, personal, or emotional concerns. They
were unaware of the special events and regular programs that the MEP Office in
their engineering department: had available for students.
The failure to find adequate advice, counseling, or tutorial help was cited as
contributing to one-quarter of all students who switched out of SME (science,
mathematics and engineering) majors. The lack of adequate advice was also a source
of frustration by half of the SME population from the Seymour and Hewitt study
(1997), This issue was the second most commonly cited concern for SME majors
after poor teaching by SME faculty (74%).
Faculty members seem to underestimate the power of suggestion they hold
over their students. Students stated that they want to hear about the academic, social,
career and emotional enrichment, programs that are available on the campus. There
is a gap between what professors felt was necessary and what the students expected.
The faculty can be a powerful force to increase participation in the Minority
Engineering Program. The directors must visit professors’ offices and discuss the
upcoming events with the professors on a regular basis.
Professors must look at their role in communicating information as serious
and valuable. Freshman and sophomores tire still close enough to high school that
they rely on their professors to provide them with information. They need a
replacement for what was provided in their high school homeroom class. Until the
lower classmen have well- established knowledge of the programs that exist on the
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
campus and have developed a network to obtain and receive information, the
professors play a critical role in providing information.
Developing a Phone Tree Network
It is becoming more difficult to catch the students’ eyes and interest during
electronic mail (e-mail) messages due the myriad of unwanted promotions or
advertisements. Besides fliers, e-mails and announcement there is the reliable
method o f communicated by phone. Like in a political campaign, the phone is a
superior method by which to get out the- message. The phone is an important
communication medium that is underutilized by the MEP Offices. The directors do
not have the time to make large number of phone calls before an. event. Having an
established phone tree network can be a valuable method to recruit students.
Improving Networking between Students
Developinentally, college students are peer-oriented. They feel most
comfortable in settings where they have friends and/or peers they are familiar with.
Thirty percent of the major research group at CSUN, 49% at UCI, and 42% at USC
stated they did not participate because they did not know anyone who would be at
the event. It is critical for each student who attends a MEP sponsored event to bring a
friend along. Comments students made on their interviews that bring this point to
home include “1 have no friends to go with and I am really not the type to walk into a
room of strangers by myself an start introducing m yself, and “The benefits [of
participating in CODE] would include meeting more people in engineering.”
Improving public notice of the events and accomplishments
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The university newspaper is an excellent source of publicity, The directors
need to take advantage of this resource as frequently as possible. Writers for the
campus newspaper should be invited to each event, and program to interview the
students and guest speakers. Student participants success stories should be submitted
to the newspaper including high profile scholarships, internships, publications,
presentations at conferences, and any other notable accomplishments.
Learning More About Students Through Surveys
The students relayed in their interview' that they do want to participate in
MEP events. They stated on average that they would spend 6 hours a month on
programs that would help them socially, professionally, academically, and build
confidence in their engineering skills. Yet students also gave the reason of time
constraint for nonparticipation in MEP events. In order to match the students’
demands with the supply of resources offered by the MEP Office, MEP directors
must take more of a supermarket approach to their programs. They must make each
event relevant to the student. How can the director meet the demands of the hundreds
of possible participants? Students could be given surveys the first week of each
semester. On the survey would be questions about the needs or concerns of the
student. The director would then develop the semester’s events around those needs.
Three weeks before the event the students who stated that they had the greatest need
for academic support would be provided information about events related to
academics. Students who stated that their highest priority was social interaction on
campus because they commute and feel socially isolated from other students would
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be given e-mail and phone calls about social events for the semester. Meeting the
students were they are with events that they feel are pertinent to them specifically,
will help increase participation.
Increasing Events Sponsored by MEP That Draw Attention to the Program
Sponsoring events that bring attention to the MEP Office is vital. The director
must, reach out to students through creative methods such as sponsoring a “free
lunch” during finals week, study snack breaks outside of the science and engineering
library, and movie nights for freshman. The practice of providing different events
from other programs on campus will bring needed publicity to the MEP Office.
A Mentor for Every Student
McNairy (1996) also states that an increasing body of research reveals that if
students have just one significant individual on campus with whom they can interact,
the potential for their persistence is enhanced. The MEP director of the institution
can not be a mentor to hundreds of students. The director can play a role in ensuring
that each student has a mentor to help them socially, academically, emotionally, and
professionally. The mentor could be an upper division or graduate student, faculty
member, administrator, alumnus, and/or professional engineer.
Questions for Further Study
This study set out to clarify questions associated with minority engineering
programs within three institutions in Southern California. Questions still remain to
be answered regarding the programs including:
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1) Are the affective behaviors of students who work closely with MEP Office
similar to those that work, closely with other support services on the
campuses?
A general survey could be given to determine if students who work consistently
with other support services on campuses such as Black Student Union or Cross-
Cultural Center have increased affective behavior.
2) What are the consequences of increased faculty involvement with support
services such as an MEP?
During the faculty interviews it was discovered that often there are specific
professors who were the most engaged with the MEP. How does having supportive
professors generate increased involvement? Do the faculty who participate receive
high marks from underrepresented students? How does involvement by faculty in an
MEP effect their teaching, do they have higher expectations for minority students
than other professors?
3) If academic and social integration created by participation in the MEP occurs
early within a student’s university experience (freshmen and sophomore
years) does it increase leadership tendencies such as taking on executive
board positions within student organizations, TA positions, participating in
faculty/student research internships on or off campus, participating in student
government, and attending professional conferences?
The survey and interview responses indicated that qualifier/participants were the
most active in professional engineering organizations and also showed the most
interest in taking on leadership roles in those organizations. Further study could
identify a pattern that early academic and social integration has a positive effect on
student leadership.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cone)tiding Thoughts
An model MEP has several components: mandatory Freshmen Orientation
Course; Student Study Center; Comprehensive Tutoring Program cosponsored with
the Learning Resource Center; Mentoring Program; faculty/student lunches; Industry
Advisory Board; annual social events cosponsored with professional engineering
organizations; an annual career fair cosponsored with the Career Center; graduate
school preparation workshop; Freshmen Socials; a Summer Bridge Program; and a
leadership retreat weekend. Having faculty members who advertise these events is
very important to the success of the events and programs. Students want their
professors to recommend the programs and provide adequate information about
programs and events. A good MEP is a cultural enclave for the student participants.
The best MEP directors are those that look at each of the individuals that participate
in the program and tailor the program activities around the individual needs of the
participants.
Each minority engineering program is a piece of the academic and social
support services puzzle at their institutions. The mission statements from each of the
organization clearly point out that they are service organizations and assist with
academic and social integration. Their main goal is to help prevent the small
problems from becoming big ones that could lead to student departure. The impact
and benefits of the programs were evident in the response of the students
interviewed. Hopefully, the impact will translate to an increase in student retention.
Ever since I was a freshman the program director, Michelle has known my
name and always encourages me to do my best and looks out for the things 1
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
do. Like most college students I don’t tell my parents my grades, but
Michelle knows them and acts as a “mock parent” and always reminds me
that I have to keep my grades up to improve my GPA. If anything that kind of
home away from home attitude that I get right here on campus is worth
coming back to.
The concerns of the students who do not participate were also evident during
the interviews.
I would like to participate in programs that enrich me because I for one don’t
feel like I’ve made the full transition from high school to college. I still feel
like I’m in the phase where 1 could learn more about my profession. Right
now I don’t know anything about engineering and what is out there for me
after 1 graduate.
I would like to participate in more events and/or programs to help me
socially, professionally, and build confidence in my engineering skills.
I think it would be nice to meet more people in engineering. Next summer
I want to get an engineering internship so it would be nice to have a program
that would help me figure out how to get that accomplished.
These students’ comments demonstrate a desire to increase affective behavior
but a lose as to how to go about doing so. The minority engineering programs should
continue to emphasize the benefits of their programs to students, faculty and staff
members within their colleges. The faculty should take more responsibility to
advertise programs and events and show interest in these programs so as to improve
participation. With more support from the departments, each of the programs
missions would have a greater chance of being accomplished.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
American Association, of University Women (AAU W) Education Foundation (1999),
Where schools still fa il our children,. New York: Marlow St Company.
Astin, A, (1982). Minorities in American Higher Education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Astin., A. (July/August 1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change,
17, 34*39.
Astin, A. (1993a), What matters most in college? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
Astin, A. (1993b). Diversity and multiculturalism: How are students affected?
Change. 25, 2: 44-49.
Bailey, S. (1992). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America: A call to action.
Washington, DC: Women’s Educational Foundation, American Association of
University Women.
Barba, R., & Cardinale, L. (1991). Are females invisible students? An investigation
of teacher-student questioning interactions. School Science and Mathematics, 91.
206-310.
Barrett, C. (1997). Skilled engineers are developed, not born. Electronic Engineering
Times, 284-288.
Bolman, L.& Deal, T. (1997). Refraining organizations: artistry, choice and
leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brainard, S., & Carlin, L. (1997). A longitudinal study o f undergraduate women in
engineering and science. ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Pittsburgh.
Braxton, J .M.(Bd,), (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.
Camevale, A.P. (1999). Campus diversity and the new economy. Paper presented at
the American Council on Education’s Symposium and Working Research Meeting,
Arlington, VA.
Clewell, B. C., Anderson, B„ & Thorpe, M.E. (1992). Breaking the barriers;
Helping female and minority students succeed in mathematics and science. San
Francisco; Jossey-Bass Publishers.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ctewell, B, C. (1989), Intervention Programs: Three Case Studies. In W. Pearson., Jr.
& H. K. Bechtel (Eds.), Blacks, Science, and American Education. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
College Board, (1999). Advanced placement program California and national
summary reports. New York: The College Board,
Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in
Science, Engineering and Technology (2000 September). Land o f plenty; Diversity
as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (2000), Professional
women and minorities: A total human resource data compendium. Washington,DC.
Culotta, E. (1992). Scientists of the future: Jumping high hurdles. Science. 228,
1208-1213.
Dariing-Hammond, L. (1996, November). What matters most a competent teacher
for every child. Phi Delta Happen, 193-200.
Doster, M. (1999,2n d quarter). Engineering’s class of 1998. Today’s Engineer, 42-
43.
Day, J. (1996). Population projections o f the United States by age, sex, race and
Hispanic origin: 1995-2050. Arlington, VA: U.S. Census Bureau,
Engineering Workforce Commission of the American Association of Engineering
Societies, 2000 sourcebook of engineering majors, from http://wvvw.aaes.org.
Etzkowitz, H. Kemelgor C. and Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Eubanks, S., Gilley, T., Shabestari L., & Tai, J. (Eds.). (2003). University of
Southern California Catalogue 2003-2004. Los Angeles, CA: University Park
Campus.
Fletcher, S., & Anderson-Rowiand, M, (2001). Developing retention strategies for
women that promote student success in engineering and applied science. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Educators,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Fear-Feen, M. & Kapostasy-Karako, K, (1992). Math + Science +Technology =
Vocational preparation for girls: A difficult equation to balance. Center for Sex
Equity: Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fullilove, I.E . ,& Treisman, P. 11 (1990). Mathematics achievement among African
American undergraduates at University of California, Berkeley: an evaluation of the
mathematics workshop program, Journal o f Negro Education, 59(3), 463-478,
Gainen, J, (1995). Barriers to success in quantitative gatekeeper courses. In
R.J.Menges & M.D. Svinicki (Series Eds.) & J. Gainen & E.W. Willemsen (Vol.
Eds.), Fostering student success in quantitative gateway courses: Vol. 61. New
directions for teaching and learning (pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greenfield, T.A. (1997). Gender and grade-level difference in science interest and
participation. Science Education. 259-275.
George, Y., Neale, D.,Van Horne, V., & Maleorn, S. (2001) In pursuit of a diverse
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce: Recommended
research priorities to enhance participation by underrepresented minorities.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Geraghty, M. (1996, July 19). Data show more students quitting college before
sophomore year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A 35.
Hudspeth, C. (1990). Developing an academic community through academic
excellence workshops. Paper presented for the American Society for Engineering
Educators.
Kuh.G.D., & Love, P.G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J.M.
Braxton (Ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, Tennessee:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Landis, R. B. (1991). Retention by Design: Achieving excellence in minority
engineering education. New York: National Action Council for Minority
Engineering, Inc.
Landis, R. B. (2000). Studying engineering: A roadmap to a rewarding career. Los
Angeles, California: Discovery Press.
Lee, V. & Burkam, D. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science
achievement; Subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education.
80 (6); 613-650. ’
Loffler, S. (Ed.) (2002). California State University, Northridge 2002-2004
Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogue: Northridge, California.
Mannix, M. (2001, March). Getting it, Prism, 10, 15-20.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing,
Cambridge, Massachusetts; The MIT Press.
Markow, D., and Moore, K. (2001, October). Progress toward power: A follow-up
survey o f children and parents attitudes about math and science. National Action
Council fo r Minorities in Engineering, Inc. (NACME) Research Letter, 9, 1-8.
May, G. & Chubin, D. (January 2003) A retrospecti ve on undergraduate engineering
success for underrepresented minority students. Journal of Engineering Education,
92, 27-39.
McMillan, J.H.(1996), Educational Research: Fundamentals for the consumer (2n d
Ed). New York: Harper Collins.
Me Nairy, F. G. (1996). The challenge for high eduction: Retaining students of color.
In M.J. Barr & M.L. Upcraft (Series Eds.) & I.H. Johnson & . A.I. Ottens (Vol. Eds.),
Leveling the playing field: Promoting academic success fo r students o f color; Vol.
