University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

(USC Thesis Other)

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Persistence of First-Generation Latinx Engineering Students: Developing a Better
Understanding of STEM Classroom Experiences and Faculty Interactions
Monica Prado García
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2023
(Educational Leadership)
© Copyright by Monica Prado García 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Monica Prado García certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Shafiqa Ahmadi
Darnell Cole
Sheila Banuelos, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Considering increasing rates of attrition among Latinx students in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), this study helps contextualize the student experience in a
highly competitive engineering program as it relates to classroom experiences and faculty–
student interactions. Framed by Yosso’s community cultural wealth model, an assets-based
approach was used to investigate how students used navigational and aspirational capital as they
engaged with their learning environments, with a focus on summer bridge participation,
including a non-credit math course and enrollment in a traditional semester math course during
their first semester at the university. Seven first-generation Latinx engineering students took part
in semi-structured interviews. The study’s findings indicate that engineering faculty had a very
important role in students’ motivation to persist in engineering and that classroom experiences
were less important when positive and very impactful when negative. Implications for practice
and future research should be centered on the relationship between faculty and students,
especially within the same field of study, the collaboration of academic and student affairs
professionals to improve the student experience, cultivating a science identity in connection with
the persistence of students and developing methods to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy
in STEM classrooms.

v
Dedication
To my mother, who exemplified strength at every point in her life. I love you. Thank you for
showing me that resiliency does not define us but rather shapes us into the women we are today.
Thank you for showing me that working toward your dreams is a feasible pursuit. Please know
that your love and faith in your youngest child have shaped the person I am today.

To my sister, who raised me. Thank you for motivating me to become the best version of myself.
You are my inspiration, and your daily notes of encouragement defined my progress in this
program. To my brother, who has always reminded me to take life lightly and live the present
moment.

To my mother- and father-in-law, had it not been for your unwavering support, I would not have
completed this dissertation. Thank you for always caring for my children as your own and
empowering me to persist through the doctoral program. I hope to raise our family in your spirit
of love, light, and support.

Lastly and most importantly, to my husband and children. Thank you for your unconditional
love, patience, and relentless support. Your presence in my life served as both my motivation and
stability throughout this process. Thank you for being my happiness; you truly are the reason for
my joy.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the immense and unmeasurable support Dr. Sheila Banuelos,
my faculty chair, provided throughout this process. Our check-in meetings gave me energy to
develop my thoughts and write every word embedded in this dissertation. Your person-first
approach to mentorship shaped my ability and confidence to complete this work. Thank you for
serving as a role model of the type of mentor I hope to one day become.
I am also grateful to my committee members for their valuable feedback and insight.
Thank you for helping shape the current study into research that can hopefully positively impact
the higher education community.
I am also eternally grateful to my work family at my institution that helped me complete
this program with words of encouragement, support, and guidance throughout the doctoral
program.
Finally, thank you to my amazing support network, including my wonderful cohort
members. Your constant support and contributions in the past 3 years served as propellers to
continue going in light of personal and professional challenges. Your words of encouragement
were always present and so much valued. Thank you for forming such an integral part of my
experience in this program.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3
Purpose and Significance of the Study ................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework and Methodology...........................................................................5
Other Relevant Theoretical Framework ...............................................................................8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................10
Organization of The Study .................................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
Latinx Students’ Persistence in STEM ..............................................................................13
Sense of Belonging, Self-Efficacy, and STEM Identity ....................................................15
Faculty–Student Interactions and Classroom Experiences ................................................19
Student Support Services ...................................................................................................29
Theoretical Framework: Community Cultural Wealth ......................................................37
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................42
Research Design.................................................................................................................43
Site Selection .....................................................................................................................44
Sampling and Recruitment .................................................................................................45
Procedures ..........................................................................................................................47
viii
Trustworthiness Measures .................................................................................................50
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................51
Researcher Background and Biases ...................................................................................52
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................54
Participant Narratives.........................................................................................................57
Thematic Findings .............................................................................................................66
Summary ............................................................................................................................89
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Implications and Conclusion ............................................92
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................92
Limitations .........................................................................................................................97
Implications and Recommendations for Practice ..............................................................99
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................102
Recommendations for Policy ...........................................................................................104
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................105
References ....................................................................................................................................106
Appendix A: Recruitment Email .................................................................................................120
Email ................................................................................................................................120
Recruitment Text .............................................................................................................120
Appendix B: Recruitment Flier ....................................................................................................122
Appendix C: Screening Questionnaire.........................................................................................123
Appendix D: Study Information Sheet ........................................................................................126
Appendix E: Interview Script/Protocol ........................................................................................128
Classroom Experiences and Faculty Interactions: Summer Bridge Non-Credit Math
Course ..............................................................................................................................129
Classroom Experiences and Faculty Interactions: Fall Semester Math Course ..............129
Faculty Interactions, Persistence and Academic Success ................................................130
ix
Closing .............................................................................................................................130
Appendix F: Interview Protocol Matrix .......................................................................................132

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Table 56
Table 2: Findings and Research Questions 67
Table 3: Summary of Findings by Participant 90
Table 4: Comparison of Thematic Findings Across Math Courses, Faculty–Student
Interactions, and Relevant Findings 91

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 7
Figure 2: Psychosociocultural Framework for Latina/os in Higher Education 9
Appendix B: Recruitment Flier 122
Appendix C: Screening Questionnaire 123
Appendix F: Interview Protocol Matrix 132

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Every 3 minutes, a college student in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) either changes their major to leave the discipline or leaves their institution of higher
education altogether (Mack et al., 2021). Retention rates measure student departure from a
discipline or institution (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Nationally, the retention
rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students in a 4-year higher education institution was
82% in 2020, meaning that 82% of first-time, full-time students returned to their major program
and/or institution after their first academic year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022).
In STEM, first-time, full-time students had significantly lower retention rates, measuring at
slightly over 50%, indicating that only half of these students remained in the field after their 1st
year of study (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2022a). Therefore, in comparison, about one-
quarter of students in higher education left their major program or institution, while
approximately half of STEM students left their major program or institution (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2022; NSF, 2022a).
Of utmost significance, it is important to note that Black, Latinx, and Native American
students are underrepresented in STEM fields, while White and Asian students are
overrepresented (Fry et al., 2021; NSF, 2022b). This underrepresentation also correlated with
lower retention rates among underrepresented STEM students, with Black, Latinx, and Native
American students having significantly lower retention rates than their White or Asian
counterparts (Fry et al., 2021; NSF, 2022b). In addition to representation and retention rates,
recent data trends show that Latinx and Black students still complete STEM undergraduate
degrees at lower rates than their White and Asian counterparts (Fry et al., 2021). Of all the
2

STEM undergraduate degrees awarded in 2010, only 14.7% were awarded to underrepresented
minority students (Estrada et al., 2016).
Shifting the focus to only Latinx students, this student population grew by 111% from
2000 to 2013 (Rincón et al., 2017). Within that time frame, the NSF reported that these students’
STEM degree attainment remained significantly lower than their White counterparts (Rincón et
al., 2017). Recent reports show that approximately 10% of Latinx students complete an
undergraduate STEM degree, while approximately 63% of White students do so (NSF, 2022b;
Rincón et al., 2017). Lastly, the rate by which Latinx students have completed a STEM degree
from 2004 to 2014 is marginal at 5% indicating that Latinx students remain underrepresented in
these fields amid the growth of the overall population in higher education (Rincón et al., 2017).
Interestingly, recent reports found that Latinx students have the same interest in STEM
undergraduate programs and careers as their White and Asian counterparts (Fry et al., 2021;
Student Research Foundation, 2020). Taking an anti-deficit approach, researchers recently found
that a marginal increase in Latinx student representation in STEM subfields of 1% could
significantly reduce Latinx student departure from the university (Rincón, 2020). The
combination of low representation in the STEM workforce and higher rates of departure despite
the same interest demonstrates the need to investigate Latinx engineering students’ persistence
from an assets-based framework (Fry et al., 2021; Rincón, 2020; Student Research Foundation,
2020). An asset-based approach would enable researchers and policymakers to better understand
the student perspective on persistence and degree completion in STEM (Fry et al., 2021; Rincón,
2020; Student Research Foundation, 2020).

3

Statement of the Problem
While Latinx professionals make up 17% of the workforce, they only represent 8% of the
STEM workforce (Fry et al., 2021). These findings indicate that the efforts to increase diversity
in this workforce are a national priority (Fry et al., 2021). Previous research on Latinx students’
persistence and degree completion in STEM leaned heavily on student-based concepts such as
identity development and sense of belonging (Fry et al., 2021). This study, however, considers
previous research that shows Latinx students’ interest levels are parallel to those of their White
counterparts and sought to better understand how classroom experiences and faculty interactions
affect students’ motivation to remain in engineering (Fry et al., 2021).
Conceptually, researchers have investigated how sense of belonging, identity, self-
efficacy, and academic support programs have influenced the Latinx students’ persistence in
STEM (Carver et al., 2017; Harrington et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008;
Tomasko et al., 2016). Limited research has been conducted to evaluate the influence of
classroom experiences and interactions with faculty as agents of persistence among Latinx
engineering students (Carver et al., 2017; Harrington et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016;
Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). Thus, the conceptual framework of this study, embedded
in Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth (CCW) model, aids in investigating how Latinx
engineering students apply navigational and aspirational forms of capital in the classroom and in
their interactions with STEM faculty members (Yosso, 2005).
Purpose and Significance of the Study
It is important to note that this study investigated persistence rather than retention,
enabling me to operate from an assets-based approach in understanding student motivation rather
than looking toward student departure within the construct of retention (Martin et al., 2020; Kuh
4

et al., 2008; Tight, 2020). The purpose of this study was to learn how classroom experiences and
faculty interactions influence the Latinx engineering student’s motivation to remain in their
undergraduate degree program, considering the tenets of CCW and how Latinx students use
navigational and aspirational capital in their lived experiences at 4-year private research
institution. (Yosso, 2005). Specifically, the current study explored the classroom experiences and
faculty interactions of students who participated in mathematics courses (Tolbert & Cardella,
2015). Learning the Latinx student experience in mathematical coursework and faculty
interactions may have strong implications on motivation to persist and better inform
representation in STEM fields, both before and after degree completion (Fry et al., 2021; Rincón,
2020).
To better understand the student experience, a general understanding of the engineering
curriculum will be beneficial to contextualizing problem-solving skills, mathematics, and
academic success (Tolbert & Cardella, 2015). A solid understanding of mathematics underpins
such problem-solving skills, and researchers have recently investigated mathematics as a
gatekeeper course (Tolbert & Cardella, 2015). After interviewing approximately 30 students at a
large mid-western university, Tolbert and Cardella (2015) found that classroom experiences were
a significant predictor of overall academic success. Students were not aware of the different
mathematical principles that could be applied to engineering design and problem solving
(Tolbert & Cardella, 2015). This point is important in discussing the success of engineering
students because the disconnect between engineering and math principals shaped their perception
of classroom experiences and overall academic ability (Tolbert & Cardella, 2015). Most students
in the study felt their mathematics skills were stronger than their design skills, affecting their
perception of engineering in the classroom (Tolbert & Cardella, 2015). Many students felt that
5