74. New directions fo r student services, (pp. 3-14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, Griffin, K. & Marcotuilio, P. (199, December). Retention of minority
students in engineering. NACME Research Letter, 2,1-10.
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (September 25, 2001).
NACME News Release: New York, New York.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pearson, W ., Jr. & Bechtel, H.K. (Eds.). (1989). Blacks, Science, and American
Education. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Reisberg, L. (1999, October 8). Colleges straggle to keep would-be dropouts
enrolled. The Chronical of Higher Education, A 54-56.
Reyes, M.A. .Anderson-Rowland, M.R., & McCartney, M.A.(2001). Learning from
our minority engineering students: Improving retention. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Society for Engineering Educators, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schmidt, P. (2003, July 4), Affirmative action survives, and so does the debate. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, S i-4.
Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering
undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4): 437-473.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, R (1997), Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave
the science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Smith, T.Y. (2001). The retention and graduation rates of 1992-98 entering science,
mathematics, engineering and technology majors in 119 colleges and universities.
Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis (C-ID.EA), Norman: University
of Oklahoma.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. Basics o f qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why some things work and
most don’t, Tuscon, AZ: Research Corporation.
Tin to, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition.” Journal of
Higher Education, 53: 687-700.
Tinto, V.(1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student
attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997, November/December). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the
educational character of student persistence. The Journal o f Higher Education, 68,
599-623.
Tinto, V. (Fall 2000). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA Journal, 19,2. 5-10.
Treisman, P.U. (1992, November). Studying students studying calculus: a look at the
lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal,
23(5), 362-372.
Venezia, A., Kirst, M.W. & Antonio, A.L. (2003). Betraying the college dream:
How disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education systems undermine student
aspirations, from http/:;www..stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject,
Wetzel, J.N., O'Toole, D., & Peterson, S, (1999, spring). Factors affecting student
retention probabilities: A case study. Journal of Economics and Finance, 23,45-55.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A:
University of Southern California School of Engineering
Center for Engineering Diversity (CED)
Case Study
The University of Southern California (USC) is a major research institution
located in the heart of Los Angeles. It is one of the oldest universities in Southern
California dating back to 1880. USC has so far conferred degrees on more than a
quarter-million students. USC received the honor of College of the Year 2000 by the
editors of Time magazine and the Princeton Review for it’s extensive community-
service programs. It is a private university offering bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral
degrees. The undergraduate population is 15,705. The 2001-02 tuition and fees were
$25,533. The acceptance rate for incoming freshmen is 34%. Of these incoming
freshmen 80% are ranked in the top 10% of their high school class, and 90% are
ranked in the top 25%.
USC undergraduate degree programs is supported by of seventeen different
schools and colleges include the School of Architecture, Leventhal School of
Accounting, Marshall School of Business, School of Cinema-Television, Annenberg
School for Communication, School of Dentistry, Rossier School of Education,
School of Engineering, School of Fine Arts, Davis School of Gerontology, Division
of Independent Health Professions, College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, School of
Medicine, Thornton School of Music, School of Policy, Planning, and Development,
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the School of Theatre, USC operates on a semester system (USC Catalogue
2003-04).
The focus of this study is on the School of Engineering. This School first
offered courses in the basement of one of the oldest building on campus in 1906 and
has grown to offer students one of the largest and most state-of-the-arts programs in
California. There are approximately 1,850 undergraduate students enrolled in the
School of Engineering at USC with an African American, Latino and Native
American student enrollment of 294 (16%). The percentage of the underrepresented
minority population in the School of Engineering is 6% lower than the overall
university population by ethnicity. The School has ten different engineering
undergraduate programs: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Biomedical
Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering,
Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Manufacturing Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering.
The current Dean, of the School of Engineering established a committee to
review undergraduate retention in the School. The committee established that
although the retention rate is similar to the national average of engineering
departments (66%) it lags behind the other departments within the University (73%).
The goal of the University is to increase retention rate by 1% and to accomplish this
goal the School of Engineering must increase its retention rates because the
department makes up 12% of the total USC undergraduate population. The
committee found that students left the School for several reasons including
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic, social, and personal. Several suggestions were made to address the issue
of improving retention. This study is most concerned with the social and personal
suggestions: improving contact with freshmen and educating faculty on the
importance of retention were two remedial steps suggested.
The School of Engineering has several programs designed to address the
students’ academic, professional and social needs. The Engineering Student Affairs
(ESA) Office assists perspective students with the application process and directs
special services and programs for current engineering students. ESA offers a variety
of support services, sponsors student organizations, is involved with student
government and acts as a liaison with other university programs. One of the
programs administered through the Engineering Students Affairs Office has the
mission of providing support specifically for underrepresented minority engineering
students (African American, Latino and Native American). This program is known
as the Center for Engineering Diversity (CED). CED is an academic support program
dedicated to promoting scholastic and personal excellence among underrepresented
engineering and computer science students. CED achieves its mission by providing a
variety of services and programs to foster the development of a community of
scholars and to prepare students to succeed as engineering professionals or in
graduate school. This case study is a profile of the services and programs offered by
CED.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Center for Engineering Diversity: A Profile
The Center for Engineering Diversity (CED) is located in the southwest
portion of USC’s main campus. The CED Office has recently moved from its
previous location in Olin Hall to its new location in the Seaver .Science Annex next
to Seaver Science Library, The Mathematics, Engineering and Science Achievement
(MESA) Program is also located within the Seaver Science Annex. The two
organizations have as a common goal the improvement of minority representation in
the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. For its part,
USC’s MESA Program works with middle school and high school students
throughout Southern California. Several of the students surveyed for this study stated
they had participated in MESA while in high school. Minority students who were
active MESA participants will recognize the name and understand the mission of the
program. For the engineering students at USC who have past experiences with
MESA, walking into the CED Office would be a seamless transition into the next
level of their participation with minority engineering enrichment programs.
Ms. Teri Moore, is the director of CED. Ms. Moore is a full-time employee
and has two assistants including an office manager and a student services assistant.
Ms. Moore also has the suppoit of the Engineering Student Affairs Office staff. Ms.
Moore comment that, “The Provost is very engaged with retention issues and has a
strong commitment to the program.” When asked about the institutional support for
CED.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The student populations served by CED include engineering students and
computer science students. The ethnic makeup of the students who participate in the
Center is 36% African American, 60% Hispanic/Latino, and 4% Native American.
The students are recruited to participate in CED through a mailer sent to all entering
freshmen and transfer students, and during freshmen orientation events. Ms. Moore
encourages incoming freshmen to visit her office by providing them with a coupon
that they can redeem for prizes once they visit the CED Office. One of the best
recruitment methods is word of mouth, “1 first joined because my friends joined and
encouraged me to join.” (Female Freshman Asian Pacific Islander) In order to reach
her target audience, Ms. Moore works very closely with the minority engineering
organizations. National Society of Black Engineers, (NSBE), and Society of
Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE). When asked why she does not work
closely with the Society of Women Engineers (S'WE), she stated “I am not as
involved with SWE because working with NSBE and SHPE provides me with the
underrepresented population I am trying to target.”
Students gave different reasons for joining CED during their interview.
Several of the students had participated in the Summer Bridge Program and
continued to participate after the programs completion. Two students had
participated in MESA or other pre-college programs and were familiar with
academic enrichment programs. One of the students made the following comment.
I joined CED because I know that with me majoring in engineering, I would
be faced with many obstacles, and being a part of a program with other
students of color would enhance my drive and will to complete the major,
(Female sophomore African American)
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The students receive information about CED and learn about upcoming
events in several different ways including: in the University Catalogue, the Center
for Diversity Brochure, through the Engineering Student Affairs Office Web Site,
(www.usc.edu/dept/engineering/esa). or through the CED Web Site,
(http://www.usc.Kdu/dept/engineermg/esa/eontent/spec proerarns/ced.htmi). The
CED Web Site provides information about programs and upcoming events. Students
may also access the minority professional engineering organizations: (NSBE),
(SWE) and (SHPE) on the CED Web Site. Each of the organizations web sites
provide students with information about upcoming events, national and regional
conferences, list of members, and links to related organizations. The events held by
CED such as the GEM Fellowship Information Session and the Engineering Career
Expo, were listed within the upcoming events on the SHPE and NSBE Web Sites.
The sponsors of the different minority engineering organizations were also found on
the web: Teradyne, IBM, Northrop Grumman, Chevron, and Intel.
The strength of CED is its programs and initiatives that connect the students
to the University in general and the School of Engineering in particular. Research
indicates that students who are academically and socially integrated within the
University persist through graduation (Astin 1993a, Tinto, 1987). Using this research
foundation, CED created several programs and initiatives that are designed to
increase students’ academic and social integration within the School of Engineering.
CED has implemented programs that address the barriers faced by many
underrepresented and female students concerning academic and social integration in
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
engineering departments including lack of role models, ethnic and gender isolation,
and poor high school preparation. To help students overcome these barriers CED
provides the following services and programs: academic support services: personal
counseling and social networking, career counseling and professional development.
The students who enroll in CED receive many benefits for participating. “The
benefits o f belonging to CED include opportunities for internships, interview skills
and aid in handing out one’s resume.” (Male Freshman Latino)
Students self-select to attend the events related to career networking, social
networking and academic skills development. The recent CED sponsored events
included Lockheed Martin’s Professional Ethics Workshop, Breakfast with
Recruiters, Lunch with Microsoft, Walt Disney Imagineering Presentation, and the
GEM Fellowship Presentation. CED co-sponsors an event each spring witfi
Engineering Career Services. The Engineering Career Expo occurs in the spring and
has many career-oriented workshops and presentations. Students can have their
resumes critiqued by a professional, attend mock interviews and network with
corporate representatives.
Academic Support Services
Belonging to the Center has helped academically because Ms. Moore makes
sure that I am doing well in school. If I have any problems she would
help find a tutor for me. The Center has also helped me in preparing for
job interviews and preparing my resume. (Female Sophomore African
American)
The academic support services offered by CED include the Summer Bridge
Program, academic counseling, Student Study Center, Academic Success Workshops
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and graduate school counseling. One of the major programs Ms. Moore directs each
year is the Summer Bridge Program (SBP). SBP is designed for entering freshmen
underrepresented minority engineering students. It is a two-week residential program
with the goal of easing the transition from high school to college. The Summer
Bridge Program has several components including introductions of students to
college life; academic enrichment in physics, calculus and computer science, social
integration, and career development. All underrepresented minority students
accepted into the School of Engineering are invited to attend the Summer Bridge.
Statistically over the past three years, only 50% of the students invited applied.
Depending on the budget, between 25-40 students may participate. For three years,
Intel sponsored the Summer Bridge Program, Since Intel is no longer funding the
program, 40% of the current budget is financed by USC and 60% is through
corporate gifts. To date, all of the students who have applied have been accepted to
attend the Program. The Program takes place during the last two weeks of June each
year.
The two-week program in 2002 consisted of course- work, an introduction to
the University and School of Engineering, orientation to the different support system,
success workshops, engineering student panels, field trips to engineering-based
corporations and social events. The curriculum design of the SBP helped prepare
students for the gatekeeper engineering courses: calculus, physics and computer
science. USC professors from these different disciplines taught the summer courses.
The workshops were designed to give entering freshmen information on the
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
following topics: how to give an effective presentation; resume writing; skills for
success; and understanding your responsibilities. The workshops were lead by
professional engineers from Hewlett Packard, Intel Corporation, Northrop Grumman
and Boeing.
Field trips to engineering corporations provided the students with an
introduction to career possibilities in different engineering fields. Corporations that
have developed a strong relationship with CED are often the ones who support the
Bridge students. The SBP participants visited Raytheon, Disney’s Imagineering and
Boeing. The students are provided with tours and meet with professional engineers.
Often these field trips are the highlight of the program, for the students.
Social events were scheduled throughout the two weeks to help the students
develop into a cohesive group and increase the possibility for early social integration.
The different minority professional engineering organizations cosponsored many of
the social events. One of the morning events included graffiti clean-up in the USC
neighborhood. The Summer Bridge ended with a banquet for all students, parents,
faculty and counselors.
“The students who participate in the Summer Bridge Program often become
the most active members of CED during their time at USC.” This comment by Ms.
Moore demonstrates that a close-knit group is established during the students’ initial
two-weeks at USC and that this group continues to support each other throughout
their four years. There is a tendency to have one select group become the major
recipients of the services provided by the minority engineering program. Often the
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students who have developed a close relationship with the director during a Summer
Bridge Program receive the most attention within the MEP. This behavior creates a
void for those who decided not to participate in SBP. They may not be recruited as
vigorously to participate once they do arrive at USC. The SBP students have
developed a strong bond while attending the program and the nonparticipants can be
placed into an outsider position if the director does not make a conscious effort to
recruit them. The researcher would classify this as “teacher’s pet syndrome”, the
students who are the most actively engaged receive the most attention and the
students who are the least active are marginalized. Landis (1991) warns “there is a
strong tendency for the students who need the services the least to get them the most;
whereas the students who need the services the most, get them the least” (p.7).
Without proper management, the nonparticipants of the SBP can become a neglected
group.
Academic counseling from CED includes study skills development, and help
with finding a tutor. The counseling is student initiated but Ms. Moore will also ask
students to visit her office when their academic records show a decline in their grade
point average. Engineering Peer Tutoring is sponsored through the Engineering
Student Affairs Office and offers free tutoring Monday through Thursday 9:00-8:00
p.m. and Friday 9:00-5:00 p.m. Students are encouraged to make an appointment by
phone for a tutor but walk-in are acceptable if there is a tutor available.
The diligent academic counseling provided by CED is very important to
engineering students as discussed by Seymour and Hewitt (1997). Seymour and
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hewitt’s study on the unsupportive culture of science and engineering departments
found that science, mathematics and engineering students are not receiving adequate
counseling. According to their study, students identified a number of needs which
they seek to meet by approaching faculty and other advisors: advice on academic and
career alternatives and how best to pursue them; accurate information on required
courses and appropriate sequencing in order to fulfill particular degree requirements;
help in understanding the academic material presented in particular classes; practical
help or advice with problems that impinge on academic performance-especially
problems with finances, employment, time conflicts, health and other personal
matters; and someone to take a personal interest in their progress, problems, and
overall career direction (p. 134). The conclusions expressed by Seymour and
Hewitt’s study coincide with the findings of the Committee for Retention at USC.
One of the major recommendations made by Landis (1991) for an effective
minority engineering program is for freshmen to participate in a Freshmen
Orientation Course. The objectives of the course are community building, academic
survival skills, personal development, professional development, and orientation to
the MEP, the School and the. University. USC offered an Orientation to Engineering
(040x Freshman Engineering Transition) course in the past. The course has not been
taught for several years. There are currently 101 Introductory Engineering Courses
being taught in each of the different engineering disciplines offered by USC. These
courses have a strong emphasis on introducing the students to the discipline’s
curriculum, computer graphics, and historical development of the discipline. One of
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the suggestions from the Committee for Retention was to review the introductory
course. Their suggestions included early exposure to adequate and representative
subject material concerning the discipline, enhanced content, utilizing TAs, hands-on
work and using good instructors who care. This remedial step would resemble the
Landis M odel of an Introduction to Engineering Course. The Landis course is
designed to enhance student success by addressing five primary themes: community
building; professional development; academic success strategies; personal
development; and orientation to the university and the engineering program. The
course curriculum includes goal setting, strengthening your commitment to
engineering, keys to success in engineering, employment models, engineering as a
career, and the future of the engineering profession. The course may benefit from
having two teachers: one engineering professor and one education professor or the
CED Director,
Academic Success Workshops (ASW) are student facilitated academic
enrichment sessions. The ASW’s are designed to help students learn how to study in
cooperative groups and help students develop a support networks within the
engineering community.
Graduate school counseling is part of the academic services provided by
CED. Students may receive support with all of the aspects of preparing for and
applying to graduate school. During the fall of 2003, Ms. Moore invited the Manager
of Programs for the National Consortium for Degrees for Minorities in Engineering
and Science, Inc. (GEM') to USC. For 25 years, this organization has provided
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scholarships and internships to over 2,140 underrepresented minority students
seeking masters and doctorates in science and engineering. While visiting USC. the
Manager of Programs discussed the GEM scholarship and internship program. She
also spoke with the students about the application process, writing descriptive essays,
and requesting recommendations from professors.
C ED ’s Student Study Center (SSC) is located in the Annex. As the students
enter the SSC, they are greeted with brightly painted logos from the different
minority professional organizations; SWE, NSBE, and SHPE. These organizations
have office space in the Annex. There are table and chairs, computers, and a copy
machine for the students to utilize. A magazine rack is filled with free minority
engineering-based periodical for the students to take: Hispanic Engineer, The Black
Collegian, SWE, NSBE, and Technica. There is a student information bulletin board
for students to examine and learn of job opportunities, internships, and scholarships.
Examples of two internships listed on the bulletin board include Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Programs at University of Colorado, Boulder
and Colorado State University. The REU Programs provide students with an
opportunity to do research with a professor in areas such as degradable biomaterials,
liquid crystal biosensors or semiconductor gas sensors. The students receive a
stipend of $4,000, travel expenses and free room and board during the ten-week
summer program. The goals of SSC are to provide a place for students to study, work
in cooperative groups, and gather for social events or club meetings.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Personal Counseling and Social Networking
I know that if I need to cry to someone or talk to them about complications,
or even tackle any hard class, 1 have a bunch of people to talk to, and
Ms. Moore has been very helpful to me, and it seems to everyone who walks
in the door. With me being a transfer student, I have met everyone that I
know through the office. (Female Sophomore African American)
Ms. Moore stated that most of her time is dedicated to counseling students.
Students seek support from Ms. Moore for a variety of personal reasons. Being able
to discuss difficult issues with students is an important part of a minority engineering
program directors job. Personal counseling includes roommate problems, financial
aid, and sexist or racist incidences. One of the students interviewed made a comment
indicating that Ms. Moore is doing a good job making students feel she is a safe
person to share private information with, “I go to see Teri Moore very often. I not
only talk to her about class and school-related tilings but everything.” (Female
Sophomore African American)
The results from the Seymour and Hewitt (1997) study showed what students
wanted from advisors, above all else, was personal attention:
What you actually want is to spend some time with an advisor who takes
the time to know you personally, understand where you’re trying to go
and advise what you need to do to get there.
I was thinking, ‘genetic engineering,’ and he was a biological statistician.
But he was a nice man. I remember him saying, ‘Well, tell me something
about yourself.’ He was the only advisor that ever really spent more than
five minutes with me. (p. 141).
Social events sponsored by CED give engineering students an opportunity to
socially integrate with their peers. Picnics and flag football games are affective
behaviors that allow students to bond with the University. When they are sponsored
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
through the CED or ESA Office, students are given the message that the School of
Engineering is encouraging social networking. The programs and events that have
professional development as a goal often also support the students socially by
providing them with role models. “I am surrounded with not only those in the
engineering field, but also those people that are of a similar ethnicity. This is very
inspiring and is kinda like a support group of people that always understand your
problems. The conferences sponsored by the organization are wonderful because
they give us, still pursuing the fields of engineering a view of those accomplished
African Americans who are always there to help out and influence.” (Female
Sophomore African American)
Students who traverse a long cultural distance must become acclimated to
dominant cultures of immersion or join one or more enclaves (Kuh & Love 2000). A
person’s willingness and ability to leave one cultural setting may be necessary
conditions for subsequent persistence in another cultural setting.
Another way to negotiate cultural distance is to join a group
or subculture that values, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions that are
congenial with one’s culture of origin. This can effectively reduce the
cultural distance a student must travel and make navigating the institutional
culture on a daily basis less intimidating. We call these groups cultural
enclaves (p/205).
Students can benefit from enclaves because they can “scale down” the
institution and help students acquire the skills necessary to negotiate the social,
physical, and cognitive landscape of the campus.
Kuh and Love (2000) address the importance of a student’s development of a
cultural connection. Their findings address student’s sense of membership or
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
affiliation with others in the institution. The sense of belonging to one or multiple
groups includes shared values, assumptions, perspectives, beliefs, and meaning-
making systems related to negotiating the cultural spheres of the institution and its
components. Cultural connections may translate to a sense of belonging to the
institution as a whole but ultimately is mediated through students’ interpersonal
interactions with faculty, peers, and others (Kuh & Love, 2000).
The CED Office takes special pains to make sure participants are involved in
professional engineering organizations and developing leadership skills. The MEP
director works as an advisor and mentor for the minority engineering programs,
helping to provide necessary support for the students to attend conferences, plan
events, and recruit students. There is a symbiotic relationship between the CED
Office and these organizations. Students who participate heavily in CED events and
programs often become the leaders of the minority engineering organizations. The
following comment was taken from the CED brochure regarding student leadership.
Coming out of a small town in Virginia, I was concerned about
getting lost at a place like USC. I participated in the Summer
Bridge program, met guys who would be my roommates the
next four years, and developed my leadership skills to the point that
I was elected the president of NSBE for two consecutive years. If
not for CED, my life at USC would probably not be the same.
Career Counseling and Professional Development
The benefits of joining CED include opportunities for internships,
interview skills, and aid in handing out one’s resume.(Male Freshman Latino)
Career counseling and professional development offered by CED include
discussions about internship and job opportunities, resume writing, and interviewing
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
skills development. Students self-select to attend the events related to career
networking The recent events sponsored by CED included: Lockheed Martin’s
Professional Ethics Workshop; Breakfast with Recruiters; Lunch with Microsoft; and
Walt Disney’s Imagineering Presentation. CED co-sponsors an event each spring
with Engineering Career Services. The Engineering Career Expo occurs in the spring
and has many career oriented workshops and presentations. Students can have their
resumes critiqued by a professional, attend mock interviews and network with
corporate represen tali ves.
The comments below were made by CED participants:
The. benefits of belonging to CED include opportunities for internships,
interview skills and aid in handing out one’s resume. (Male Freshman Latino)
I joined CED because I know that with me majoring in engineering, I would
be faced with many obstacles, and being a part of a program with other
students of color would enhance my drive and will to complete the major.
(Female sophomore African American)
CED has an active industry Advisory Board (IAB) consisting of industry
representatives and faculty members. These individuals provide direction and
support to the program and the students. Industry representatives from IBM, Boeing,
Intel, Hewlett Packard and Lockheed sit on the Industry Advisory Board. The
support from the representatives includes scholarship funds, guest speaking
appearances, internship opportunities, and student leadership support networks. The
professional engineers from the IAB conduct many of the workshops during the
Summer Bridge Program
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
M s. Moore helps the students apply for research internships on and off the
USC Campus. Ms. Moore dedicates many hours helping students apply to these
internships. The students need support with completing the applications, and writing
essays. The Center provides the incentive and support the students needs by reducing
the amount of time it takes to apply. Without the extra support many of the students
would not have the time and confidence to fill out the forms, request
recommendations from their professors, write essays, and meet the deadlines for
submission.
The students who do not participate in CED stated during their surveys and
interviews that they are interested in programs and events that could benefit them
academically, socially, and professionally. During the surveys and interviews
students were asked to provide reasons for nonparticipation in CED program and
events. There were two major reasons students did gave for not participating
unaware of the events (90%), and not know anyone who would be at the event
(42%). Timing of the events was a reason for nonparticipation for many students: the
event was not at a convenient time (27%), and time conflicted with work schedule
(15%). Twenty-five percent of the students stated that they were not interested in the
event or did not find the event relevant.
Professors and extra credit played a role in the nonparticipation. Twenty-one
percent of USC qualifier/nonparticipant students stated in their survey that they did
not participate because their professors showed no interest in the event. Students also
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stated that no extra credit given for attending the event was a reason for not
participating (21 %),
The student responses display a lack of information, unwillingness to participate if
they do not have friends who are going to be participating, and little to no promotion
of the program/events by professors,
1 heard about it but figured it wasn’t meant for me because the word
“diversity” mislead me. I thought it was a foreign student program
I do not know about it and what it offers students. Maybe if I knew what it
was, I would join.
I have not heard anything about this program or been, recruited to join the
organization.
One of the questions on the survey requested students (N=15) to rate
activities that they find most beneficial. The students’ answers to the question
regarding rating the most beneficial activities showed a strong preference for
academic support activities (76%). The students also felt that events helping to
prepare for their future in graduate school or as an engineer would be beneficial
(47%). Increasing knowledge about engineering as a career/profession was
considered beneficial by 30% of the students. The engineering students from USC
were moderately interested in social events (33%). They expressed the least amount
of interest in building confidence events (12%). The results of the survey responses
above showed a pattern. Students who tended to rate academics highly also found
improving skills such as test taking and helping to prepare for their future in graduate
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school or as an, engineer beneficial. Students who were interested in social events
also tended to find building confidence events beneficial,
I would like to participate in programs that would help my professional
connections for after graduation,
1 would like to [participate] because I think it would be helpful, for
networking and getting a job in the future and to get more help now,
however, I just really don’t have the time.
Although students repeatedly stated not having enough time was a reason for
nonparticipation, when asked to provide the amount of time they would dedicate to
enrichment programs each month they had the following responses.
Table 23: Possible Time IJSC Students Will Dedicated to Enrichment Each Month
N=17
Hours per month # of students % of sroup
0-5 5 29%
6-10 9 53%
11-15 2 12%
Unsure 1 6%
The program director of an MEP has the challenge of trying to coordinate the
program design and implementation around the needs of the students. At the
beginning of each semester the director should give a survey asking students which
type of programs and events interest them most so as to invite students to particular
events suited to their needs.
The faculty and staff interviews were conducted by telephone and during site
visits to the University of Southern California, Eight individuals were contacted:
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
seven professors, and one undergraduate student advisor. The respondents were from
several different disciplines including chemical engineering, civil engineering,
electrical engineering and materials engineering. Each of the individuals interviewed
works with undergraduates. The patterns that developed during the faculty interviews
include: a select group of professors within the School of Engineering being familiar
with CED; lack of knowledge of CED and it’s mission and an inability of professors
to advise students to participate in. CED due to a lack of knowledge about the
program.
The first interview question requested if the professors advised students to utilize
the Center. The responses were mixed but most of the professors did not advise
students to use the Center. The main reason for not advising the students was that the
professors were not familiar with the Center and could not state the benefits the
Center could offer students.
Three years ago I sent someone to the Center but not recently.
I advise students about the technical aspects of my courses. I do not advise them
on a broader level.
I never thought I should advise students to utilize the Center. I’m
not plugged in on the program.”
One of the professors stated that he was worried about the type of advice the
engineering students would receive from the Center. He stated that academic and
career advisement should be done by each of the specific engineering departments.
He feels the Center is beneficial as a place to keep students involved. This professor
went on to say that no one has directed him to advise students to utilize the Center
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and that “ if you are expecting faculty to do that you better tell them that they should
be doing so.”