the mathematical knowledge they gained in secondary school was more hands-on than in college
and that their design skills and ability began at the university level (Tolbert & Cardella, 2015).
Thus, there is a need to investigate how Latinx engineering students’ math classroom
experiences affect their capital and motivation to persist in a STEM discipline (Tolbert &
Cardella, 2015).
The current study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. How do STEM classroom experiences impact first-generation Latinx engineering
students’ motivation to persist in engineering and perception of academic success?
Subquestion: How do first-generation Latinx students in engineering use aspirational
and navigational capital to navigate STEM classrooms?
2. What role do faculty interactions play in the persistence of Latinx students in
engineering in a highly competitive STEM undergraduate program at 4-year private
research institution?
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The current study used Yosso’s (2005) CCW model as a theoretical framework, with an
emphasis on an assets-based approach to learning how navigational and aspirational capital
inform Latinx student motivation to persist in their engineering program (Kouyoumdjian et al.,
2017). Kouyoumdjian et al. (2017) explained how CCW is based on the tenet of critical race
theory, allowing for a contextual understanding of the systematic barriers and cultural climate
issues that marginalize students of color in higher education, specifically in the STEM fields.
The CCW framework is therefore used to honor the skills and abilities Latinx students bring to
higher education that support their overall success (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017). Yosso’s CCW
framework shows the multiple forms of capital that Latinx students utilize to connect their home
6

community and their learning environment in higher education. For this study, I focused on
navigational and aspirational capital to understand how classroom experiences and faculty
interactions impact Latinx engineering students’ persistence, with a comparison of experiences in
a non-credit math course offered during a summer bridge program and a degree-granting
semester math course at the same institution.
Previous research on academic support programs will provide insight into factors
associated with persistence, including sense of belonging, STEM identity development,
motivation, and self-efficacy (Johnson, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016). The
current study, however, investigated faculty as agents of persistence and the classroom
experience as a guide to how Latinx engineering students use cultural capital to navigate
educational systems while working toward their academic goals. Figure 1 outlines the conceptual
framework of the current study. From an assets-based lens, this study investigated how the
participants used navigational and aspirational capital in classroom experiences and faculty
interactions as these relate to their motivation to persist in their undergraduate program.

7

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Note. Visual representation of conceptual framework created by Monica Prado García. Adapted
from “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural
Wealth,” by T. J. Yosso, 2005, Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
(https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1361332052000341006). Copyright 2005 by Taylor & Francis Group
Ltd.

8

Methodologically, the current study took a qualitative approach to better understand
Latinx students’ experience in an engineering program. The interviews consisted of open-ended
questions, and all students’ identifying information and responses were anonymous and stored in
a secure, password-protected computer (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). I used purposeful sampling
to recruit Latinx students in highly selective and competitive undergraduate engineering at a 4-
year private research institution. To participate in the study, students must have identified as
Latinx, participated in a summer bridge program, and enrolled in a university math course during
their first fall semester. Once the institutional review board (IRB) approved the study, I requested
approval from department leadership to contact students in their program. From there, a
centralized unit of the department, the center that manages the summer bridge program,
contacted students via email on my behalf with the recruitment email in Appendix A.
Other Relevant Theoretical Framework
Castellanos and Gloria (2007) offered a comprehensive approach to the study of Latinx
higher education students known as the psychosociocultural (PSC) framework. This theoretical
framework takes an assets-based approach to understanding educational success by looking at
psychological, social, and cultural factors in the college context (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007).
Considering the present interest in cultural capital, this model helps illustrate these factors’
interaction for a more complete understanding of Latinx engineering students. Previous research
using the PSC framework shows that first-generation Latinx engineering students sought
academic support and persisted through their engineering program for themselves and their
families (Espinoza, 2013). Espinoza (2013) also found that first-generation Latinx students
identified differences in climate between the engineering program and the university, indicating
a variance in their experiences and access to faculty, which influences their self-efficacy and
9

motivation to persist. This is relevant to the current study because the summer bridge non-credit
math course is specifically designed for engineering students, while traditional semester math
courses are available to students across the university. Lastly, Castellanos (2018) used the PSC
framework as a holistic approach to understanding STEM career goals among Latina students;
findings that Latina students with a higher socioeconomic status, faculty support and strong
academic engagement were more likely to have stronger aspirational STEM career goals.
The researchers offer Figure 2 to depict how the different psychological, cultural, and
social factors impact Latinx students in higher education and their decision to persist in a major
program (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007).

Figure 2
Psychosociocultural Framework for Latina/os in Higher Education

Note. From “Research Considerations and Theoretical Application for Best Practices in Higher
Education: Latina/os Achieving Success,” by J. Castellanos & A. M. Gloria, 2007. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 6(4), 378–396. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707305347).
Copyright 2007 by Sage Publications, Inc.

10

Definition of Terms
The following terms are used according to the operational definitions below:
Culturally relevant pedagogy is defined within the proxy of culturally responsive
teaching as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference and
performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to
and effective for them” (Gay, 2018, p. 36).
Historically underrepresented students in STEM refers to students of color from
underrepresented populations (based on racial or ethnic identities) that have or are currently
pursuing a degree in STEM (Burt et al., 2023).
Latinx is an inclusive, gender-neutral term used to refer to individuals that identify with a
Latino/a background that may include an array of different cultural identities, including
individuals who have a familial country of origin in Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Argentina, and
other countries (Salinas & Lozano, 2019).
Persistence is defined as a student’s motivation or desire and action to complete a degree
program (Tinto, 2022).
Retention is a more traditional term used to describe attrition or student departure from an
undergraduate degree program (Tight, 2020). This term is usually associated with a deficit
perspective and is used sparingly throughout this study due to its focus on the institution rather
than the student (Kuh et al., 2008; Tight, 2020). Rather, this study took an anti-deficit approach
to better understand the Latinx student experience in engineering and their motivation, or
persistence, to degree completion (Julie et al., 2020).
Sense of belonging refers to the following definition offered by Strayhorn (2018):
11

In terms of college, sense of belonging refers to students’ perceived social support on
campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, and the experience of mattering or feeling cared
about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the campus community or others on
campus such as faculty, staff, and peers (p. 4).
Self-efficacy is defined as a student’s judgements of themselves to meet learning
outcomes (Won et al., 2021).
Organization of The Study
The current study is organized in the following manner. Chapter One includes an
overview of the problem statement, the purpose and significance of the study, the research
questions, a brief description of the conceptual framework, methodology, and the definition of
terms. Following, Chapter Two will cover a literature review on prior knowledge of Latinx
students’ persistence in STEM, faculty–student interactions and classroom experiences, and the
theoretical framework. Chapter Three will be an overview of the methodology, including the
following sections: research design, site selection, sampling and recruitment, data collection and
instruments, data analysis, trustworthiness measures, limitations, ethical considerations and
researcher background and biases. Chapter Four will showcase the study’s findings in connection
to the research questions and conceptual framework, while the last chapter will provide
recommendations and implications for practice and future research.

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review
In STEM undergraduate programs, researchers have found a greater rate of attrition
among Black and Latinx students in comparison to their White counterparts (Bauer-Wolf, 2019).
In engineering, there are two forms of attrition: one where students decide to change their major
and another where they do not complete their degree and leave the university (American Society
for Engineering Education [ASEE], 2016; Bauer-Wolf, 2019). One study found that 37% of
Latinx students and 40% of Black students changed their major to a non-STEM program, while
only 29% of White students did so (Bauer-Wolf, 2019). The same study found that 20% of
Latinx and 30% of Black students left their STEM major program and departed from the
university altogether, while only 13% of White students experienced this type of departure
(Bauer-Wolf, 2019). Additional reports from the ASEE indicate that Black, Latinx and Native
American students have lower persistence rates than their White and Asian counterparts (ASEE,
2016).
Lastly and most importantly, trends in attrition among historically marginalized students
are directly linked to the lack of diversity in the STEM workforce (Estrada et al., 2016). To
better understand this growing concern, an overview of Latinx students’ persistence, faculty–
student interactions, classroom experiences, and academic engagement through student support
programs will help contextualize the current study. While this study focused on Latinx
engineering students, the following literature review will cover previous research on the
experiences of students from different ethnic/racial backgrounds as well as different gender
identities, all considered underrepresented groups in STEM.

13

Latinx Students’ Persistence in STEM
Latinx students’ persistence can be described as their motivation to remain in an
undergraduate degree program (Tinto, 2022). Underrepresented groups in engineering have
historically included women and students of color (Rincón, 2020; Rincón & Lane, 2017). While
the number of women in engineering has increased over the last 10 years, researchers have found
that their retention and persistence are still low (Rincón & Lane, 2017). Researchers have found
that intervention efforts for women are more effective during the recruitment and admission
process than after matriculation, which differs from their male counterparts, who benefit more
from interventions during their time in a program (Rincón & Lane, 2017). Researchers urge
further investigation into Latinx women’s persistence in engineering through an assets-based
approach of social and cultural capital, focusing on the effect of family involvement and student
identity development on persistence (Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2014).
From a quantitative analysis of students at public research universities in the United
States, Rincón and Lane (2017) found that Latinx students, both men and women, had the lowest
rates of retention in engineering and the highest rates of attrition from the university. The
majority of the Latinx students who left the major opted for a non-STEM discipline (Rincón &
Lane, 2017). Furthermore, Rincón and Lane (2017) found that the low rates of retention and high
rates of attrition from the university among Black and Latinx students demonstrated evidence of
systematic issues that served as a barrier for students from these communities to access STEM
professional fields and future higher earnings from a STEM-related professional career.
Furthermore, researchers did not find a statistically significant effect between Latinx students’
socioeconomic status and their retention, showing that economic state and background are not
correlated with their motivation to persist (Rincón & Lane, 2017).
14