When asked the question if the professors within their department appreciated the
Center, the professors had mixed comments. Most could state one individual who
was very involved in minority issues, and others felt that the department really did
not appreciate the Center and the professors were unfamiliar with what the Center
does. One professor said that only the " ’informed faculty” know about the Center.
Another professor stated that the Center is not promoted well.
When asked the question regarding advising students to participate in
professional engineering organizations, the professors felt much more comfortable.
They were familiar with the benefits of participating in the organizations and
believed professors do play a vital role in helping to promote the organizations. 'The
results of the faculty interviewed for this study demonstrate that the Center is not
well known to the professors. If professors are to be ambassadors for the Center they
must first be aware of the mission, goals, services provided and benefits of the
Center. They need proper information before they can provide advice to students
about utilizing the Center.
Summary
The Center for Engineering Diversity (CED) is dedicated to promoting
scholastic and personal excellence among underrepresented (African American,
Hispanic and Native American) students in the School of Engineering. CED provides
a wide range of services that foster the development of a community of scholars
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
while preparing students for an engineering career and/or graduate school CED
offers academic and career counseling, academic and professional development
workshops, industry networking opportunities, scholarships, a Summer Bridge
Program and a 24-hour a day Study Center (CED Brochure), The description of the
programs and events in this case study and students responses to interviews about
CED provide an in depth view of the workings of the Center. The students feel a
sense of support from the Center that benefits them socially, academically,
emotionally and professionally.
The survey results of the 60 students of color show a high percentage of
freshmen and sophomore underrepresented minority and female students are not
participating in CED (69%). These students gave two major reasons for
nonparticipation; unaware of the events and program (90%) and not knowing anyone
at the event (42%). These students could provide reasons why they should participate
and also stated that they are willing to spend time each month on enrichment. The
students wanted to be more involved but only if the events filled a specific need
socially, academically, professionally or emotionally.
Faculty within the School of Engineering must be familiar with CED before
they can advise students to participate in the program. Twenty-one percent of the
qualifier/participants stated that their professors not showing interest influenced their
decision not to participate in CED events. Half of the faculty within the School of
Engineering interviewed for this study were unaware of CED and could not discuss
the benefits of the program to students. The Committee for Retention recognized that
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
poor advisement practices and indifferent departments and faculty effect retention.
These results are constant with the finding of Seymour and Hewitt (1997) and Landis
(1991).
Engineering faculty and administrators typically maintain a
polite distance from these programs because they feel that
the staff director knows better how to meet the needs of
minority students (Landis, 1991, p.7)
There is a gap between the professors’ abilities to advise and the students’
wanting to receive advice from professors. From the students’ responses, professors
could increase participation if they advertise and showed interest in the events and
programs.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix 6;
University of California, Irvine Henry Samueli School of Engineering
Center for Opportunities & Diversity in Engineering (CODE)
Case Study
The University of California, Irvine (UC1), one of the nine public
universities within the University of California system (UCS), was founded in 1965
and is located fifty miles south of downtown Los Angeles in suburban Orange
County. UCt has an undergraduate population of 17,865 and offers bachelor’s,
master’s and doctoral degrees. There are ten undergraduate schools/department at
UCI including the Henry Samueli School of Engineering. The tuition in 2002-03 was
$4,556 for in-state residents. The acceptance rate for incoming freshmen is 51%. Of
these incoming freshmen 95% are ranked in the top 10% of their high school class.
UCI runs on a quarter system and there is a credit-minimum of 180 quarter units for
completion of an undergraduate degree.
The Henry Samueli School of Engineering was established in 1965 and is
named after an alumnus and cofounder of the chip manufacturer, Broadcom
Corporation after he made a $30 million gift to UCI in 2000. There are
approximately 2,100 undergraduate students enrolled in the School of Engineering at
UCI with an African American, Latino, and Native American student enrollment in
2002 of approximately 250 (12%) and a female enrollment of 397 (19%) making the
total enrollment of underrepresented students approximately 548 (26%). The
underrepresented minority population in the School of Engineering is equal to the
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
overall university population for ethnicity but it is lower by 30% for gender. The
School has ten different engineering undergraduate majors including Aerospace
Engineering (AE), Biomedical Engineering (BME), Biomedical Engineering:
Premedical (BMEP), Chemical Engineering (CliE), Civil Engineering (CEJ,
Computer Engineering (CpE), Electrical Engineering (EE), Engineering (a general
program, GE), Environmental Engineering (EnE), Material Science Engineering
(MSE), and Mechanical Engineering (ME). The academic mission of The Henry
Samueli School of Engineering has developed to be consistent with the missions and
goals set for it by the State of California, the University of California, and the
University of California, Irvine (UCI) campus. Specifically, the academic
environment for individuals interested in the application of science and the
development of new technologies for the benefit of society, and to provide a
supportive environment for each program to meet its unique objectives.
In 1980, the School of Engineering decided to develop a minority
engineering program in order to address the needs of the underrepresented students.
The program became fully funded in 1994 and is currently known as the Center for
Opportunities and Diversity in Engineering (CODE). The mission of CODE at UCI
is to act as an administrative unit within the Henry Samueli School of Engineering
charged with promoting and facilitating diversity within the school. CODE works to
achieve this goal by providing academic, professional and social support for its
students. In addition, CODE strives to create a community where students feel
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
comfortable discussing both the challenges and successes they experience while at
UCI. This case study is a profile of the services and programs offered by CODE.
The Center for Opportunities & Diversity in Engineering: A Profile
Ms. Michelle Johnson is the current director of the Center for Opportunities
and Diversity in Engineering (CODE). Ms. Johnson has worked for UCI as the
CODE Director for many years. She has previous experience in MEP offices having
worked as the Assistant Director for other universities. Ms. Johnson established
many o f the programs while at her previous institutions. She is one of the leaders
within the community of minority engineering program administrators,
CODE was established in 1980 but not fully funded as a program until 1994.
CODE is located directly behind the Engineering Laboratory Facility in the
Engineering and Computing Trailer (ECT). The facilities of the Center include two
offices and a Student Study Room. Ms. Johnson is a full-time employee and has the
support staff of a full-time Program Coordinator.
The population served by CODE includes engineering and computer science
students. The demographic makeup of CODE students is 33% Latino, 7% African
American, 1% Native American and 59% Other. Seventy-one freshmen and ten
transfer students enrolled in CODE during fall 2002.
Ms. Johnson uses many resources to inform the university community about
CODE. These include descriptions of CODE in the University Catalogue, and on the
web site http://www.eng.iicl.edu/code. Ms. Johnson recruits students by sending
mailers to all entering freshmen and transfer minority engineering students and by
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
speaking to freshmen during orientation events. The CODE Web Site provides
students with information about CODE Alumni, CODE Advisory Board Members,
CODE Workshops, tutoring schedule and Study Center and scholarships, research
and employment opportunities. Ms. Johnson designed a Survival Guide that she calls
a “yellow pages for all CODE students.” The Survival Guide contains valuable
information about CODE, and the other academic and career development programs
at UCI. The Guide provides names of CODE contacts, good advice for engineering
students, a description of how to subscribe to the CODE Listserves, CODE E-Mentor
Network List, Professional Engineering Associations List, CODE Advisory Board
List, and different information about the UCI Counseling Center, UCI Career Center,
and the McNair Program.
The strength of CODE is its programs and initiatives that connect the
students to the University in general and the School of Engineering in particular.
Research indicates that students who are academically and socially integrated within
the University persist through graduation (Astin 1993a, Tinto, 1987) so the strategy
employed by CODE makes good sense. CODE has implemented programs that
address the barriers faced by many underrepresented and female students concerning
academic and social integration in engineering departments including lack of role
models, ethnic and gender isolation, and poor high school preparation. To help
students overcome these barriers CODE provides the following services and
programs: academic support services: personal counseling and social networking,
career counseling and professional development.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Academic Support Services
I have utilized this organization [CODE] because of the motivation 1 get
from my fellow peers who use the Center and also from the director,. I also
utilize the organization because they have free tutoring available and review
sessions whenever a midterm is coming up for a particular class. (Latina
female sophomore)
The academic support services offered by CODE include access to a
Comprehensive Tutoring Program, academic counseling, a Freshman Orientation
Course, and a Student Study Center. The Comprehensive Tutoring Program offers
individual tutoring in mathematics, physics and engineering courses. Junior and
senior engineering students are paid to tutor other engineering undergraduates. This
service is free and open to all engineering students but CODE students make up 60%
of the students who participate in the Comprehensive Tutoring Program. The other
40% are engineering students who want extra help with their courses. One
nonqualifier/participant students, a male Asian sophomore, commented, “I attended
the CODE tutoring sessions for my engineering course. I found them somewhat
beneficial. I learned about the tutoring from a friend. I went with her to the first
session I attended. I would use the CODE tutoring again if 1 was having trouble in a
future engineering course. I would go to more CODE events if they were advertised
better.”
During the surveys and interviews, the students repeatedly mentioned
tutoring as one of the benefits of working with CODE, The students sign in to be
tutored in mathematics, physics, and/or engineering. The tutoring schedule is
available on the web at ww.eng.uci.edu/code/study. Ms. Johnson feels that the
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tutoring program is more effective than Academic Excellence Workshops (AEW).
AEW ’s are an academic enrichment course designed to teach students how to learn
effectively in a cooperative group. Junior or Senior students act as facilitators to
freshmen and sophomore student participants. The course curriculum usually covers
a “gatekeeper” general science or mathematics course such as general chemistry or
calculus. The courses are normally 1 unit, and not required. They are often managed
through the Minority Engineering Program Office, Ms. Johnson made the following
comments as to why she feels individual tutoring is more beneficial than the
Academic Excellence Workshops.
I don’t like to mandate students to participate. If they do not have the
commitment to it, it is not going to work. We charged students to
be involved in the AEWs, We would have a special section as part
of CODE. But when I saw the grades coming out, I would ask myself
why are we paying this money because we did not have the results we
expected.
Students are told about the Comprehensive Tutoring Program as soon as they
arrive and begin to participate in CODE. The counselors from the Office of
Undergraduate Advisors will advise students to go to the tutors when they are having-
academic difficulties. All engineering students in danger of being withdrawn from
engineers must participate in the Tutoring Program as part of their probation
contracts. The tutors keep logs on the lengths of tutoring, type of tutoring and
subjects being tutored. It is important for the tutors to keep good records in case the
Undergraduate Office or the Associate Dean asks if the probationary student has
been following the contract, the tutoring record show whether or not students are
participating.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Academic counseling is a large part of minority engineering programs.
Program directors work closely with students to help them with course selection,
improving study skills, finding tutors, and stress management, Michelle monitors
CODE students’ progress and will call a student into her office if she sees a decline
in the student’s grade point average. As one of the students commented, Michelle
knows more about her grades than her own parents. The personal attention to
academic achievement is regarded as one of the benefits of belonging to CODE.
During one of the site visits, I observed Ms. Johnson counseling a potential
Latino transfer student from East Los Angeles College (ELAC) on the courses he
would take during the upcoming semester. East Los Angeles College is one of the
only community colleges in California with a science and mathematics curriculum
aligned with an engineering degree from a California State or University of
California four-year institution. Providing academic counseling to this potential
transfer student prior to his attendance is a very good recruiting tool and will help to
ensure his smooth transition from ELAC to UCI.
The Freshman Orientation Course is an overview of engineering, and
provides the basic academic survival skills for freshmen. The course curriculum
includes time management, stress management, values and goal setting, engineering
careers, and proper nutrition. Ms. Johnson utilizes handouts, provides portions of the
textbook introduction to Engineering (Landis, 2000), and schedules guest speakers
from industry to build on the curriculum. This three-unit course is taken credit/no
credit, and is offered fall and spring to all engineering students. Although there are
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
no exams or finals, students are required to write a .resume and a five page reflective
paper. The course is not mandatory and has an enrollment of twenty to thirty students
a quarter.
The Student Study Center (SSC) is a location for students to meet for group
study sessions, relax between classes and use computers. Junior and senior
engineering students, who call themselves the “Pizza-stained Veterans,” sell food
and drinks. The SSC is open 24 hours, seven days a week. During the surveys and
interviews the students who participate in CODE made positive remarks regarding
the Study Center. They felt it was a better location to study than, the library because
the students who utilize the Center are all engineering majors. One student
commented, “I have many buddies through the program by just going to the [CODE]
office and using the Study Center.”
CODE students no longer receive priority registration at UCI. Due to not
having priority registration, CODE can no longer cluster students into cohorts. The
benefit of priority registration and clustering students was the development of a
cohesive community of learners. Having groups of students working as a cohesive
community of learners improves retention (Astin, 1993a). The only CODE
participants who currently have the benefit of priority registration are the
Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) students.
CODE does not have a Summer Bridge Program for entering freshmen but
does rely on EOP and the California Alliance for Minority Participation in Science,
Engineering and Mathematics (CAMP) to provide summer academic enrichment to
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the low-income or educationally disadvantaged background students. Students
receive several benefits as EOP or CAMP members including; attending science and
mathematics courses; faculty-directed research opportunities; and mentoring
opportunities during the summer.
Personal Counseling and Social Networking
In my opinion, surviving college is equal parts motivation, confidence,
determination, and intelligence. I mean you can be smart, but if you don’t
have the drive to do work or motivate yourself to do better and better
on the next test, then there is no way you’re going to survive. It’s very
important to have peers that you can learn from each other and also
have a slight competitive edge over. Ever since 1 was a freshman the
program director, Michelle has known me by name and always encourages
me to do my best and looks out for the things that I do. Like most college
students I don’t tell my parents my grades, but Michelle knows them and she
acts as a “mock parent” and always reminds me that I have to keep my grades
up to improve my GPA. If anything that kind of home away from home
attitude that I get right here on campus is worth coming back to, (Female
Sophomore Latina)
Having someone who knows your name is very important to students in
general and for student within a large department like the School of Engineering at
UCI in particular. Several students interviewed stated that they do not feel their
professors provide adequate information about programs and events on campus. Two
responses from the interviews exemplified the frustration students’ feel due to
inadequate advice “I haven’t heard of any professors mention any programs, so yes, 1
do feel they could advertise more. But with a school this size, it doesn’t seem like the
professors care too much” (Female Freshman Asian). “Professors could definitely
advertise these programs and the clubs in their classes themselves, that would greatly
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
help the genera! apathy that plagues our campus, and, engineering in particular”
(Male Freshman Filipino). These students were not participating in CODE.
The CODE Office was repeatedly referred to as home away from home by
students. Ms. Johnson was given the title of “mock parent” by a student and stated to
be “like a mom to students” by a professor. The personal counseling and career
development services offered by CODE include counseling with personal concerns,
financial counseling, scholarship and internship counseling, and career workshops.
Ms. Johnson spends a large percentage of her time on personal counseling. The
personal counseling is a major part of building the community. She has an open door
policy with her students. With this open door policy comes an open discussion
policy. Students may want to talk about life, relationships, politics, or whatever their
need is at the time. They want to talk to a safe person who will stop what they are
doing to share that one moment. Ms. Johnson does her best to create a small town
feel within the CODE Office.
It is kinda like that whole Cheers thing “you want to go where people know
your name”. Typically, I can have six or seven people in my office and
students can introduce themselves to each other. One of the things I learned
while getting my masters degree is the importance of students finding that
significant other on campus.
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) discuss the importance of effective personal
counseling to student retention. According to the authors, the failure to find adequate
advice, counseling, or tutorial help was cited as contributing to one-quarter of all
students who switched out of SME (science, mathematics and engineering) majors.
The lack of adequate advice was also a source of frustration by half of the SME
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
population from the Seymour and Hewitt study (1997), This issue was the second
most, commonly cited concern for SME majors after poor teaching by SME faculty
(74%).
The results from the Seymour and Hewitt (1997) study showed what students
wanted from advisors, above all else, was personal attention:
What you actually want is to spend some time with an advisor who takes
the time to know you personally, understand where you’re trying to go
and advise what you need to do to get there.
1 was thinking, ‘genetic engineering,’ and he was a biological statistician.
But he was a nice man. I remember him saying, ‘Well, tell me something
about yourself.’ He was the only advisor that ever really spent more than
five minutes with me. (p. 141).
An open door discussion that an MEP director may have to address is racial
and gender discrimination. It is critical that the MEP director understands racial and
gender discrimination policies and laws. Ms. Johnson is one of the sexual harassment
advisors on campus. She feels comfortable dealing with this topic of concern for
students. She has sent cases of racial discrimination to the proper offices on the UCI
Campus in the past.
Other programs offered through CODE to improve student retention include
an annual weekend retreat, and the CODE E-Mentor Network. The 2002 fall
weekend retreat for took place in Lake Arrowhead, California. Fifteen students
normally attend the retreat each year. The goal of the retreat is to build community
between the freshmen and the upper class engineering students. The E-Mentor
Network is a method by-which freshmen can communicate with sophomore, junior
or senior engineering students, Freshmen .receive a list: of names, email addresses,
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
majors, hometowns and activities of upper class students who volunteered to be
mentors. The freshmen may then write any of the students to develop a relationship,
ask for advise or request information on a professor and/or course.
The CODE Office works closely with the minority engineering professional
association clubs. These clubs are NSBE, SHPE, MAES, SWE and FUSION. CODE
co-sponsors several events each year with the different clubs. UCI relies heavily on
the minority engineering professional association clubs to reinforce community
building and be a support system for the CODE Office- CODE depends on the
presidents of NSBE, SHPE, SWE and FUSION to communicate information about
upcoming events, internship possibilities, and scholarship opportunities to their club
members. Ms. Johnson tries to attend the minority engineering clubs national
conferences each year.
Career Counseling and Professional Development
The career assistance offered through CODE include: resume writing; mock
interview; developing career networking skills; and alumni guest speakers “Wish I
knew then what I know now!” sessions. The CODE Office cosponsors an annual
corporate banquet along with the minority engineering clubs; National Society of
Black Engineers (NSBE), Society of Mexican American Engineers and Scientists
(MAES), Filipino Uniting Student Engineers in an Organized Network (FUSION),
Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), and Society of Women
Engineers (SWE). The banquet is free to the students. In the spring CODE helps with
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a career fair event “Evening with Industry", for students to meet with local
engineers from different companies in Southern California.
Comments by CODE participants emphasize the benefits they have received,
I utilize this organization to help broaden my knowledge of engineering,
to meet fellow engineers, and to take advantage of the many opportunities
and services that CODE has to offer. (Male Sophomore Filipino)
Tire CODE Study Center, personal counseling, retreat weekend, and
academic counseling have all helped me become acquainted with my
major. They also helped me meet people in my field of study, as well
as helping me with my academics. (Female Sophomore)
Funding for research is available for CODE students. There is an endowed
grant for seven students to work with a faculty member on research for summer of
2003. The students receive $3,000 each to act as research assistants. They must write
a paper on their project before being paid. The rationale for the research program is
retention, career development, graduate school preparation, and providing summer
income. Ms. Johnson will also work with students to apply for internships off
campus. Other funding provided through the CODE Office includes book grants of
up to $200 for financially needy students. Up to fifteen students receive book grants
each year.
Internship counseling is available through CODE. CODE has developed
partnerships with industry to offer paid, summer internships to CODE students. Ms,
Johnson has created an Industry Advisory Board with several companies such as Cal
Trans, Northrop Grumman and UNISYS. Ms. Johnson established the Industry
Advisory Board at the University while working as an assistant manager at: Southern
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California’s Center for Engineering Diversity (CED) prior to her position at UCI.
She tries to keep the same board members year to year. Each quarter a different
minority engineering club president gives a presentation to the Board about their
club activities and events for the year.
The students who do not participate stated during their surveys and
interviews that they are interested in programs and events that benefit them
academically, socially and professionally. During the surveys and interviews
students were asked to provide reasons for nonparticipation in CODE programs and
events. The results showed most of the students (70%) were unaware of the events.
“I have not been an active member of the Center for Diversity and Opportunity in
Engineering in the Engineering Department because I have no knowledge, of what
they do.” Students also were misinformed about CODE, “Basically I heard that
CODE was just an organization that provides tutoring for your engineering classes.
That’s pretty much all I heard about them.”
A high percentage of students stated living off campus was a reason for
nonparticipation (49%). The students also responded that not knowing anyone at the
event was a major reason for nonparticipation (49%). Students at UCI gave time
conflicting with their work schedule (11%) and inconvenient timing of the events
(34%) as excuses for nonparticipation. One third of the students were not interested
in the events. Lastly, professors not showing interest in the students’ attendance
(21 %) and there being no extra credit for attending the event (23%) also influenced
students' decision whether or not to participate.
1 5 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One of the questions on the survey requested students to rate activities that
they find most beneficial The students (N=d8) rated academic support activities
(78%) as the most: beneficial, The students also felt that social events are very
beneficial (60%). The strong interest in social events may be due to the fact that UCI
is a commuter school. Many of the students do not live on campus and may have a
difficult time developing friendships with other engineering majors, Building
confidence was important to 34% of the students. There was moderate interest in
events associated with preparing for the future: increasing knowledge about
engineering as a career/profession (28%) and helping to prepare for my future in
graduate school or as an engineer (17%). The UCI students found events that
improved skills such as test taking the least beneficial (6%)
The benefits would include meeting more people in engineering, making
more contacts with the engineering community which might be useful
later when I look for a job, and learn ing more about the field of engineering.
(Female Sophomore White)
I think that it would help me “network” with other students and probably
employers. It would also help me meet other engineering students, (Male
Freshman. Filipino)
Although, the target population for the minority engineering program in the
School of Engineering is 548 students, CODE will also work with the White and
Asian male population. Ms. Johnson will work with any student who requests
support or wishes to participate. Twelve students that fell into this
nonquaMer/participant group included eight sophomores and four freshmen. These
students utilized the CODE Study Center, personal counseling and career workshops.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Four students were contacted .for an interview. Only one student responded with the
following comments:
I attended the CODE tutoring sessions for my engineering course. I found
them somewhat beneficial, I learned about the tutoring from a friend. I
went with her to the first session I attended. I would use the CODE tutoring
again if 1 was having trouble in a future engineering course. I would go to
more CODE events if they were advertised better.
Although students repeatedly stated not having enough time was a reason for
nonparticipation, when asked to provide the amount of time they would dedicate to
enrichment programs each month they had the following responses.
Table 24: Possible Time UCI Students Would Dedicated to Enrichment Each Month
N=14
Hours per month # of students % of group
1-5 4 29%
6-10 7 50%
11-15 3 21%
The director must coordinate program design with the needs of the students. At the
beginning of each semester the director should gi ve a survey asking students which
type o f programs and events interest them most. Students could then be invited to the
specific events they have stated interests them.
When students were asked if they feel their professors could advertise
programs and events better all responded “yes”. Yet when professors were asked
about CODE during a phone interview, most could not provide answers regarding
the benefits and mission of the CODE office. Six engineering faculty members and
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
two administrators were interviewed at UCI. Half of the professors were familiar
with CODE and could discuss the benefits of CODE during the interview. The two
administrators were very familiar with CODE. Each of the professors and
administrators worked with undergraduate students. The patterns that developed
during the faculty interviews included: a select group of professors within the School
of Engineering who were familiar with CODE; lack of knowledge about CODE and
it’s mission and an inability to advise students due to a lack of knowledge about the
program.
Examples of the responses to the interview question about the benefits of
CODE to students are as follows:
The students who have parents or siblings who have gone to college have
heard about college, they have a social circle where somebody has gone to
college some point in time and. told them about college. CODE is essentially
a location for first generation college students to find a home on campus.
CODE is a way for minority students to get connected. My definition of a
good MEP department is one that is about the individual. The best MEP
directors are those that look at each of the individuals that participate in the
Program and tailor the program activities around the individual, if a person’s
needs are met, that is what is important. The GFA points are not as important
as the individual receiving the support in the particular area that benefits
them,
CODE benefits students by building community. Michelle acts like a mother
to the students. She will help connect the students to professors doing
research, and give them advice about which classes to take when. For
instance, she tells students to take a Intro to Programming in the summer
when there may only be forty students in the class.
Only half of the professors felt the other professors in their department
appreciated the CODE Office. Many of the professors could name the individuals in
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their department who had taken a particularly strong interest: in the CODE Office,
One professor called herself an “Outreach Nut”, She was very familiar with the
program and worked closely with the director.
The last question on the professor interviews asked if they felt they play a
vital role in advising students to participate in enrichment programs and professional
engineering programs on campus. The comments were mixed, The professors felt
very comfortable discussing professional engineering programs with the students.
The professors who were not familiar with CODE did not want to advise students to
participate. One professor stated that he would like to be asked first by the students
about CODE and that he would feel awkward telling a student to go to CODE
without first being asked about it.
.Summary
The CODE Study Center, personal counseling, retreat weekend, and
academic counseling have all helped me become acquainted with my
major and engineering in general. They also helped me meet people
in my field of study, as well as help me with my academics, (Female
Sophomore)
'The Center for Opportunity and Diversity in Engineering (CODE) is a
discipline based academic support program designed to recruit, retain, and graduate
students. The mission of CODE is to provide academic support and professional
development to students, facilitate their transitions and graduation in engineering, to
promote diversity, and to inspire life-long learning, CODE achieves its mission
through building and sustaining academic communities. The student’s comments
above reinforce the benefits CODE offers to students who participate. The personal,
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic, professional, and social support she has received from CODE have
enriched her university experience and helped her integrate academically and
socially.
Sixty-one percentage of freshmen and sophomore students of color and
females surveyed were not participating in CODE, These students gave three major
reasons for nonparticipation: unaware of the events or program (70%), live off
campus and commute (49%) and did not know anyone who would be at the event
(49%). The nonparticipating students voiced their frustration over not being provided
advice and information that would benefit them. “I would like to participate in
programs that enrich me because 1 for one don’t feel like I’ve made the foil transition
from high school to college. I still feel like I’m in the phase where I could learn more
about my profession. Right now I don’t know anything about engineering and what
is out there for me after I graduate.” This sophomore Latino student’s comments are
consistent with the findings of Seymour and Hewitt (1997). In their study they found
the lack of adequate advice a source of frustration to 50% of the science,
mathematics and engineering (SME) population. This issue was the second most
commonly cited concern for SME majors after poor teaching by SME faculty (74%).
The students commented during their interview's that they wish to participate
in specific types of events. Each student showed preferences for social, academic,
professional or building confidence events. Some were very specific, “1 am not
interested in social events” and others were very broad,“I would like to participate in
more events and/or programs to help me socially, professionally, and build
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
confidence in my engineering skills. I think it would be nice to meet more people in
engineering. Next summer I want to get art engineering internship so it would be nice
to have a program that would help me figure out how to get that accomplished.” In
order to save time, the MEP director should create cohorts groups and design events
around each, of the groups.
Half of the faculty within the School of engineering interviewed for this
study were unaware of CODE and could not discuss the benefits of the program to
students. These results are constant with the finding of Seymour and Hewitt (1997)
and Landis (1991).