When considering gender differences between men and women, men usually departed
from a STEM discipline and left the university overall due to the lack of support in their STEM
program (Rincón & Lane, 2017). Latinx men generally rely on self-reliance in the face of
academic adversity and, for this reason, would leave if they did not feel supported at the
institutional level (Rincón & Lane, 2017). Lastly, Rincón and Lane (2017) also found that
intervention efforts to improve Latinx women’s retention should focus on family, community
and adult role models who generally influence this cohort of students to pursue a major and
career in STEM (Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2014).
Through semi-structured interviews with Latinx students in STEM, researchers found the
significant impact that parent and family involvement could have on students through a term
coined familismo (Rodriguez et al., 2021). In this study, researchers found that family was a
large part of Latinx women’s identities in STEM, showing that the interdependence and
attachment to their families played a significant role in their persistence toward degree
completion (Rodriguez et al., 2021). For Latinx women in STEM, their families served as a
source of support and inspiration to complete their degree requirements (Rodriguez et al., 2021).
While their families had a positive impact on their persistence, Latinx women in STEM also
acknowledged the difficulties in navigating the development of a career in STEM and their
responsibilities and expectations in regard to prioritizing their family, showcasing an example of
the tension between individualistic and collectivistic values (Rodriguez et al., 2021). The
pressure Latinx women in STEM experience should be considered, as researchers found that
these students viewed being good daughters and good students who made their families proud as
competing ideas (Rodriguez et al., 2021). Overall, Rodriguez et al. (2021) made strong
15

implications for promoting family engagement to strengthen Latinx women’s STEM identity and
persistence.
Sense of Belonging, Self-Efficacy, and STEM Identity
Previous research has shown that students’ sense of belonging, self-efficacy and STEM
identity positively correlate with persistence in STEM academic programs (Johnson et al., 2020;
Rincón & Rodriguez, 2021; Tucker et al., 2020; Zaniewski & Reinholz, 2016). At the academic
department level, researchers found that strong student support had positive implications for a
strong sense of community and belonging among Latinx women (Rincón & George-Jackson,
2016). Through strong department-level support networks and learning communities, Latinx
women described positive feelings about the cultural climate in engineering, which opened the
space for increased self-efficacy and sense of belonging, thus showing that the perception of the
department’s climate could have a lasting impact on overall STEM identity (Rincón & George-
Jackson, 2016). Furthermore, Rincón and George-Jackson (2016) concluded that it would benefit
departments to foster a culture that honors collectivistic values through peer mentorship and
living-learning communities, seeing that it significantly improved the students’ sense of
belonging.
Within a similar scope regarding self-confidence, Litzler et al. (2014) found that students’
views of the professors’ perceptions of the field as rewarding and the desirability of a chosen
major were positively associated with STEM confidence. Litzler et al. (2014) indicated that their
findings contribute to the understanding that gender differences in STEM confidence may not
necessarily align with ethnic or racial differences. Samuelson and Litzler (2016) found that
professional experiences in engineering programs, through co-ops or internships, increased
16

women’s self-efficacy and promoted their persistence to degree completion, allowing them to
envision themselves in a career.
While opportunities for hands-on professional experience promoted persistence among
women in engineering, Latinx women shared experiences that included marginalization and self-
doubt, mostly as a response to their interactions with male counterparts (Rodriguez & Blaney,
2020). Recent research based on the social cognitive career theory model found that academic
and career-related interventions for Latinx women had a positive impact on student engagement,
satisfaction with their programs, and intentions to persist (Navarro et al., 2019). Researchers
found that women countered their feelings of marginalization by relying on resilience when
reframing their challenging experiences as trailblazing, the notion of trailblazing being based on
resilience and the pursuit of accomplishment (Rodriguez & Blaney, 2020).
Furthermore, researchers used a CCW framework to demonstrate that Latinx engineering
students typically used navigational and aspiration capital in persisting through degree
completion when facing barriers like marginalization (Rodriguez & Blaney, 2020; Samuelson &
Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2014). Of other forms of capital, Martin et al. (2020) found that
institutional support structures and peer groups fostered the development of social capital that
could impact persistence, the rationale being that systematic support through university
personnel merged gaps between access to resources and the student experience while peer groups
influenced a strong sense of belonging. Researchers found that delayed recognition of university
resources resulted in deterred access and use of such resources, intensifying the difficulty of
transitioning into the college experience, especially in engineering (Martin et al., 2020).
Researchers found that engaging students in opportunities that support a STEM interest
involves countering the stereotypes that STEM is based on natural ability and that STEM
17

individuals belong to a specific demographic, particularly European American men (Shin et al.,
2016). To counter these stereotypes, researchers used diverse STEM biographies in their study
and found positive effects of role models on both STEM and non-STEM student interest (Shin et
al., 2016). Students who were exposed to the role model stories also expressed a greater sense of
belonging and self-efficacy in STEM, as well as a greater perceived sense of identity
compatibility with STEM (Shin et al., 2016). These findings imply that role model exposure
among peers could result in greater STEM interest and positive student outcomes (Shin et al.,
2016).
Closely aligned to STEM interest, researchers have found that social student engagement,
rather than academic student engagement, has a positive effect on persistence, providing
evidence for practitioners to incorporate social elements into academic support services (Hu,
2011). As a psychological construct, student engagement opportunities tend to strengthen student
STEM identity development because students tend to immerse themselves in communities of
interest, and such engagement generally results in higher rates of persistence and retention
(Johnson, 2016).
Some researchers found that the concept of persistence relies heavily on social and
cognitive psychology, specifically motivation to engage in the student experience (Graham et al.,
2013). Regarding motivation, researchers investigated self-confidence and self-efficacy in
students’ persistence in STEM (Graham et al., 2013) and developed the framework in Figure 3.

18

Figure 3
Persistence Framework

Note. From “Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM,” by M. J. Graham, J.
Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A.-B. Hunter, & J. Handelsman, 2013. Science, 341(6153), 1455–
1456. (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487). Copyright 2023 by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science

Graham et al. (2013) found that students who engaged in high-impact involvement, such
as early research, were more likely to persist in their STEM major. When paired with learning
communities and active learning as tenets of persistence, early research fed into students’
learning experience and identity development in STEM (Graham et al., 2013). Membership in a
STEM learning community strengthened students’ identities as scientists, while active classroom
learning helped them identify with the scientific community through discussion with their peers
(Graham et al., 2013). The combination of learning and identifying as a scientist worked in
alignment to continuously foster confidence and motivate students to persist in STEM (Graham
et al., 2013).
19

Lastly, previous research shows that women and underrepresented engineering students
have benefited from involvement in cocurricular activities, such as professional engineering
organizations (PEOs; Smith et al., 2021). The PEOs provided a space where this cohort of
engineering students had access to exercise their social capital and build a network that would
result in professional development opportunities (Smith et al., 2021). Most importantly, the
PEOs fostered a space where feelings of isolation and marginalization were reduced, allowing
students to focus on developing their capital in contrast to grappling with the challenges
associated with campus climate issues (Smith et al., 2021).
Faculty–Student Interactions and Classroom Experiences
Faculty can increase students’ retention in STEM disciplines, where Black and Latinx
students have significantly lower levels of persistence than their White and Asian American
counterparts (Chang et al., 2014; Christie, 2013). Researchers have found that underrepresented
STEM students benefit from faculty support with regard to science ambition, attitudes, and
career connections (Espinoza & Cole, 2012). In addition to serving as a positive indicator of
academic success for underrepresented students in STEM, faculty support also positively
impacted the Latinx students’ grade point averages (GPAs) in STEM (Espinoza & Cole, 2012).
Lastly, when regarding persistence to degree completion, many underrepresented students in
STEM attributed the attainment of their degree and academic success to their connection and
support from a faculty member, highlighting the significance of faculty–student interactions in
the persistence of underrepresented students in STEM (Espinoza & Cole, 2012).
In a recent study, researchers found that professors can counter the chilly climate of
STEM classrooms by developing a positive rapport with students (Christie, 2013). Shifting the
focus from the self to the learner, faculty can make a positive impact on students in STEM by
20

fostering a caring and nurturing environment where students feel that their professors care about
their well-being, interests, and goals; instead of also focusing on other competing priorities, such
as research and expertise in the field (Christie, 2013). With underpinnings of empathy and
helpfulness, researchers found that faculty can help students persist to degree completion by
showing understanding and empathy that may help reduce the fear of embarrassment in a
competitive field, where students may feel judged both in and outside the classroom (Christie,
2013). Researchers found that developing a positive connection with students heavily relied on
actions outside the classroom, where faculty operate as mentors. In addition to experts in a
competitive field, faculty can reduce attrition by redesigning the climate of STEM to one of
support and achievement in and out of the classroom (Christie, 2013).
From the student perspective, researchers found that engineering students who reported
positive feelings toward their professors and their classroom environment were more engaged in
the classroom (Vogt, 2008). Vogt (2008) found that environmental factors strongly influence a
student’s self-assessment, progress toward academic success, and learning behaviors.
Specifically, positive faculty–student interactions in the classroom had a positive relationship
with academic integration (Vogt, 2008). Academic integration was conceptualized through
student expectations of faculty–student interactions, including the following characteristics:
teaching effectiveness, sharing of experiences with students, interest in students, willingness to
help students connect with research, faculty approachability and accessibility (Vogt, 2008).
Additionally, student perceptions of faculty members and their ability to support students outside
of the classroom had strong positive implications for retention in engineering (Vogt, 2008).
In a similar trope, Newman (2011) found that faculty–student relationships could have
strong implications for Black engineering students’ persistence. Through interviews with
21

students at different higher education institutions, Newman (2011) identified three emergent
themes in students’ responses: lone-wolf supportive faculty, low expectations of faculty, and lack
of same-race faculty role models. The lone-wolf supportive faculty theme emerged as students
described singular faculty members who demonstrated an interest in helping students learn and
develop as engineers (Newman, 2011). As such, students reported positive interactions with very
few faculty (Newman, 2011). Specifically, students could identify one lone-wolf faculty who
expressed care and interest in students, offering mentorship both in and out of the classroom
(Newman, 2011). Synonymous with other research, the students reported that the lone-wolf
faculty treated students as co-creators of knowledge rather than pupils of instruction, removing
any sense of condescending attitudes (Christie, 2013; Newman, 2011). While the culture of
STEM may focus on creating new knowledge through research, a shift in focus toward positive
faculty–student interactions and relationships could have strong implications on students’
persistence and retention (Christie, 2013; Newman, 2011; Vogt, 2008).
Through the second theme discussed in the study’s findings, Black students described
low expectations of faculty as low levels of commitment to student interactions and support
(Newman, 2011). One student provided an example where the professor persuaded them to drop
the course due to performing poorly on an exam, where the faculty took a deficit rather than an
anti-deficit approach to the student’s potential classroom performance (Newman, 2011).
Researchers found that when professors have low expectations of students, they also create an
environment where the student develops low expectations of their relationship with faculty
(Newman, 2011). Furthermore, Black students expressed a disconnect with faculty who were not
of the same race and perpetuated stereotypes through microaggressions (Newman, 2011). In one
example, a student described a moment in class where the faculty member questioned a student’s
22

country of origin without reason, inquiry, or relevance to the classroom discussion (Newman,
2011). Operating on a biased framework, these types of microaggressions significantly
contributed to negative student–faculty interactions and produced strong barriers to student
learning outcomes (Newman, 2011; Park et al., 2020).
On the other hand, Black students who had positive experiences with same-race faculty
reported a heightened sense of community, with positive implications on their retention and
persistence through degree completion and strong integration into the professional community
(Newman, 2011). Similarly, other researchers found that faculty members who demonstrated an
interest in students’ cocurricular experiences outside of the classroom made students feel they
cared about their overall learning experience, contributing to positive student outcomes (Hong &
Shull, 2010; Vogt, 2008).
Through an extensive quantitative study, Park et al. (2020) evaluated faculty–student
interactions to identify the relationship between discrimination by faculty and the retention of
underrepresented students in STEM. Black students reported the overall highest number of
interactions with faculty and the highest number of incidents of discrimination by faculty in the
classroom based on race and ethnicity (Park et al., 2020). Feelings of discomfort created by the
incidents of discrimination were negatively related to retention in STEM (Park et al., 2020).
Researchers also indicated that further research must focus on Latinx student experiences in
STEM due to their findings that discrimination had the strongest effect on Latinx students (Park
et al., 2020). While the researchers attributed Latinx student retention to resilience, their findings
indicate that experiences of discrimination had a significant effect on Latinx students 4th-year
GPA (Park et al., 2020). In the same study, researchers found that non-discriminatory
interactions did not have a significant effect on retention (Park et al., 2020).
23