Engineering faculty and administrators typically maintain a
polite distance from these programs because they feel that
the staff director knows better how to meet the needs of
minority students (Landis, 199.1, p.7)
There is a gap between the professors’ abilities to provide advice and the
students’ warding to receive the advice from their professors. Faculty within the
School of Engineering must be familiar with CODE before they can advise students
to participate in the program. Twenty-one percent of the students surveyed at UCI
stated their professors not showing interest influenced their decision not to
participate in CODE events. When questioned further during interviews students
stated that they feel their professors are not providing them with adequate
information. From the students’ responses, if professors advertised the events and
showed interest, there would be an increase in participation.
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C:
California State University, Northridge College of Engineering and Computer
Science
Student Development and Equity Center (SDEC)
Case Study
California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is one of tire twenty-three
public universities within the California State University system (CSU), CSU is the
largest system of senior higher education in the nation. CSUN was founded in 1958
and is located 25 miles northeast of Los Angeles in suburban San Fernando Valley.
The undergraduate population is 24,463 and the institution offers bachelor’s and
master’s degrees with over 4,300 baccalaureate degrees awarded annually. The
2003-04 tuition and fees are $2,444 for in-state residents. The acceptance rate for
incoming freshman is 78%.
CSUN campus is composed of eight colleges: Arts, Media, and
Communication; Business Administration and Economics; Health and Human
Development; Education; Engineering and Computer Science; Humanities; Science
and Mathematics; and Social and Behavioral Sciences. CSUN operates on a semester
system and offers bachelor’s degrees in 51 academic disciplines.
The College of Engineering and Computer Science with an undergraduate
students population of 1,800 is the focus of this study. The College had an
underrepresented minority (African American, Latino, and Native American) student
enrollment in 2002 of approximately 574 (31%) and a female enrollment of 350
(21%) making the total enrollment of underrepresented students approximately 825
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(47%). The percentage of underrepresented minority population in the College of
Engineering is 6% less than the overall university population for ethnicity and 38%
less for gender. The College of Engineering and Computer Science Intel a six-year
retention rate of 11.7% for first-time freshmen fall 1993 cohort. The University’s six-
year graduation rate for regularly admitted first-time freshmen (1994-2000) was
30.6%?. The College has five departments; Civil Engineering and. Applied Mechanics,
Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Manufacturing Systems
Engineering and Management, and Mechanical Engineering. The undergraduate
engineering programs at CSUN prepare graduates for lifelong careers in the field that
will allow them to make productive contributions to society and to find personal
satisfaction in their work. All engineering programs begin with courses in
fundamentals of mathematics, science, engineering and computer science.
In order to enhance the success of underrepresented students in the College of
Engineering, CSUN established the Student Development and Equity Center
(SDEC). The mission of SDEC is to embody excellence in mentoring
underrepresented students and encouraging their significant achievement in
engineering. SDEC seeks to improve retention and graduation rates of
undergraduates by providing academic, social and professional support services. This
case study is a profile of the services and programs offered by SDEC.
The Student Development and Equity Center: A Profile
The Student Development and Equity Center (SDEC) was established in
1976 by Dr. Raymond Landis. As Chair of the College of Engineering, Landis
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
started CSUN’s Minority Engineering Program (MEP) in response to the high
attrition rate of underrepresented minority engineering students, Ms, Leslie Green is
the director of the program. The Center is located in the Engineering Building. The
facilities of the Center include the main office. Ms. Green’s office, a tutorial center
and a student study room. Four full-time employees work to support the Center; Ms.
Green, Director; a Program Manager; Recruiter/Advisor; and a Tutorial Program
Coordinator.
The Center has an alliance with two other programs to help support students
through their undergraduate education: MESA Engineering Program (MEP) and the
Educational Opportunity Program (EOP). MEP has the goal of increasing minority
representation in the mathematics, engineering and science fields. EOP is designed
for students with promising academic ability and potential that are from low-tncome
or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. EOP is based primarily on family
financial income level, and all students who participate must be California residents,
with the exception of American Indian students. EOP supports students from all
majors. SDEC works with the EOP students who are studying engineering or
computer science. Advisement from the Center is mandatory for all EOP students.
The student population utilizing the Center during the fall 2002 and spring of
2003 was 519. Of these 519 students 59% were Latino, 13% were Asian, 4% were
White, 14% were African American and .10% were Other, Ms. Green uses many
resources to inform the university community about SDEC. These include in The
California State University Northridge 2002-2004 Undergraduate Catalogue and on
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the web site f www.ees,esun,eriti/~kjrn). During freshmen and transfer student
orientation events, engineering students are recruited to sign up to be members of the
SDEC/MEP. Students must fill out an MEP application form in order to enroll, to
participate in the SDEC/MEP activities. The program director uses a list serve to
inform students about up coming events like the Annual SDEC Picnic or
faculty/student breakfasts. She asks students to give her the e-mail they use most
often whether from American Online or Netscape rather than their campus e-mail
that they do not utilize.
The strength of SDEC/MEP is its programs and initiatives that connect the
students to the University in general and the College of Engineering in particular.
Research indicates that students who are academically and socially integrated within
the University persist through graduation (Astin 1993a, Tinto, 1982) so the strategy
employed by SDEC/MEP makes good sense. Programs implementation address the
barriers faced by many underrepresented and female students concerning social and
academic integration in engineering departments including lack of role models,
ethnic and gender isolation, arid low faculty expectations. To help students overcome
these barriers SDEC provides the following: academic support services; personal
counseling and social networking; and career counseling and professional
development.
The benefits of enrolling as a member of SDEC/MEP include: access to the
Comprehensive Tutoring Program; use of the MEP Student Study Center; academic
merit and need-based scholarship; access to personal, academic, and career
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
counseling; field trips to engineering-based companies; internships and scholarships
information; and undergraduate research information. As a member of the MESA
Engineering Program (MEP) students are required to obtain academic advisement
every semester, actively participate in one or more student/professional
organizations, utilize tutorial services and attend mathematics workshops, participate
in MEP sponsored activities, and submit an updated resume every semester. Ms,
Green stated that there are no punitive measures in place for students who do not
participate, “they miss out on scholarship and internship opportunities by not being
active members”.
Academic Support Services
I want to be involved in anything that is going to help me academically!
(Male Sophomore Latino)
The academic support efforts provided through SDEC include a
Comprehensive Tutoring Program, academic advisement, EOP Summer Bridge,
Student Study Center and graduate school counseling. The Comprehensive Tutoring
Program offers students individual and group tutoring. Students may receive tutoring
by signing up for a scheduled session or as a walk-in to request a tutor. The Tutoring
Center is managed by a full time Tutorial Program Coordinator. Ten upper class
engineering, mathematics, and/or science students act as private and group tutors.
The tutors are paid through the Works Study program. Students may get help from 8
A.M, to 8 P.M., Monday through Friday, Students may receive free tutoring in the
following courses; mathematics, physics, civil engineering, electrical engineering,
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and mechanical engineering. Students on academic probation must see a tutor until
they are taken off probationary status.
Ms. Green described her method of academic counseling as “holistic
advisement.” The SDEC program director works very closely with the participants to
keep them on track academically and provide counseling on course selection, First
generation college students need help planning their academic careers while in
college. They do not have the resource of family members with college experience.
SDEC plays a critical role in providing the counseling so students do not waste time
taking unnecessary courses that could prolong their college education. The diligent
methods of academic counseling provided by SDEC are very important to science
and engineering students as discussed by Seymour and Hewitt (1997).
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) did a major study on the unsupportive culture of
science and engineering departments. According to their study, students identified a
number of needs which they seek to meet by approaching faculty and other advisors:
advice on academic and career alternatives and how best to pursue them.; accurate
information on required courses and appropriate sequencing in order to fulfill
particular degree requirements; help in understanding the academic material
presented inn particular classes; practical help or advice with problems that impinge
on academic performance-especially problems with finances, employment, time
conflicts, health and other personal matters; and someone to take a personal interest
in their progress, problems, and overall career direction (p. 134).
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The failure to find adequate advice, counseling, or tutorial help was cited as
contributing to one-quarter of all students who switched out of SME (science,
mathematics and engineering) majors. The lack of adequate advice was also a source
of frustration by half of the SME population from the Seymour and Hewitt study
(1997). This issue was the second most commonly cited concern for SME majors
after poor teaching by SME faculty (74%).
One of the most difficult problems for freshmen is to learn how the campus
system of advising, counseling and tutoring services works quickly enough in order
to prevent small problems from becoming larger ones (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997):
Everything deterred me from going on. I was feeling like there was nobody
1 could go talk to ...I thought, ‘Weil, I’d better switch now. I don’t want
to end up a year down the road still in this major when it’s not going to
work out.’
If I had had a good counselor who understood, and who could have made
some suggestions, I would probably not have dropped out of aerospace.
I could have taken the classes I’m taking right now, and decided later.
I felt like I’d wasted a semester, but didn’t know what else to do. If I’d
had a good counselor, 1 know 1 could have got it all straight in my mind
(p. 134).
Ms. Green tries to prevent the small problems students face from becoming
big ones. If a student’s grade point average is falling below average, the student
receives a letter from the SDEC program director to schedule academic counseling.
The student is then provided help in areas such as time management, test anxiety,
and stress management. The student would also receive a tutorial plan to follow
throughout the semester. The SDEC gives students information on tire other
resources on campus that could provide academic support including EOP, Learning
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Resource Center, Math Lab, Statistics Lab, Writing Center and Supplemental
Instruction,
Ms. Leslie Green takes on the responsibility of advising all of the freshmen
engineering undergraduates who have enrolled in the MEP, She will systematically
meet with each student. Ms. Green worked directly with students to help them
register for classes on-line. The number of freshmen she will see over a year who
participate in MEP is between 60-70 students. “I counsel all of the freshmen students
who enroll in MEP, that way I get to know them and hear directly from each what
academic issues they are having the most problems with.”
The SDEC has a Student Study Center that provides a place for students to
meet in groups or study alone. Computers are available along with a refrigerator,
microwave oven, and lockers. The minority engineering student groups, National
Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), and Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers
(SHPE), utilized the Center for executive board meetings and group meetings.
Trophies from intramural competitions between engineering students groups and
other campus groups adorned the Center. Pictures of the different SDEC events and
NSBE and SHPE events covered a bulletin board. The goal of the Student Study
Center is to give the students a place to relax with friends or study with fellow
engineering students.
The SDEC did not implement a Summer Bridge Program for entering
freshmen but the Educational Opportunities Program (EOF) provides summer
academic enrichment for underrepresented minority students entering CSUN. EOP is
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a six-week summer program that students may attend the summer before* their
freshmen year. Students in EOF take courses in mathematics or English. The
students also receive transitioning from high school to college information including:
how to fill out their class schedules; developing a study calendar; time management;
stress management; and study skills.
Once a week the EOF students who have declared engineering or computer
science as their majors meet with the SDEC program director. While meeting with
the EOF students, the program director discusses engineering as a career and orients
the students to the benefits of belonging to SDEC. She also takes time to counsel the
students on surviving in college. This form of counseling may include helping
students with simple tasks that students who are unfamiliar with college life may find
challenging. “When do 1 buy my books and how do I know which books to buy?”
asked one EOP student. Students’ concerns may be very basic or complex and the
program director has to be able to discuss a wide range of issues in order to
accommodate the needs of the individual.
All freshmen must declare a specific engineering major at CSUN. The
freshmen engineering students take an introductory engineering course. This 2-unit
lecture/ laboratory course introduces students to the engineering profession and
academic programs in Civil, Electrical, Manufacturing Systems, and Mechanical
Engineering. The curriculum emphasizes problem solving, design, analytical., and
computing skills. Design project development and team experience along with
introduction to the internet, word processing, spread sheet and presentation software
1.66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are also part of the course. The course focuses on orienting the students to the
University in general and College of Engineering and Computer Science in
particular. Along with learning about their chosen engineering field, students are also
given training in study skills, communication, time management, and stress
management. This course follows the Landis Model of an Introduction to
Engineering Course because it has four components: transitioning students from high
school to college; academic guidance; information about the support services; and
career and professional development.
Personal Counseling and Social Networking
All program participants are encouraged to see themselves as part of the MEP
“family” and to take advantage of the information resources, moral support
and development of interpersonal skills that our program and student
network provides. (MEP application form)
SDEC provides personal counseling and social networking for students.
Personal counseling through SDEC could include housing problems, roommate
issues, sexism or racism in the classroom, family problems, and stress management.
“Students will also be provided with advice to seek counseling through
psychological services when necessary.” stated Ms. Green.
Ms. Green discussed an incidence when a student’s grades were falling and
she asked the student to register for an appointment for counseling. Upon
interviewing the student she discovered that he did not have proper housing.
After moving in with different friends throughout the semester, he had not
found anyone permanent to live with. His family lived far away. He was
currently living in one of the city parks, and that was the reason for bis grades
dropping. I called campus bousing and arranged for him to be provided a
dormitory room.
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The results from the Seymour and Hewitt (1997) study showed what students
wanted from advisors, above all else, was personal attention:
What you actually want is to spend some time with an advisor who takes
the time to know you personally, understand where you’re trying to go
and advise what you need to do to get there.
I was thinking, ‘genetic engineering,’ and he was a biological statistician.
But he was a nice man. I remember him saying, ‘Well, tell me something
about yourself.’ He was the only advisor that ever really spent more than
five minutes with me. (p. 141).