Hong and Shull (2010) found that either positive or negative interactions with faculty
could have a long-term effect on engineering students’ intention to persist in their undergraduate
program. Through interviews, researchers found that students who had negative interactions with
faculty who also served as their advisors were highly discouraged from continuing in the
program (Hong & Shull, 2010). For instance, one participant described how a faculty member
lacked knowledge about the overall curriculum and could not effectively advise on a long-term
academic course plan, resulting in a negative experience for the student and creating a barrier to
persistence since the student could not rely on the faculty to help navigate the academic system
and make informed decisions on their next steps (Hong & Shull, 2010). Students essentially
perceived their faculty as either a form of support or a barrier to their persistence (Hong & Shull,
2010).
Hurtado et al. (2011) highlighted the structural implications of faculty–student
interactions and their effect on the academic achievement of historically marginalized students in
STEM. For instance, students at highly selective and competitive institutions had fewer
opportunities to engage with professors both in and outside of the classroom, whereas students at
historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) had both greater opportunities to engage
with faculty and reported a greater sense of belonging and community due to the strength of their
relationships with faculty (Hurtado et al., 2011). Faculty approachability, ethic of care and the
balance between rigor and care for the student were strong predictors of the quality of faculty–
student interactions (Hurtado et al., 2011). When discussing approachability, students pointed to
interactive classroom environments where faculty invited questions and inquiry into the
discussion (Hurtado et al., 2011). Researchers also indicated that faculty approachability could
be determined by the reward system in the institution (Hurtado et al., 2011). Students could feel
24

when faculty responded to institutional pressures to produce research and receive accolades from
such expertise in place of student-focused teaching methods that could foster inclusion and
student success (Hurtado et al., 2011).
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
In the classroom, faculty have the opportunity to create inclusive environments through
culturally responsive pedagogy (O’Leary et al., 2020). Researchers found that faculty who
engaged in multi-day professional development workshops reported a heightened awareness of
social identities and barriers to learning, changed their attitudes toward student’s learning
experiences, and adjusted their teaching to create a more welcoming and inclusive classroom
environment (O’Leary et al., 2020). Specifically, faculty reported a heightened awareness of
implicit bias, stereotype threat, microaggressions and Dweck’s notion of a fixed mindset
(O’Leary et al., 2020). Such awareness shifted the perspectives of faculty on students’ learning
and enabled faculty to re-imagine and change theoretical pedagogy to create a classroom
experience that fostered an inclusive learning experience (O’Leary et al., 2020).
It is important to note that previous research found that faculty have attributed STEM
student success to multiple student characteristics without considering how they could adjust
their classroom environment or pedagogy to better support students (Gandhi-Lee et al., 2015). In
their study, Gandhi-Lee et al. (2015) found that faculty perceived the following characteristics as
vital in the success of STEM students: personality traits, academic skills, and affective qualities.
Of personality traits, faculty identified inquiry and diligence as two central characteristics of
successful STEM students (Gandhi-Lee et al., 2015). More importantly, among academic skills,
all faculty in the study indicated a lack of knowledge in mathematics, at least algebraic math, and
fear of mathematics as the strongest impediments to student success in STEM (Gandhi-Lee et al.,
25

2015). Lastly, faculty attributed student success in STEM to a strong affinity toward the
discipline that would drive students to investigate professional and cocurricular opportunities in
the field (Gandhi-Lee et al., 2015).
Peck (2021) conducted a literature review of how a deficit approach to classroom
experiences in mathematics could impact the overall climate of the institution and student
experience. The researchers found that a deficit approach resulted in lowered expectations of
students and compromised their educational experience by limiting the role professors could play
in the learning process, creating a culture-free space in STEM, restricting powerful forms of
cognition from entering the classroom, and perpetuating privilege by preventing culturally
relevant cognition (Peck, 2021). Peck (2021) also offered ways to enact a culturally relevant
classroom experience: developing human connections, considering assessment standards, and
reviewing prerequisite and corequisite curricula.
In alignment with Peck (2021), Killpack and Melón (2016) offered mechanisms whereby
faculty could enact a culturally relevant pedagogy to increase sense of belonging and address
privilege in the classroom. Specifically, Killpack and Melón recommended faculty take a
reflective approach to their teaching method and interaction with students by reviewing how
their own social identity, privilege and bias may interplay in classroom experiences. Researchers
recommend that faculty highlight the contributions experts and faculty from historically
marginalized communities have added to the STEM fields (Killpack & Melón, 2016). Lastly and
most importantly, Killpack and Melón encouraged faculty to acknowledge that students may
have different aspirations and motivations to be in the very seats they once occupied. Creating an
inclusive classroom requires active engagement and action by faculty to ensure that students feel
26

seen, their culture acknowledged and honored, and adopt a growth mindset in place of an ability-
based approach to STEM (Killpack & Melón, 2016).
Social-Emotional Learning
Social-emotional learning (SEL) has grown more prevalent in primary K–12 education
throughout the past 20 years, yet it is gradually being incorporated into higher education practice
(Kennedy, 2019). The literature on SEL in higher education focuses on the student experience
and university leadership development (Cohn, 2021; Kennedy, 2019; Luedke, 2017; O’Grady,
2021; Turki et al., 2018). Social-emotional learning in a higher education setting gives students
the opportunity to develop life skills, deepens interest in the curriculum and creates positive
relationships with peers and faculty (Cohn, 2021; Kennedy, 2019; Luedke, 2017; O’Grady, 2021;
Turki et al., 2018).
In the classroom, researchers found that social-emotional strategies promoted student
interest, built stress resilience, and fostered positive peer and faculty interactions (Elmi, 2020;
Turki et al., 2018). In predicting 1st-year experience and transition to college student life,
researchers found that SEL contributed to positive academic outcomes, including performance
and retention (Elmi, 2020). Social-emotional learning strategies promoted the development of
life skills such as emotional intelligence and empathy, which in turn, fostered a sense of social
consciousness and a responsibility to promote equity (Elmi, 2020; Jagers et al., 2018; Turki et
al., 2018).
Lastly, researchers found that SEL approaches in higher education have implications for
overall campus climate and student support (O’Grady, 2021). For instance, one study showed
that positive peer-group relations could have positive implications on the mental health of
LGBTQIA+ students who experience depression as a result of internalized heterosexism
27

(Bissonette & Szymanski, 2019). Positive peer relations constitute an SEL approach where
students can appeal to emotions to better support their peers and where peers feel better
supported by students who show empathy and understanding, thus prioritizing the students’
overall emotional well-being (Bissonette & Szymanski, 2019). Research shows that SEL can be
effective in dismantling oppressive systems and fostering positive relationship-building based on
empathy, respect, and social awareness (Cohn, 2021; O’Grady, 2021).
Researchers have begun to develop a model where SEL can be a strategy to promote
equity on college campuses (Elmi, 2020; Jagers et al., 2018; Kennedy, 2019). Within leadership,
the model is based on care and empathy, where reform is non-academic but effective (Elmi,
2020; Jagers et al., 2018; Kennedy, 2019). Researchers found that an SEL leadership program
that is sensitive to students’ gender, cultural, and developmental needs requires intentional
leadership actions (Elmi, 2020; Jagers et al., 2018; Kennedy, 2019). These actions are conducted
through a lens of consciousness influenced by care and empathy, emotions that open a space for
learning and relatability (Elmi, 2020; Jagers et al., 2018; Kennedy, 2019). Furthermore, critical
consciousness is key in implementing SEL to equity and change because it empowers educators
and students to believe in their own knowledge, ability, and experiences (Kennedy, 2019).
Culture of Niceness
Relevant to a campus climate that directly affects the experiences of students in STEM,
the culture of niceness at predominantly White institutions has been linked to the perpetuation of
inequity (Castagno, 2019). Derived in good intentions, the culture of niceness encompasses race-
neutral practices and a stark avoidance of race in discussions and routines to avoid discomfort
(Castagno, 2019; Liera, 2019). This discomfort, however, is mostly geared at protecting the
White fragility at predominantly White institutions where racially minoritized individuals
28

experience racist encounters and interactions (Liera, 2019). Researchers found that White faculty
are more empathetic and open to change when they experience an emotional connection (Liera,
2019). White faculty were more likely to engage in the interrogation of daily routines after
listening to racially minoritized colleagues’ lived experiences (Liera, 2019). This research aligns
with the theory of SEL because it strengthens the notion that making an emotional connection
can open a person to learning (Bracket, 2019; Liera, 2019).
Castagno (2019) claimed that the culture of niceness is an emotional behavior, and its
relatability as an emotional state has long accounted for a lack of interrogation as to how it
sustains educational inequity. Liera (2019) found that White faculty experienced a level of
consciousness after listening to their colleagues’ racist interactions. Notwithstanding, this
research shows interest convergence, a tenet of critical race theory (CRT), where White
individuals will act toward racial justice when it affects or benefits them, placing the weight of
action and justice on racially minoritized groups (Freire, 1978; Ladson-Billings, 2013).
With a lack of acknowledgment that racism is within the fabric of education, the culture
of niceness allows educators to focus on the dream that students can accomplish anything,
irrespective of real social barriers that cause inequities (Castagno, 2019). Such avoidance results
in a lack of educators seeing the self-containment and isolation experienced by racially
minoritized students in higher education.
By protecting White fragility and Whiteness, the culture of niceness silences students of
color (Castagno, 2019). In addition to carrying the burden of educating their White counterparts,
college students of color are expected to also sustain the culture of niceness (Castagno, 2019).
Failure to be sensitive to responses from White counterparts, or nice, in the classroom result in
students of color being labeled as mean or difficult (Castagno, 2019). The culture of niceness
29

requires students to choose silence over voice and restraint over expression, all in self-
preservation (Castagno, 2019). Thus, the culture of niceness reinforces the White status quo by
forcing students of color to be silent and compromises the purpose of higher education to have a
positive social impact (Castagno, 2019). Framed by CRT, SEL in higher education could counter
systematic racism embedded in a culture of niceness (Castagno, 2019; Liera, 2019).
Student Support Services
While institutions of higher education provide access to highly selective engineering
programs, they must also heavily consider measures to support students through their major
program (García et al., 2014; Turner et al., 2021; Wirtz et al., 2018; Won et al., 2021). In the
CCW framework, both navigational and aspirational capital in the form of goal realization and
help-seeking behaviors may be an excellent lens to better understand student’s motivation to
persist in their major program (García et al., 2014; Turner et al., 2021; Wirtz et al., 2018; Won et
al., 2021; Yosso, 2005). For instance, researchers have found that summer bridge programs
improve the student success and persistence of students of color in STEM (García et al., 2014;
Turner et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2020).
Summer Bridge Programs
As a means to counter lower rates of persistence in STEM among students from
historically marginalized communities, some institutions launched summer bridge programs
aimed at easing the transition from high school to college, with an emphasis on developing a
sense of community (Bauer-Wolf, 2019; Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Johnson, 2016;
Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). This section will investigate the different
aspects of summer bridge programs that positively impact the retention of historically
marginalized students in STEM, offering a persistence framework for higher educational
30

professionals (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al.,
2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). In addition to building a sense of community, summer bridge
programs address math preparation and student identity development, both factors that influence
the persistence of historically marginalized students in STEM (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al.,
2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). Researchers have
found that students who engage in summer bridge programs are more likely to persist in STEM
major programs and have more positive student outcomes (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al.,
2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016).
The role of STEM summer bridge programs as vehicles for sense of community also
positively impacts student identity development (Samuelson & Litzler, 2016). Johnson (2016)
found that STEM summer bridge programs promote college persistence by fostering a positive
science identity that is culturally consistent with the values and experiences of Black students.
Researchers found that the saliency of student science identity correlated with the student’s
commitment to STEM and their major program (Johnson, 2016). Aligning with Johnson’s (2016)
findings, Samuelson and Litzler (2016) used a CCW framework in investigating the persistence
of Black and Latinx students in undergraduate engineering programs. The researchers found that
cultural wealth significantly interacts with how students manage navigation and aspirational
capital in their undergraduate experience, supporting Kuh et al.’s (2008) findings that goal
realization positively impacts the persistence and retention of students from historically
marginalized communities (Samuelson & Litzler, 2016). The aspiration capital that students
bring to higher education directly relates to goal development and realization, which in turn, can
impact their persistence in STEM majors (Johnson, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Samuelson & Litzler,
2016).
31

With regard to aspirational capital and career development, researchers urge institutions
to incorporate professional development opportunities or activities in summer bridge programs
(Ikuma et al., 2019; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). While students participating in a summer
bridge program are generally beginning their college careers, employer information sessions,
industry night talks, or resume-building workshops can support their career goal development
(Kuh, 2016). Seeing where their major could lead them professionally could help students realize
their goals, possibly improving the retention and performance of historically marginalized
students in STEM (Ikuma et. al., 2019; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). In alignment with previous
research, major and career preparation and career planning are even more important for students
of color and first-generation college students because they are navigating these new
environments and expectations for the first time (Ikuma et al., 2019; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al.,
2008).
Previous literature shows that incoming engineering students who enroll in summer
bridge programs tend to have higher rates of persistence, retention, and positive learning
outcomes (Carver et al., 2017; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al.,
2016). The overview below will investigate the various elements of summer bridge programs
that contribute to positive student outcomes, specifically the sense of community that these
programs create and the psychological constructs they support (Carver et al., 2017; Johnson,
2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016).
Sense of Community
A key factor in persistence, summer bridge programs offer students a sense of belonging
and community that can then transfer to student engagement opportunities throughout their
undergraduate studies (Carver et al., 2017; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko
32

et al., 2016). Researchers found that educationally purposeful activities, such as research and
residential life, bring meaning to the student experience and positively correlate with higher GPA
and persistence after the 1st year of college, especially for students from historically
marginalized communities (Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). Tomasko et al. (2016) found
that participation in summer bridge programs significantly impacted the persistence of
underrepresented minority students, first-generation students, and women into their 3rd year of
study. The summer bridge program provided the students with an opportunity to develop a sense
of belonging, prepare for college-level coursework, and learn more about the educational
resources available at the institution (Tomasko et al., 2016). Tomasko et al. (2016) shows that
persistence in STEM requires an institutional commitment to support students through resource
allocation but, more importantly, in helping them socially integrate into the community at the
institution (Metz, 2004). Lastly, Tomasko et al. (2016) challenged institutions of higher
education to follow a framework that focuses on the person first and student second, gearing
away from solely supporting academic integration and performance and pivoting toward a
holistic approach to supporting students.
In identifying important components of programming, researchers at Louisiana State
University developed the LSU STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP; Ikuma et al., 2019).
While STEP included a summer bridge camp, it also consisted of a residential program
experience, student mentorship, and an introductory engineering design course (Ikuma et al.,
2019). The purpose of the study was to identify the impact of STEP on persistence while
considering students’ demographics and academic preparedness (Ikuma et al., 2019).
Researchers found that STEP participants had higher persistence rates than non-participants, by
11% in engineering and 9% in STEM majors. Furthermore, the residential college experience,
33

introductory engineering course, and mentoring program significantly impacted students’
persistence, supporting a sense of belonging and community (Ikuma et al., 2019; Tomasko et al.,
2016). Students in STEP participated in a research experience and luncheons with industry
representatives, incorporating a professional development element into the student experience
(Ikuma et al., 2019). Ikuma et al. (2019) found that students who participated in the summer
bridge program had significantly higher persistence after the 2nd year in engineering majors in
comparison to subsequent years, placing high importance on attrition between the 1st and 2nd
years in engineering programs.
Lastly, as it relates to cultural capital, Matos (2021) found that Latinx engineering
students used multiple forms of capital to complete their degrees and leaned heavily into
Strayhorn’s theoretical framework of sense of belonging and its relationship to retention
(Strayhorn, 2011). In addition to Matos (2021), researchers in a separate study found that Latinx
women in engineering engaged in identity-based student organizations as a means to counter
marginalization, build resiliency and inherently create a stronger sense of belonging to the larger
campus through their connections with other students (Rodriguez & Blaney, 2020). Among
students in STEM, previous research supports a positive correlation between sense of belonging
and retention (Carver et al., 2017; Strayhorn, 2011).
Mathematics Preparation
Previous literature related to summer bridge programs looked at these programs’ overall
impact on students’ academic performance and success (Carver et al., 2017; Johnson, 2016; Kuh,
2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). With a focus on the subject of math, summer
bridge programs offer students an opportunity to strengthen their math preparation prior to
officially starting traditional college courses while fostering a strong sense of community
34

organically developed throughout the program (Tomasko et al., 2016). In reviewing previous
research, various undergraduate summer bridge programs with a strong math component were
funded by the NSF, showing that math preparedness is a significant priority on a national level,
especially as it relates to persistence and retention of students from historically marginalized
communities (Carver et al., 2017; Harrington et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al.,
2008; Tomasko et al., 2016).
Researchers at Cleveland State University found that participation in their summer bridge
program, Coined Operation STEM, resulted in higher retention rates than university rates
(Carver et al., 2017). The 2-week NSF-funded program required students who were
underprepared in math and were first-generation or underrepresented in STEM to complete a
precalculus-calculus sequence (Carver et al., 2017). Additionally, as an incentive, the summer
bridge program issued a stipend to students who completed the non-credit courses and attended
mandatory supplemental instruction (SI) sessions, engaged in mentorship opportunities, and
participated in various social activities and college success workshops (Carver et al., 2017).
While most students placed in precalculus, participation in the SI sessions was a positive
indicator of overall academic performance in the math class (Carver et al., 2017). Such
participation shows that summer bridge programs can serve as a conduit between students and
resources, improving persistence (Carver et al., 2017).
Furthermore, researchers found that 89% of students at HBCUs placed into
developmental math, which may impact the retention and persistence of students (Harrington et
al., 2016). Again, funded by the NSF, this summer bridge program offered an online introductory
math course at no cost to incoming STEM students (Harrington et al., 2016). Researchers found
that 80% of the students passed the online summer class and scored the same on department final
35

exams as students who completed the course in the traditional format (Harrington et al., 2016).
Students who passed the online summer course had equivalent performance in future math
courses in comparison to students who completed the math sequence in the traditional, in-person
sequence, demonstrating that the summer bridge program can help students who place in
developmental math (Harrington et al., 2016). Overall, historical 3-year data from Harrington et
al. (2016) shows that students who participated in the online summer math course had higher 1st-
year grade point averages and retention rates and earned significantly more credits in their 1st
year than the overall STEM student population. Of the students who participated in the study,
87% identified as minority students (Harrington et al., 2016). Results show that a math
component in a summer bridge program can improve the academic success of students who enter
college underprepared in math (Harrington et al., 2016).
Goal Realization and Help-Seeking Behaviors
While institutions are aware of the disparity between persistence rates among ethnic and
racial groups, researchers have found that high-impact practices may have positive learning
outcomes for historically marginalized students (Kuh et al., 2008). Kuh et al. (2008) used the
undergraduate grade point average and retention from the 1st to 2nd year as metrics of positive
learning outcomes. Of high-impact practices, Kuh et al. (2008) focused on student engagement in
educationally purposeful activities, such as involvement in cocurricular activities, increased
studying, meaningful conversations, and academic behaviors. Kuh (2016) found that goal
realization is a positive predictor of persistence, indicating that student programming aimed at
persistence should be designed around strategic initiatives that support educationally meaningful
activities and foster goal realization (Kuh et al., 2008).
36

Understanding a student’s help-seeking behaviors will enable higher education
institutions to support undergraduate STEM students (Wirtz et al., 2018; Won et al., 2021).
Collectively, the research points to three areas of help-seeking behaviors that should be
considered in designing academic support programs: social context, student perception, and
stereotypes (Wirtz et al., 2018; Won et al., 2021). Wirtz et al. (2018) found that help-seeking
behaviors among engineering students were pivotal to their learning and academic success.
Specifically, researchers found that students sought resources that were convenient in regard to
time and space (Wirtz et al., 2018). Key to their findings, Wirtz et al. (2018) concluded that in
engineering, there was not a relationship between the frequency of use of an academic resource
and its usefulness. Therefore, there is space to better understand why students seek a specific
academic resource when more useful resources may be available (Wirtz et al., 2018).
Other researchers found that sense of belonging and self-efficacy could indicate help-
seeking behaviors (Won et al., 2021). The same researchers found that academic resource’s
utility value had a negative relationship with help-seeking behaviors (Won et al., 2021). These
findings suggest that the perception of the academic resource may outweigh its actual utility and
has strong implications on how engineering students seek help with their academics (Wirtz et al.,
2018; Won et al., 2021). Stites et al. (2021) found similar results where usage of an academic
resource was not indicative of achievement in undergraduate engineering programs. On the
contrary, students’ success depended on each sub-group of students’ different needs and, most
significantly, on how they perceived academic resources’ usefulness.
Lastly, Briody et al. (2019) found that help-seeking behaviors were directly related to
faculty–student interactions. Of the greatest barriers, social distance between the faculty and
students, hindered help-seeking behaviors (Briody et al., 2019). Culturally, engineering students
37