No formal mentoring program is associated with SDEC. There were events
with engineering faculty to try to foster a mentor relationship between students and
faculty members. These events included breakfasts with faculty members, or pizza
night socials. Ms. Green said that some faculty were supportive but not as many as
she would have liked. She made the comment that many of the faculty members talk
about students' behavior in the past and compare it to students’ behavior today. She
believes the professors rely too heavily on direct instruction and do not utilize
cooperative learning and a hands-on approach to engage more students,
SDEC helps many students find internships and scholarships. Some of the
scholarships are from outside of the University such as the Hispanic Scholarship
Fund and other scholarships are provided through the SDEC Office. The SDEC
received a grant from the National Science Foundation, Computer Science,
Engineering and Mathematics Scholarships Program (CSEMS), With this grant they
are able to offer forty students from the mathematics, science and engineering
departments scholarships worth up to $3,000 to pay for tuition, fees and housing.
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Eligible students for the scholarship have to be a full time enrolled student in a
discipline listed above and show financial need, SDEC also received the Raising
Interest in Science and Engineering (RISE) Grant from the Office of Naval Research
to provide research programs to engineering students. The students receive a stipend
to do internal research with professors and to travel to conferences to present their
research. The program director is very proud of both of these programs knowing that
they are enabling students to continue with their educations. The benefits of financial
support and research positions are discussed in much of the retention literature. Astin
(1993) and Tinto (1987) have found a positive correlation between retention rates
and financial stability and students doing research while in college.
The SDEC Office works closely with the minority engineering professional
association clubs on the CSUN Campus. These clubs are National Society of Black
Engineers (NSBE), Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), and Society
of Women Engineers (SWE). The Center co-sponsors several events each year with
the different clubs. “Our kids are some of the most active on campus but don’t get
the recognition they deserve,” stated Ms. Green as we passed bulletin boards with
pictures of CSUN minority engineering students standing behind smiling grade
school students holding up balsa wood bridge projects they had made for the Young
Engineering Day Event. The more tangible projects in the College such as the
Formula. Car produced by the mechanical engineering students receive more
attention than the projects that are community-based. SDEC relies heavily on the
minority engineering professional association clubs to reinforce community building
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and recruit students to participate. The Center depends on the presidents of NSBE,
SHPE, and SWE to communicate information about upcoming events, internship
possibilities, and scholarship opportunities to their club members. Ms. Green tries to
attend the minority engineering clubs national conferences each year, The program
director uses a list serve to inform students about up corning events like the Annual
SDEC Picnic. She asks students to give her the e-mail they use most often rather
than their campus e-mail that they do not utilize. Ms. Green has a strong sense of
what works and what doesn’t work after years of experience. Knowing that students
do not use their campus e-mail address is very important because having access to
the correct lines of communication such as personal e-mail addresses, helps improve
participation.
Career Counseling and Professional Development
I’d love to take advantage of any opportunity to make myself more
‘marketable” in the industry. After all, the goal is not just about
learning and graduating. Ultimately, I’m in it for the money. Any
program that enhances my skills, self confidence, communication
skills, or makes me more visible, will open more doors for me once
I get out into the field. (Male Sophomore Latino)
SDEC sponsors workshops throughout the year for students to learn about
engineering as a career. Professional engineers from local, corporations act as the
guest speakers for the workshops. Ms. Green will critique resumes, prepare students
for job interviews and help students apply for internships,
SDEC is benefiting the students who are participating by providing financial
support, faculty/student research positions, personal counseling, professional
development and academic guidance. The students who are active within SDEC are
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also the most active within professional engineering organizations such as the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
The students who do not participate stated during the surveys and interviews
that they are interested in programs and events that benefit them academically,
socially, and professionally. During the surveys and interviews students were asked
to provide reasons for nonparticipation in SDEC programs and events. Most of the
students (89%) were unaware of the events. There were also many students who had
misconceptions about SDEC. “I know nothing about the Center and have no friends
who participate.” (Female Sophomore White) “My knowledge of the Center is that
they provide study rooms for students within the program.” (Male Sophomore
Latino) The students are not receiving the information from SDEC prior to the
events, or they are unfamiliar with SDEC and do not understand the benefits of
attending their events,
A high percentage of students at CSUN commute to school. The fact that the
students do not live on campus effects their participation in SDEC sponsored events.
Fifty-four percent of the qualifier/participants stated that living off campus was a
reason for not participating. Developmentally, college students are peer-oriented and
feel most comfortable in settings with friends and/or familiar peers. Thirty percent of
the major research group stated they did not participate because they did not know
anyone who would be at the event.
Timing of the events was a moderate concern to students: 19% stated the
event was not at: a convenient time and 19% stated the timing of the events conflicted
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with the student’s work schedules. Only a small percentage of students responded
that they felt a lack of interest in the events (11%) or that the event was not relevant
to them (3%).
I have not utilized this organization because most of the events seem to
conflict with other plans. Also I . have no Mends to go with. I am really not
the type to walk: into a room of strangers by myself and start introducing
myself, (Female Sophomore White)
Eleven percent of the CSUN qualifier/nonnparticipant students stated in the
survey that they did not feel their professors showing interest in the events
influenced their decision not to attend. Eleven percent also stated they did not
participate because there was no extra credit for attending. The interviews of the
students showed different results. All of the students who responded to the interview
stated that they felt their professors could advertise the programs more.
Yes. And I think they [professors] should also tell the students exactly what
happens at these events so that more students will be interested. One thing
I ’ve discovered is that I would be more likely to attend such an event if I
knew more about them. Another thing the professors can do is offer extra
credit for attending these effects to provide additional motivation for
students. I don’t mean giving extra points just for attending, but having some
kind of an assignment that involves the event. (Female Sophomore White)
Yes, professors advertising can boost participation. I never heard any of my
professors advertise anything beyond class material. By professors
advertising these programs it gives the student a sense that these programs
are very beneficial to students. (Male Sophomore Latino)
One of the questions on the survey requested students to rate activities that
they find most beneficial. The students were asked to place a number by each
category; 1 . being least beneficial and 6 being highly beneficial. The students’
answers (N= 20) showed a strong preference for academic support activities at:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CSUN (70%). The percentage of students who rated social events was high (40%).
Students also want help to prepare for their future in graduate school or as an
engineer (50%). The results of this question from CSUN students show that students
each have individual needs and. concerns.
I don’t care about the social and confidence building aspects of such
programs/events, but I do think it's a good idea to have programs to help
students academically and professionally. For example, it would be great if
there was a job fair exclusively for the engineering department, where
students could interact with and ask questions to potential employers.
(Female Sophomore White)
Definitely interested, participation builds character and confidence.
Professionally it can help you in the future. You are bound to meet people
that you are going to run into in the future. (Male Sophomore Latino)
Although students repeatedly stated not having enough time was a reason for
nonparticipation, when asked to provide the amount of time they would dedicate to
enrichment programs each month they had the following responses.
Table 25: Possible Time CSUN Students Would Dedicated to Enrichment Each
Month N=14 _____
Hours per month # of students % of group
1-5 6 43%
6-10 4 29%
11-15 2 14%
Unsure 2 14%
The program director of MESA has a challenge trying to coordinate student needs
with the program design and implementation. At the beginning of each semester the
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
director should give a survey asking students which type of programs and events
interest them most so as to invite students to participate in these specific events.
Six CSUN engineering professors were interviewed from each of the
different departments. The six professors had mixed responses. Half of the six
professors had a strong relationship with SDEC and could discuss the benefits of the
Center. They advised students to attend events and participate. The professors with
the greatest knowledge of the Center were the two professors who taught the
freshmen engineering orientation course; Introduction to Engineering. One. of
professors teaching the course in the spring 2003 stated that she wished she had
asked the SDEC director to speak: with the students about the Center. She said she
would make a point to invite her the next, time she taught the course.
A recently hired professor was completely unfamiliar with SDEC and/or
MESA. He had received no formal introduction to the Center and could not advise
students to participate because of his limited knowledge. He also was unaware if any
of the professors at CSUN were involved or appreciate the Center. He said he was
confused about what all of the different programs do and what the missions of the
different organizations are. He stated that he does not go out of his way to search out
the information about enrichment programs because he is busy enough as it is.
I have never actually told a student about MESA. I have suggested students
to participate with the Lennox Users Group which is an unofficial group of
people that get together to learn. The professional organization that 1 tell
students about is Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Another
thing I occasionally do is tell students when Northrop Grumman or Edwards
Air Force Base come in, I do point these out-
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AH of the professors responded positively to the question asking if professors
play a vital role in. providing students with information and advise about utilizing
enrichment programs on campus and/or engineering professional organizations.
Faculty not only encourage students to become involved in professional
societies on campus, but serve as faculty advisors to the organizations.
Faculty are also in a position to inform students about the programs available
on campus. We interact with the students more than any other group/office on
campus,
1 think they could and some probably do. I . think I am probably guilty of not
doing enough besides telling students about ACM and the companies that
come in,
Summary
The Student Development and Equity Center at CSUN is composed of two
programs: Educational Opportunity Program Satellite (EOF) and MESA Engineering
Program (MEP). Both programs provide a wide range of students services including
transition assistance from high school to the University, freshmen orientation
experiences, academic advisement, tutoring services, scholarship information, career
development to promote student success. The students who participate receive the
benefit of improved academic and social integration, Ms. Green, the program
director, provides the form of academic and personal counseling that Seymour and
Hewitt (1997) state students need most The amount of students who receive the
benefits of the program could be enhanced if Ms, Green taught the 101 Orientation to
Engineering Course along with an engineering professor, A team teacher approach
would enrich the current course.
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
There was a high percentage of freshmen and sophomore minority students
surveyed who are not, participating in SDEC (79%), These students gave three major
reasons for nonparticipation: unaware of the events and programs (89%), live off
campus and commute (54%) and did not know anyone at the event (30%), These
students could provide reasons why they should participate and showed a willingness
to spend time each month on enrichment The students were very specific about, the
type o f enrichment that interested them; academic, social, professional, and
emotional.
Half of the faculty within the College of Engineering and Computer Science
interviewed for this study were unaware of SDEC and could not discuss the benefits
of the program to students. These results are constant with the finding of Seymour
and Hewitt (1997) and Landis (1991).
Engineering faculty and administrators typically maintain a
polite distance from these programs because they feel that
the staff director knows better how to meet the needs of
minority students (Landis, 199.1, p.7)
All, of the students responded on the interviews that they feel faculty could advertise
the enrichment events and programs more. There is a gap between the professors’
abilities to provide advice and the students’ wanting to receive the advice from their
professors. From the students’ responses, if professors advertised the events there
would be an increase in participation.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D:
Description of Exemplary Minority Engineering Program
The results of the surveys, and interviews show that students each have
individual needs and concerns regarding enrichment program and events. Students
stated they are interested in events and programs that offer the following: academic
support; social networking; personal counseling; and professional development. An
model MEP has several components: mandatory Freshmen Orientation Course;
Student Study Center; Comprehensive Tutoring Program cosponsored with the
Learning Resource Center; Mentoring Program; faculty/student lunches; Industry
Advisory Board; annual social events cosponsored with professional engineering
organizations; an annual career fair cosponsored with the Career Center; graduate
school preparation workshop; Freshmen Socials; a Summer Bridge Program; a
leadership retreat weekend, preparation for graduate school, career counseling;
professional development; confidence building; networking with engineering-based
companies, and scholarship and internship counseling. The MEP program director
has the challenge of trying to coordinate the program design and implementation to
meet the students’ needs. Ift.be program director fails to provide a wide range of
programs and events throughout the year in an effective and professional manner,
students will not participate in a critical mass that will alter the attrition rate of the
engineering department.
I??
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Academic Support
When students were asked to rate which type of support they would find most
beneficial, the response with the highest rating was academic support. The MEP
Offices examined for this dissertation (University of Southern California, University
of California, Irvine and California State University, Northridge) had well
established academic support systems including; Comprehensive Tutoring Programs,
Student Study Centers, academic counseling. Academic Excellence Workshops,
Summer Bridge Programs, Freshmen Orientation Courses and graduate school
counseling. The design and implementation of these programs were consistent with
the Landis Model of an Effective Minority Engineering Program. An area of
improvement that could be addressed by all three institutions is the development of a
mandatory Freshman Orientation Course. Although each of the institutions had some
type of orientation course available, the courses were not mandatory and most did
not follow the Landis Model of a Freshmen Orientation Course.
The list of academic programs available from an exemplary MEP Office
includes:
Freshmen Orientation Course. The goal of the Freshmen Orientation Course
is to transition engineering students from high school to college. This course has
three objectives: improving soft skills (study skills, time management, stress
management, coping skills, collaborative learning skills, personal growth and
development, and how to utilize the important programs and services on campus);
developing a cohesive freshmen class; and introducing students to the different fields
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of engineering. The course should be a mandatory 2 units course for all entering
engineering freshmen. The course should use a team of teachers; an engineering
professor and a faculty member from education or an engineering professor and a
staff member such as the MEP director or a Learning Resource Center counselor. It
is important to team-teach the course itt order to achieve the objectives. One
professor must be familiar with the field of engineering and the engineering
department. The engineering professor should be someone who works well with
freshmen and has strong advising skills. The other professor or staff member must be
familiar with fields of education, epistemology in particular, and psychology. They
should also be very aware of and work closely with enrichment programs/support
systems on the campus. The textbooks for a Freshman Orientation Course should
include: Studying Engineering: A Road Map to a Rewarding Career (Landis, 2000)
and Motivation and Learning Strategies fo r College Success (Dembo, 2000). The
students should work in collaborative learning groups during the course. Guest
speakers invited to the course should include speakers from the different programs
and service organizations on campus, leaders from the different campus professional
engineering organizations, and professional engineers from local corporations.