sought help in their classes when faculty made themselves available to speak with students about
their academic performance and professional development, with faculty serving a dual role of
both experts and mentors in their field (Briody et al., 2019). Researchers found that engineering
students sought help in their classes by engaging with faculty during office hours, over email,
through after-class support, and during informal conversations (Briody et al., 2019). These
faculty–student interactions supplemented the community that students built with their peers,
teaching assistants and the online community when seeking help (Briody et al., 2019).
Theoretical Framework: Community Cultural Wealth
In working with Latinx students, Yosso’s (2005) CCW model can be a framework
through which to honor the community and culture students bring to higher education. The
model builds on six different types of cultural capital: aspirational, navigational, social,
linguistic, familial, and resistant (Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2005). Each form of capital
can be used collectively or individually as a framework to describe the skills, experiences, and
sources of support that students bring from their community to their educational experience
(Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2014). Kouyoumdjian et al.
(2017) also described the CCW model as a framework to see how the Latinx culture is an asset to
students’ success. Most importantly, the CCW framework honors the skills, experiences, and
wealth of knowledge that students of color bring from their communities, which they then
employ in their efforts to persist through degree completion and academic success
(Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016).
Recent research on Latinx students in higher education shows that these students used the
different forms of capital from Yosso’s (2005) model to replicate family structures in their
postsecondary educational experience, emphasizing the strong effect parent influence could have
38

on these students’ retention and persistence (Fernández et al., 2021; Matos, 2021; Yosso, 2014).
Through interviews, Matos (2021) found that students relied on aspirational capital for
motivation to complete their degrees and fortify their career aspirations. Specific to familial
capital, students expressed replication of family structures in identity-based organizations, which
fostered a strong sense of belonging and community (Matos, 2021). In the same study, students
referred to their peers and mentors in an identity-based organization as primos or tios, placing
strong importance on the ties between students’ home communities and the communities they
built in their college experience (Matos, 2021). Lastly, while students used social capital to build
support networks, they relied heavily on navigational capital to counter challenging barriers in
their educational experience and to build resilience (Matos, 2021).
Matos (2021) described the replications of familial structures as a culmination of the
different forms of capital Yosso (2014) presented, demonstrating that students rely heavily on
forms of capital they bring from their home communities to navigate higher education through to
degree completion. Matos (2021) went further and added finishing capital to the findings, where
students described finishing their degree not simply as a goal but as a form of action that would
contribute to their future goals of giving back to their communities, motivating them to finish so
that they could attain higher paying jobs.
Furthermore, Martin et al. (2020) found that parents and families play a pivotal role in
first-generation engineering students’ persistence. Taking an assets-based approach, Martin et al.
(2020) compared the social capital both for first-generation and continuing-generation students
in choosing to commit to their undergraduate engineering major, specifically looking at how
students sought support from their families as part of their social capital. Continuing-generation
students only sought engineering-specific support when deciding to major in engineering, while
39

first-generation students sought both family and emotional support from their parents through the
major exploration phase, especially in committing to an engineering program (Martin et al.,
2020). Both types of students sought family and emotional support as a form of social capital but
utilized the support in different ways, further emphasizing the important role parents and families
have in the persistence of first-generation engineering students (Martin et al., 2020).
Researchers found that the dynamic interaction of these types of capital in the CCW
model helped students from historically marginalized communities navigate higher education
(Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2005). In these examples, students of color relied on their
navigational and aspirational capital to enroll and persist in undergraduate engineering programs,
with aspirational capital leaning heavily on goals, dreams, and hopes (Samuelson & Litzler,
2016). These findings are consistent with other research that shows goal setting is an important
element in engineering students’ academic performance and persistence after their 1st year of
college (Bowman et al., 2020).
Recent research shows that Latinx students in STEM use aspirational capital with both
their peers and their community to strengthen their STEM identity (Rincón & Rodriguez, 2021;
Zaniewski & Reinholz, 2016). Researchers found that students with a stronger sense of STEM
identity were more likely to persist in their major programs (Rincón & Rodriguez, 2021;
Zaniewski & Reinholz, 2016). The aspirational capital was derived from the connection and
support students felt with their peers who constantly encouraged them to continue in STEM
when they felt they did not belong in the discipline (Rincón & Rodriguez, 2021). Furthermore,
students expressed a desire to work in their home communities as STEM professionals, which
further motivated their desire to persist in their academic programs (Rincón & Rodriguez, 2021).
40

Of the most transformative forms of capital, researchers also investigated how resistant
capital is exercised among Latinx engineering students throughout their college experience
(Revelo & Baber, 2018). Resistant capital is described as the capital that develops from
conformist to transformational resistance, leaning heavily on social justice and a form of capital
that counters the systematic racism students encounter in higher education, especially at
predominantly White institutions (Revelo & Baber, 2018). Researchers found that while students
may not have developed complete transformational resistance, many of the Latinx engineering
students engaged in community outreach, successive role modeling and collective resistance to
challenge stereotypes and biases on their college campus. By mentoring their peers, Latinx
students helped younger students realize their potential as engineers and encouraged them to
persist in their major program, making sure they knew they had the skills and ability to succeed
in a program where they belonged (Revelo & Baber, 2018). Through community outreach,
Latinx students viewed giving back to their home communities as an investment in their home
and resistance to dominant norms. By extending knowledge to middle and high school students
in their home communities, they were prioritizing the future of the community. Lastly, focusing
on collective resistance, Latinx students leaned on each other to reduce feelings of isolation and
biases on campus in place of trying to navigate these barriers and challenges individually
(Revelo & Baber, 2018).
Most recently, Ballysingh (2021) extended Yosso’s (2005) model to develop a newer
model of cultural wealth based on the influence of Latino men’s mothers: maternal cultural
capital. Researchers found that Latino men persisted through higher education to honor their
mothers and their mothers’ resilience, love, and sacrifice (Ballysingh, 2021). Researchers
disaggregated familial capital into custodial capital and emotional capital and then disaggregated
41

aspirational capital into filial piety and provident capital (Ballysingh, 2021). The familial capital
students exercised relied heavily on their mothers and their connection with their community and
home (Ballysingh, 2021; Rincón & Rodriguez, 2021). Students expressed a sense of duty and
desire to give back to their families and mothers, encouraging them to persist through their
degree programs to reap the rewards of a college degree and provide for their families in the long
term (Ballysingh, 2021). These students displayed loyalty and strength as they mitigated various
barriers in higher education (Ballysingh, 2021).
Conclusion
Historically marginalized students leave engineering programs due to campus climate
issues, stereotype threats, and a lack of academic support (Bowman et al., 2020; Litzler &
Young, 2012; Martin et al., 2020). Under an anti-deficit lens, it is also important to note that
students of color persist through STEM programs when they exercise various forms of capital
they bring from their communities to the university, known as CCW (Samuelson & Litzler,
2016). Researchers have found that social capital is key to engineering students’ persistence
because of the connections they establish as part of a greater network of support (Martin et al.,
2020). Among the types of support, researchers found that summer bridge programs with a focus
on help-seeking behaviors, goal realization, and professional development helped engineering
students (Bowman et al., 2020; García et al., 2014; Turner et al., 2021; Won et al., 2021).
42

Chapter Three: Methodology
Maxwell (2013) described qualitative research as a means to connect with individuals
rather than just gain more knowledge about a topic or phenomenon. As the main investigator in
this study, my aim was to better understand Latinx students’ experiences in engineering as these
relate to their classroom experiences, faculty–student interactions, and persistence in their major
programs. Connecting with the students and developing a strong researcher-participant
relationship was the basis for learning more about the student experience among undergraduate
Latinx engineering students. Special attention was brought to the narratives these students shared
as these were the basis of data analysis. Institutional data from the centralized diversity center
supplemented student narratives to provide a makeup of the student population in the
undergraduate engineering program (Creswell, 2014).
The study was situated in a prestigious undergraduate engineering program at a 4-year,
private research institution. Through a centralized diversity center, the institution offers an
annual summer bridge program for historically underrepresented 1st-year engineering students
(Fry et al., 2021). Students are invited to participate in the program the summer prior to their first
fall semester. The program, which has been offered consistently since 2018, includes a non-
credit math course, academic support workshops, peer mentorship, professional development
opportunities and undergraduate research. Following, this study recruited students who
participated in the summer bridge program and then enrolled in a for-credit fall math course.
This eligibility marker opened the space to learn of the students’ lived experiences and better
understand the similarities and differences between the two math courses. The study’s design
was tailored to address the following research questions:
43

1. How do STEM classroom experiences impact first-generation Latinx engineering
students’ motivation to persist in engineering and perception of academic success?
Subquestion: How do first-generation Latinx students in engineering use aspirational
and navigational capital to navigate STEM classrooms?
2. What role do faculty interactions play in the persistence of Latinx students in
engineering in a highly competitive STEM undergraduate program?
Research Design
With a reiterative focus on my relationship with participants, the study’s design utilized a
strong collaborative approach (Maxwell, 2013). The aim of the study was to better understand
the participants’ classroom experiences and their interactions with faculty. To gain more
knowledge and inform higher education practice, my goal was to co-construct knowledge by
listening to the participants’ stories and narratives. While the ethical implications of research
relationships will be discussed later in this chapter, it is imperative to understand that I took the
role of a learner and honored the experiences that students shared (Maxwell, 2013).
Instrumentally, the qualitative approach of this study required a participant screening
questionnaire and then an interview protocol for individual one-on-one semi-structured
interviews (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). While the screening questionnaire included
demographic information, the interview protocol provided structure for the interviews and
consisted of open-ended questions. Also, the interview protocol was informed by the study’s
theoretical framework and research questions.
Participant recruitment and sampling were purposeful because I wanted to capture the
comparison of classroom experiences between the non-credit math course in the summer bridge
program and the for-credit semester math course. While 1st-year engineering students may place
44

in different mathematics levels, a large majority enrolled in a math course during their fall
semester. Math course placement can vary from precalculus to more advanced courses such as
linear algebra and differential equations. This study focused on the student experience of Latinx
participants who enrolled in a calculus course since a significant number of Latinx engineering
students place into precalculus and multivariate calculus.
Site Selection
As previously mentioned, this study was conducted at a 4-year private research institution
in the southwestern region of the United States. In the 2021–2022 academic year, the incoming
1st-year class at the institution had the following demographic breakdown: 26% of students
identified as White, 24% identified as Asian or Asian American, 20% identified as Hispanic or
Latinx, 9% identified as Black or African American and less than 1% identified as Native
American or Pacific Islander. In the undergraduate engineering program, the ethnic makeup of
the incoming class aligns with national trends: White and Asian or Asian American students are
overrepresented, and Black, Latinx, and Native American students are underrepresented (Fry et
al., 2021; NSF, 2022b). The program is considered one of the most rigorous in the country and
carries a strong sense of prestige.
For anonymity, the pseudonym University of the Coastal Sun (UCS) Engineering School
was used. Approximately 30% of the incoming engineering 1st-year class identified as Black,
Latinx and/or Native American. Additionally, approximately 50% of the most recent incoming
class identified as women. In 2019, of the students who participated in the summer bridge
program, approximately 24% identified as Black, 65% identified as Latinx, 10% identified as
non-resident/international and 1% identified as two or more races. While UCS not does meet the
requirements of a current predominantly White institution, this institution has historically served
45

a greater number of white students and currently serves one of the highest populations of
international students in the United States.
Sampling and Recruitment
Maxwell (2013) described five tenets of purposeful participant selection that are relevant
to the current study: representation or individuals’ typicality, participant population
homogeneity, approval or refutation of a theoretical framework, contrast and comparison of lived
experiences, and/or the selection of participants whom the researcher believes will provide the
most productive relationship with the investigation.
To begin, the selection of participants was intentional and included Latinx students who
participated in the engineering school’s summer bridge program. In addition, participants had
enrolled in a for-credit math course during their first fall semester at the university. Those who
meet these criteria were purposely recruited to participate in this study because they could speak
on the similarities and differences between the math courses. Originally, the recruitment was
aimed at only 1st-year students, but due to the low number of potential participants, recruitment
was opened to continuing students who met the criteria: self-identified as Latinx and first-
generation college students, participated in the summer bridge program and enrolled in a
traditional semester math course the subsequent fall semester.
Following the typicality of the individuals facilitated connecting the study’s findings to
the theoretical framework. Differences in experiences were individualized due to various
interpretations and perceptions of Latinx students’ classroom experience and interactions with
faculty. Regarding a productive relationship with the investigation, purposeful sampling helped
ensure that students who participated in the summer bridge program and enrolled in a university
46

math course would provide relevant information to the interaction between their classroom
experiences and motivation to persist in their undergraduate major program.
The purposeful selection of participants was facilitated through non-probability sampling
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). Latinx students who enrolled in the engineering
program during their first semester at the university and participated in the summer bridge
program the summer prior to that first semester were invited to participate in the study. I
contacted the centralized diversity center in the engineering school that manages the summer
bridge program to request help sending the recruitment email to the intended recruitment pool.
Thus, I sent a recruitment email and flier to students across all undergraduate levels based on
their participation in the summer bridge program, declared major and self-identified
race/ethnicity. A template of the recruitment email is found in Appendix A, and a template of the
flier is included in Appendix B. The flier in Appendix B included the purpose of the study,
detailed information about participation in the study and information about an incentive to
participate for the student.
Overall, while approximately 30 students were identified by the diversity center, I aimed
to interview between 10 and 12 1st-year, fall-start Latinx engineering students. With a 15-week
traditional semester at UCS, recruitment began toward the end of the fall semester, after the 7th
week of the semester and midterm season. Starting recruitment toward the end of the fall
semester allowed students to speak about their experiences in both their summer non-credit math
course and fall semester for-credit math course. Additionally, midterm season usually is a very
stressful time for undergraduate students, and I, with prior professional experience working in
advising, intended to contact students after that period. Interviews began at the end of the fall
semester and ended in January during the start of the spring semester.
47

Study participants identified as Latinx, participated in the engineering program’s summer
bridge program and enrolled in a traditional math course during their first semester at the
institution. It is important to note that while I intended to recruit only 1st-year students, the small
number of Latinx students who participate in both the summer bridge program and a degree-
granting traditional math course required me to open recruitment to undergraduate students in
their 2nd through 5th year of study, resulting in seven participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
The recruitment of continuing students was conducted knowing that the accuracy of memory
could pose a limitation to the study.
Procedures
From the participant perspective, the current study’s procedures included receipt of the
recruitment email and flier, completion of a quick screening survey and then, if eligible, an
invitation to participate in an interview. To maintain anonymity, student-specific data were held
at the institutional level, and I only received contact information disclosed by the participant in
the screening questionnaire. Please note that the screening questionnaire is included in Appendix
C.
Data Collection and Instruments
Used to determine participant eligibility for the study, the screening questionnaire
required 3 to 5 minutes to complete and requested the following information from the
participants: self-disclosed demographic information such as race/ethnicity, first-generation
status, questions regarding participation in the summer bridge program, and math course
enrollment in their first fall semester at their institution. Consisting of no more than 10 to 12
close-ended questions, approximately 20 students completed the questionnaire. After
determining eligibility, I invited eight students to schedule an interview through Calendly, and
48

seven students participated in the interviews. Prior to joining the Zoom interview, participants
received a study information sheet via email so that they would be aware of their rights as
participants. A copy of the study information sheet can be found in Appendix D.
On average, the semi-structured interviews took approximately 22 minutes from start to
end, with an interview protocol of approximately 20 questions. Designed to open the
conversation with an introduction of the researcher, the interview protocol then listed questions
that began with a brief participant introduction. Before introducing themselves, I asked all
participants individually to consent to audio-recording on Zoom, where they could turn off their
video. I kept all recordings on a password-protected computer and consistently used pseudonyms
to maintain the participants’ confidentiality and anonymity.
Following, I asked the participants to describe their overall experience at their institution
and then gradually inquired about specific classroom experiences and faculty interactions during
the summer and fall semesters. In alignment with the research questions, the interview questions
sought to understand the meaning participants applied to those experiences as they related to
their motivation to persist in their programs. To conclude the interview, I expressed gratitude to
the participants for sharing their experiences and inquired, on an as-needed basis, if they would
like to refer future participants to the study as part of snowball sampling (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). Lastly, after the interview, participants received a $25 Amazon gift card via email.
While the screening questionnaire included identity-based metrics and course enrollment,
the semi-structured interviews were the primary source of data and student narratives. With
guiding questions with neutral wording to minimize researcher and response bias, the one-on-one
interviews were conducted on Zoom to facilitate data collection using the audio transcript and
recording features. I presented the topic during the interview and offered open-ended questions
49

to understand the student’s classroom experience and faculty interactions (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). The interview recording on Zoom also generated a transcription, which I cross-referenced
with the actual video recording and my notes for accuracy.
Maxwell (2013) indicated that interviews could be used to describe the observations of
others in their experiences, perspectives, and goals. Also, for the interview to be intentional,
questions must be specific to the events or sequence of events in place of general inquiries
(Maxwell, 2013). For this reason, the interview protocol was divided into thematic sections to
guide the participant and me throughout the session, maintaining relevance and alignment with
the research questions. Lastly, it is important to consider that the data collection appealed to the
participant’s episodic memory regarding their experiences in two distinct classroom
environments (Maxwell, 2013). This detail specifically is the crux of the study, aiming to
understand if and how the summer bridge program’s math course differs from the traditional
university math course and how these experiences affected the participants’ motivation to persist
in engineering.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed thematically by exercising the following steps: recording the
individual interviews on Zoom, downloading the Zoom audio transcript, reviewing the interview
recording to verify the accuracy of the audio transcript, making changes to the transcript for
accuracy and then custom coding the transcript as findings relate to the study’s theoretical
framework. These steps were followed for each interview to ensure accurate analysis of the
student narratives and thematic findings substantiated by parallel processing of audio transcripts.
Maxwell (2013) described how qualitative data could be analyzed through categories or
connections. For this study, categorical mechanisms were used to highlight themes and were
50

facilitated through coding (Maxwell, 2013). To begin, I listened to the recordings of each
interview and updated observational notes by rewriting or reorganizing them (Maxwell, 2013).
Then, in reading the interview transcripts and reviewing the recordings, the primary researcher
wrote memos and created a coding tree (Maxwell, 2013). These memos were reflective and
supported my analytical thought process: analyzing the relationship between the methods,
theoretical framework, participant relationships and the study’s findings (Maxwell, 2013).
After reviewing the notes and transcripts, all the information provided throughout the
interview was categorically organized to begin the coding process. The coding of the findings
allowed the researchers to create organizational and substantive categories and facilitate the
development of thematic analysis according to the research questions and theoretical framework
(Maxwell, 2013). Organizing the categories by themes created the space to develop substantive
subcategories, meaning they were used to describe the participants’ perceptions and beliefs
(Maxwell, 2013). In conclusion, I read, reviewed and categorized the data to provide the most
accurate analysis of the interview findings (Maxwell, 2013).
Trustworthiness Measures
To ensure the study’s validity, triangulation was used throughout the data analysis
(Maxwell, 2013). Specifically, the sources used to triangulate the data were interview transcripts,
observational notes and member checks. When analyzing the data, member checks were useful
to verify the accuracy of narratives shared throughout the interview, homing in on the
participant’s perspective in place of the researcher’s interpretation (Maxwell, 2013).
Reliability, on the other hand, was a challenging concept due to the qualitative nature of
the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While the study’s findings cannot be replicated, they could
indicate future areas of research and implications for practice within higher education. The value
51

of the findings rests on how the student narratives could be used to inform higher education
professionals in better supporting Latinx students’ persistence in engineering.
Ethical Considerations
The largest consideration is that the research was intended to bring the voice of
historically underrepresented engineering students to the forefront. To honor the social and
cultural capital these students brought to their interviews, their narratives were transcribed with
utmost accuracy. With a transformative lens, I hope this study brings additional understanding to
the experience of historically underrepresented engineering students, prompting action in higher
education. Related to the student experience, this study may provide implications for pedagogy
in engineering classrooms, another topic considered as findings were evaluated. Fostering an
anti-racist research approach, the findings should inform educational practice and encourage
institutions to take stronger measures of both accountability and transparency for the lack of
persistence and retention of historically underrepresented students (Dei, 2005).
During the interviews, it was important to acknowledge that some participants may have
viewed me as an expert at the institution and power differentials could have influenced responses
or reactions (Barnhardt et al., 2018). Any perceived power was considered in the delivery of
questions, and I made every attempt to reduce the perception of such power throughout the
interview. Throughout the interviews, I brought my full self to the research with a heightened
understanding and empathy toward the study participants (Dei, 2005).
Lastly, it is important to consider the structural racism in higher education and its effects
on the student experience and eventual persistence to earn a degree in engineering (Dei, 2005, p.
4). From a research method standpoint, the fact that the study was conducted at a 4-year private
research institution in a discipline that is historically known for systemic discrimination,
52

especially through the rigor and competitiveness of the curriculum, prompted me to be
intentional in the delivery of the interview protocol and considerate of the strength of the
students’ voices in their lived experiences.
Researcher Background and Biases
Maxwell (2013) indicated that researchers are but an instrument of qualitative research.
As a practitioner-scholar, I previously served as a staff member in the central advising unit at the
engineering school, the setting of this study. While I do not directly manage the summer bridge
program, I may have interacted with students invited or involved in the program through an
advising or administrative capacity. The depth of interaction I may have had with students
depends on the conversations and the type of work.
As a Latinx woman who started her college career in STEM, I may have also brought
personal experience and bias into the study. In my undergraduate career, I lacked the guidance of
an academic advisor and took this role upon myself, completing two major degree programs and
one minor program. Although very proud to have completed two major programs as a first-
generation student, I found the process by which to navigate the higher education system
challenging. Of keen importance, this experience led me to my interest in learning about the
Latinx student experience in STEM because, as a Latinx woman, I also struggled with the
tension between collectivistic and individualistic values (Rodriguez et al., 2021). Family is of
greatest importance to me, and, coming from a single-mother household, my decision-making
process was strongly based on the needs of my family and community. Like many Latinx women
in engineering, I also struggled with the notion of being a good daughter (Rodriguez et al.,
2021).
53