Students should take two field trips to engineering based corporations and be
provided with a professional engineer mentor that they may correspond with
throughout the semester.
Academic Excellence Workshops: An academic enrichment course designed
to teach students how to learn effectively in a cooperative group. Junior or Senior
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students act as facilitators to freshmen and sophomore student participants. The
course curriculum usually covers a “gatekeeper” genera! science or mathematics
course such, as general chemistry or calculus. AEWs are normally al unit, credit/no
credit course.
MEP Student Study Center. The minority engineering programs often have
special meeting rooms associated with their office. They contain, computers, meeting
table, library of textbooks, refrigerators, and filing cabinets. Minority engineering
professional organizations; National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), Society of
Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), Filipinos Uniting Student Engineers in an
Organized Network (FUSION), Mexican-American Engineers and Scientists
(MAES), and Society of Women Engineers (SWE) often use the Center as a location
to hold meetings and store equipment or files. The Student Study Center is a place
for students to work in collaborative groups on homework assignments or preparing
for examines.
Summer Bridge Program. The goal of a Summer Bridge Program (SBP) is to
transition freshmen from high school to college. The students selected to participate
in the Program are most often first generation college students who are unfamiliar
with the culture of a university. In order to provide adequate support for these
students the Summer Bridge Program is a two to four week, residential program. The
objectives of the SBP are introducing students to college life; providing academic
enrichment in courses such as calculus, physics, and computer science; developing a
. 1 8 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strong social network; increasing engineering professional development; and
improving confidence.
Academic Counseling. A major pari: of the MEP Office is to provide
academic counseling. The academic counseling services provided by an exemplary
MEP Office include: help with course selection, information about finding a tutor,
and workshops 011 improving study skills, time management, and stress management.
Graduate School Counseling. One of the goals of an MEP Office is to
improve the percentage of minority students seeking graduate degrees in
engineering. The MEP Office should conduct workshops for juniors and seniors
concerning the following: applying to graduate school; studying for the Graduate
Requirement Exam (GRE); selecting an appropriate graduate school; writing your
personal statement; applying for fellowships; and the benefits of going to graduate
school. Students should feel comfortable seeking guidance and support from the
MEP director while applying to graduate school.
Social Interaction
Academic support is only a part of the benefits of an Orientation Course, a
Summer Bridge Program, and a Students Study Center. Equally important is the
development of a strong cohesive freshmen class that these programs foster. When
students were asked to rate which type of support they would find most beneficial on
the surveys, the response with the second highest rating was social interactions. The
survey and interview results showed a pattern that students felt a need to have better
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
social contact within the engineering department. This was especially evident at the
two commuter institutions: UC1 and CSUN',
The list of social integration programs available through an exemplary MEP
Office includes:
M entors, It is critical that the MEP director know who is acting as a mentor
for each of the freshmen and sophomore engineering students. There should be a
formal method of providing a mentor to the lower classmen. The mentor may be a
faculty member, staff member, professional engineer or an upper class students
majoring in engineering who has volunteered to provide academic, social and
emotional support. This relationship may include communication via the internet
and/or meetings on campus. According to McNairy (1996) students of color require
members of the academic community who validate their presence, are sensitive to
their needs, and take appropriate actions to assist them. McNairy (1996) also states
that an increasing body of research reveals that if students have just one significant
individual on campus with whom they can interact, the potential for their persistence
is enhanced.
Professional Engineering Organizations: The engineering students surveyed
for this study had very weak participation in professional engineering organizations.
Only 89 students out of 400 who responded to the question stated they participate in
at least one professional engineering organization (22%). The students from the
qualifier/participant group had the highest percentage of participation. Twenty-six. of
the 50 students classified as qualifier/participants stated they participate in at least
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
one professional engineering organization (52%), The MEP director from CSUN
encourages her students to belong to one minority professional engineering
organization: National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), Society of Hispanic
Professional Engineers (SHPE), or Society of Women Engineers (SWE), and one
professional engineering organization specific to their degree: American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for
example. Many studies have shown that involvement in student organizations
increases retention. Astin (1985) discusses the theory of student involvement in
Involvement, the Corner Stone o f Excellence,
As it turns out, the things that facilitated persistence all signified high
involvement: full-time attendance, participation in extracurricular activities,
studying hard, living on campus, and interacting frequently with other
students and with faculty. Dropping out, on the other hand, was associated
with, factors signifying non-involvement: part-time attendance, living at
home, infrequent studying, and off-campus employment (p. 37).
It is important for the MEP director to interface with all professional
engineering organization and in particular with NSBE, SHPE and SWE, These
organizations play a critical role in helping to foster social interaction. The MEP
Office should cosponsored activities with the student organizations including annual
picnics, football tournaments, and attendance to regional and national conferences.
Cosponsoring these activities will help increase the frequency of student interactions.
Leadership Retreat Weekend: A strong MEP requires the support of the
student leaders. A retreat weekend should be in the fall and will provide the director
time to work with the students to develop a calendar of events for the year. The
MEP director should delegate responsibility to the different officers to each take one
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
major event a year. The MEP will cosponsor the events and provide financial and
secretarial support.
Freshmen Socials: Freshmen have a few unique issues that may effect their
participation in an MEP. They fee! uncomfortable with upperclassmen at first and
they are not able to drink alcohol legally. Having separate events for freshmen only
will increase the likelihood of their participation.
Con.fidence Buikling: Several students stated they feel events that, develop
their confidence would be beneficial. Seymour (1995) found chat females in
particular had difficulty with confidence. Special events inviting female engineers
who can act as mentors would help increase students’ confidence. Job shadowing
with a professional engineer, e-mail correspondence with a mentor and helping a
student obtain an internship will contribute to confidence building.
Career Counseling and Professional Development
The career assistance offered through CODE include; resume writing; mock
interview; developing career networking skills; and alumni guest speakers “Wish I
knew then what I know now!” sessions. Funding for research should be available for
students. Internship counseling is large part of an MEP Office. The director must be
aware of the different research opportunities available off campus such as the
Research Experiences for Undergraduate (REU) programs. The MEP director should
create an Industry Advisory Board with several companies and meet with them each
quarter. Having the different minority engineering club president gives a presentation
to the Board about their club activities and events for the year would be a way for
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students to improve their communication skills. Lastly, the MEP director should
cosponsor a career fair each spring and invite the corporations that are supportive of
the program to participate.
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey Questions: Students in the Engineering Department
My name is and 1 am the Director of the Minority Engineering
Program. Please take your time to fill out this important survey. 1 want to be able to
e-mail /call you about information relating to your interest, and let you know about
upcoming events.
Name: phone number:
Name of High School: e-mail address:
Age: Please circle: Are you 18 years old or older? Yes No
Ethnicity: Please circle: African American Asian Asian/Pacific Islander
(Filipino)
European American Latino Native American
Gender: Male Female
Major:
1. What is the most exciting topic in science and engineering to you?
2. Did you usually get your information about events/program s from your
teachers in high school or the high school counselor?
3. Which activities would you be most interested in participating in
Engineering Picnic Academic Excellence Workshops in
chemistry
Career night _ _ __ Graduate School Information
Resume writing _____Movie Nights at Hannons Loft
Tutoring in engin. or Counseling High School Students
mathematics in science or engineering
Scholarship Counseling Internship Counseling
Study Skills Workshops Engineering Conferences
Leadership Conferences
other_______ ___________ __________
4. Please list these items in order of how you feel about them, which areas you feel
will benefit you tire most: 1 being most beneficial/ important to you to 6 being
least beneficial/ important to you:
a. Academically:
b. Socially:
c. Building confidence:
d. Improving skills such as test taking,
or essay writing:
e. Increasing knowledge about engineering
as a career/proiesMon:
f. Helping to prepare for my future in graduate
school or as an engineer:
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Please check off which clubs you are thinking of becoming a member of below.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE)
Society of Hispanic Professional. Engineers (SHPE)
_ _ Society of Women Engineers (SWE)
_ Tau Beta. Pi, Engineering Honor Society
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE)
6. How many hours would you dedicate to clubs or organizations or enrichment
activities like those on the previous page each a month? Circle one
1-4 hours/ month
5-8 hours/ month
8-11 hours/ month
7. Do you commute or live on campus?
8. List the extracurricular activities you did in. high school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interview Questions
Faculty within the Engineering Department
Do you advise students to utilize the Minority Engineering Program in the
Engineering Department?
What are the benefits of the MEP Office to an engineering student?
In your opinion, do the professors within the Department appreciate the MEP Office?
Do you feel professors play a vital role in providing students with advise about
utilizing enrichment programs on campus and/or engineering professional
organizations to participate in? If yes, please explain.
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey Questions: MEP
My name is Barbara Christie anti I am a doctoral candidate working on my
dissertation. The following survey is part: of my dissertation. Please help me by
answering the questions to the best, of your ability. This survey is anonymous, your
name will not be used, only a code number to identify you. You may choose whether
to be in this study or not. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t
want to answer and still remain in the study. Completion and return of the
questionnaire or responses to the interview questions will constitute consent; to
participate in this research project.
Code number: phone number:
e-mail address:
May {please contact you by e-mail to answer a 15 -minute interview questionnaire as a
follow up to this survey? Yes No
You will be entered into a raffle to win a $50 gift certificate to the Bookstore if you decide to
answer further questions.
Age: Please circle: Are you 18 years old or older? Yes No
Ethnicity: Please circle; African American Asian Pacific Islander (ex.
Filipino)
European American Latino Native American other
Gender: Male Female Year in College: Freshman Sophomore Jr. Senior
Major:
1. Have you joined the Minority Engineering Program in the Engineering
Department?
2. How often have you gone to speak with the Minority Engineering Program
Director, any of the advisors in the MEP Office over the past several months?
Did you receive e-mails from the MEP Office?
3. Which activities have you participated in over the past several months
sponsored by the MESA Engineering Program? Check off from list below:
_____ MEP Picnic _____Academic Ex cellence W orkshops
Young Latino Forum. _ _ MEP Social Studies Workshop
Resume writing_________ _____SHPE Science Day
Tutoring ___ _ EOF Summer Bridge Program
__ NSBE junior Day
Please list other programs related to science or engineering that you attended in
the fall r spring semesters not sponsored by the MEP Office.
4. Which activities listed below would you find most beneficial? Please place a
number by each category (1 being high and 6 being low.)
g. Academic support:
h. Social events:
i. Building confidence events:
j. Improving skills such, as test taking, or essay writing:
k. Increasing knowledge about engineering as a career / profession:
f. Helping to prepare for my future in graduate school or as an engineer:
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Please check oft' why you have not participatod in the events sponsored by the
Minority Engineering Program over the past novel ul months. You may check as
m any as you feel are appropriate to your situation.
Unaware of the event
Live off campus and com.ni.ute
Did not know anyone who would, be at the event
Professor did. not show interest in us attending
There was no extra credit for attending the event
The event was not at a convenient time
Time conflicted with work schedule
Was not interested in the event
Did not find the event relevant to me
_ Felt the event was repetitious to other
events I have already attended on campus
Please list any other reasons for nonattendance below:
6. Please check off which clubs you are a member of below.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE)
Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE)
Society of Women Engineers (SWE)
Tau Beta Pi
_ The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE)
7. Have you gone to .meetings for the dubs you checked off on a regular basis over
the past several, months? Do you plan to run for an executive board position for
next year? If yes, which organization?
8. Did you participate in academic enrichment programs in high school, if so please
state which organization? (Examples: MESA, College Bound, Upward Bound,
Young Black Scholars,.,)
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college
PDF
A typological history of non-heterosexual male college students in the United States, 1945 to the present
PDF
Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older
PDF
Academic, environmental and social integration variables that maximize transfer preparedness for Latino community college students: An application of academic success models to the study of Tran...
PDF
A cross -cultural comparison of achievement motivation among college students in South Africa
PDF
In church with my ancestors: The changing shape of religious memory in the Republic of Armenia and the North American diaspora
PDF
Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...
PDF
Gender, learning, and trafficking: Helping vulnerable Thai women through NGO and government non -formal education programs
PDF
Factors related to the persistence of students seeking the bachelor's degree at 4-year institutions
PDF
"Home boy" to "school boy": Inside the PowerBuilders Workshops at CSULA. A qualitative examination of access, mobility, and leadership qualities of minorities in higher education
PDF
An examination of the contract education program in a multi-college community college district in Southern California: A descriptive and qualitative case study investigation
PDF
Improving the transfer rates of minority students: A case study
PDF
Course -taking patterns of Chinese students native and non -native speakers of English at community college
PDF
A daily diary approach to compare the accuracy of depressed and nondepressed participants' estimation of positive and negative mood: A test of the depressive realism hypothesis
PDF
Exploring ethnic identity on a university campus: Filipino American students' perspectives
PDF
Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics
PDF
A cultural study of shared governance at two community colleges
PDF
An investigation of the impact of selected prereading activities on student content learning through laboratory activities
PDF
A geochemical and hydrological assessment of groundwater in the Portuguese Bend landslide, California
Asset Metadata
Creator
Christie, Barbara A.
(author)
Core Title
A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Black studies,Education, higher,education, sciences,OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, ethnic and racial studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
McComas, William (
committee chair
), Hagedorn, Linda Serra (
committee member
), Pinkston, Timothy M. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-478772
Unique identifier
UC11339989
Identifier
3133250.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-478772 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3133250.pdf
Dmrecord
478772
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Christie, Barbara A.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
Black studies
education, sciences
sociology, ethnic and racial studies