Related to my academics, I likely would have benefited from having a greater support
network in areas that were unknown to me or where I could not envision myself, especially
STEM courses. I recall attending my first pre-medical information meeting as a 1st-year student
and being completely lost in the terms and feeling overwhelmed by the expectations of the
course track. Although I continued in STEM courses for the first semester, I soon decided to
major instead in humanities and abandon the pre-medical track because I could not conceive how
to make it from my 1st-year in college to a career in the medical field as a pediatrician. Had I had
a bit more guidance or a greater community with Latinx representation, I may have had a
different experience. Therefore, when I discovered education as a profession, I sought to support
students who could also have similar experiences as myself. At the very least, I want to be a
conduit of information so that all students can make the most informed decisions for their future.
In my professional practice, I previously served as an academic advisor and managing
coordinator of the peer tutoring program at the engineering school. Since I no longer work in the
school, the most recent cohorts of students in the summer bridge program were likely not to be
familiar with me, which could have posed a challenge in building rapport and trust. To mitigate
any potential power dynamics throughout the interview, I let the participants know they could
end the interview at any time and reiterated that they had authority over the information they
shared and the interview pace as their fundamental right. On the other hand, my previous
professional role at the engineering school does allow me to better understand the current
structure of the undergraduate engineering curriculum and specific math courses. As a
researcher, this context better allowed me to understand the participants’ experiences with
minimal biased interpretation.
54

While I may have resonated with student narratives that were similar to mine, I attempted
to reduce researcher bias by being very cognizant of my own experiences and keeping them
separate from the narratives participants shared during the interview. When it comes to listening
and transcribing conversations, the basis of transcripts was automated to reduce researcher bias
(Maxwell, 2013). In the cases where I did not interview students with whom I have had a
professional interaction or relationship, I maintained the neutrality of the questions, which were
focused on the research topic and emphasized throughout the interview that there was no correct
response but, rather, the sharing of experiences and information. Lastly, as the primary
investigator, my positionality served as both a strength and vulnerability. I would prefer to frame
my previous experiences and future aspirations as a guide to better support students through
action-based knowledge in the dissertation process.
Conclusion
Ethical considerations and trustworthiness measures were considered to maintain the
integrity of the study. Regarding institutional data as well as participant narratives, the
instruments utilized throughout the interviews were closely aligned with the research questions
and included specific questions geared toward better understanding classroom experience,
faculty–student interaction, and navigational and aspirational capital. The categorical nature of
the data analysis also facilitated my intent to honor the cultural capital first-generation Latinx
students bring to higher education, specifically in math and engineering.

55

Chapter Four: Findings
The aim of this study was to gather information on the motivation to persist in an
undergraduate program among first-generation Latinx engineering students, with a keen focus on
their classroom experiences in mathematics and interactions with faculty. Of students who
participated in the school’s engineering program, approximately 20 students demonstrated
interest in the study and completed the online questionnaire. While eight students were eligible
and invited to participate in the study, only seven were interviewed. Four identified as 1st-year
students, and three identified as continuing students. While interviewing continuing students may
have originally been deemed a limitation due to the time from the completion of the summer
bridge program and the current date of the study, continuing students accurately described
moments from their earliest experiences in higher education. Lastly, of the eight engineering
disciplines at the study site, approximately seven were represented across the participants’
academic major programs. For reference, Table 1 summarizes and introduces the study’s
participants.

56

Table 1
Participant Table
Pseudonym
First-year or
continuing student Engineering major Hometown
First-semester
math class
Michelle 1st year Computer
science/computer
engineering
City from same
region
Calculus
Mark 1st year Aerospace
engineering
Southeastern United
States
Calculus 2
Adrian 1st year Astronautical
engineering
Neighboring state in
southwestern United
States
Calculus 1
Leo Continuing student
(5th year)
Environmental
engineering
Neighboring county
near institution
Calculus
Toni Continuing student
(4th year)
Chemical
engineering
Same state as
institution
Calculus
Trisha 1st year Computer
science/business
administration
Neighboring city to
institution
Calculus 1
Alex Continuing student Biomedical
engineering
Same state as
institution
Calculus 1

In this chapter, an overview of each participant’s background will first be presented. This
will provide the contextual circumstances shared in the study and bring the participants’ voices
to the forefront, honoring their stories and lived experiences. After introducing each participant
by pseudonym, the findings will be presented thematically to showcase common threads among
the participants and their experiences. To contextualize the thematic findings, the student
narratives will cover the students’ backgrounds and responses to key questions related to their
persistence in the undergraduate engineering program, classroom experiences and interactions
with faculty.
57

Participant Narratives
All participants self-identified as first-generation Latinx students. The narratives below
will introduce 1st-year students’ responses and then transition to continuing students’ responses.
Continuing students were beyond their 1st year of study. During the IRB approval process, only
fields relevant to the participant criteria were kept. Thus, self-reported gender was not included
in the recruitment or interview process. As an additional measure of inclusivity, the third person
will be used for participants throughout the findings.
First-Year Students
Of the seven participants, four identified as 1st-year students. The order of presentation
of the findings follows the sequence by which the interviews were conducted.
Michelle
Originally from a city in the same region as the institution, Michelle is interested in
coding and is an active member of a band they formed as the guitar and bass player. When asked
about their experience thus far at the institution, Michelle expressed that it had gone well and
that the first semester was similar to a “test.” Michelle participated in the summer bridge
program through the engineering department because they wanted to familiarize themselves with
the campus and develop a community prior to the start of the semester. Similarly, when asked
what they gained most from the summer non-credit math course, Michelle responded with
learning the style of college-level courses. While the summer non-credit course was helpful in
navigating the style of college courses, Michelle explained that the course did not have an impact
on their decision to major in engineering.
Michelle did not specify which math course they enrolled in during their first fall
semester but indicated that it was part of the calculus sequence and that the course prepared them
58

to enroll in the next-level math course. Of the most challenging part of the course, Michelle
expressed that they were disappointed in their performance during the final but also explained
that the exam was more rigorous than the semester coursework. Overall, Michelle was satisfied
with their final grade in the course and felt it was a successful marker of their performance.
Regarding interactions with faculty in their math courses, Michelle expressed that they
were a bit “discouraging” because it was an impersonal classroom experience with the large
lecture style. On the other hand, the teaching assistant (TA) managed the discussion session, and
Michelle felt supported by the TA throughout the course in the fall. Overall, Michelle indicated
that their math classroom experiences or faculty interactions did not have a strong impact on
their decision to major in engineering and referenced their interest in coding as the motivation
for continuing in their major program.
Mark
Mark grew up for the majority of their life in the southeastern United States. Originally
from El Salvador, their parents immigrated to the United States. Mark referenced multiple trips
to the museum as a child as the source of their decision and motivation to enroll in the
undergraduate engineering program. When asked about their experience at the institution so far,
Mark indicated their experience had been positive, and they felt lucky to have made good friends
in the summer bridge program and good roommates during their first semester.
Mark joined the summer bridge program because they wanted to take the month-long
program as an opportunity to “acclimate to the institution” before starting their undergraduate
career in the fall. Related to the summer non-credit math course, Mark expressed that they
gained a “can-do” attitude about the course material, and “it took some pressure off” for the
upcoming semester.
59

During the fall semester, Mark enrolled in second-semester calculus for engineers and
scientists. Mark expressed that they gained the “blueprint” for future math courses through their
experience in their fall semester course. When asked how the course influenced their motivation
to persist, Mark indicated that while the math course was challenging, it did not deter him from
staying in engineering. Placing their interest and passion for engineering at the forefront, Mark
indicated they concluded the course “confident” that they were “capable” of succeeding in future
courses and major programs. Lastly, Mark indicated that the course was a learning experience in
that they will now use more of the institution’s academic resources and enhance their study skills
and habits to better prepare for their coursework, citing accountability as a source of success.
When asked about faculty–student interactions, Mark indicated that faculty members at
the institution were not “[their] enemies” but rather had felt they wanted him to succeed. Specific
to their fall semester math course, Mark described the professor’s teaching style as “fast” and
“handwriting was rough.” Even then, Mark indicated that the professor in the fall semester math
course was understanding, and they could tell the professor cared for their students. Lastly, Mark
indicated that their professor in the introductory course for aerospace engineering helped him
fortify their decision to pursue engineering. It is also important to note that Mark identified their
high school teachers in math and engineering as strong sources of motivation to pursue an
undergraduate degree in engineering.
Adrian
Adrian was born and raised in a state neighboring that of the institution in the southwest
region of the country. Unique to Adrian, they re-enrolled in their fall semester math class,
Calculus I, during the time of the interview (the subsequent semester) because they did not pass
the course in the fall semester. Adrian expressed that while academics during their first semester
60

proved challenging and limited their capacity to engage in extracurricular activities, they felt that
the overall climate of the institution was positive. Lastly, Adrian explained that, in comparison to
legacy students, whom they referred to as students who previously had “engineers in their
families,” they lacked a background in higher education as a first-generation student in the
discipline.
Adrian also indicated that they joined the summer bridge program so that they could have
a solid start and foundation at the institution prior to the fall semester and so that they could “get
to know minorities in engineering.” When asked what they gained most from the summer non-
credit math course, Adrian explained that the course was not rigorous but did provide an
opportunity for them to get to know the college classroom and how to interact with faculty. The
summer course also made them realize that their previous math background may not have
prepared them for college-level math and made them question their decision to pursue
engineering.
Adrian attributed failing the fall semester math course to a lack of educational
background. They interpreted the fall semester outcome as a learning experience and felt they
had the knowledge to succeed in subsequent semesters. By knowledge, Adrian indicated they
would “put in the work” that required better time management and study skills. Lastly, Adrian
explained that student expectations in college were very different from their high school
experience.
Regarding faculty–student interactions, Adrian addressed the significant impact faculty
had on their desire to continue in engineering. Specifically, Adrian attributed their engineering
faculty from an introductory course with helping him decide to stay in engineering, especially
after having failed their math class in the fall semester. Adrian used the word “supportive”
61

various times to describe the faculty and reinforced that faculty were a motivating force in their
decision to stay in engineering after a challenging first semester.
Trisha
Originally from a city neighboring the institution, Trisha expressed their discontent with
their fall semester course since the beginning of the interview. Enrolled in Calculus I, Trisha
described the math course as the “hardest” course they have ever taken and that their interactions
with the professor made it more challenging. At one point, Trish explained that the professor
made them feel uncomfortable when they asked if they were from a “bad background.” While
Trisha believed the comment was aimed at their college preparation related to academics, the
comment marked their experience in their first-semester math course.
Overall, Trisha felt that their experience at the institution had been a good one, with the
exception of their experience in their math course. Having felt their high school did not prepare
them for college, Trisha also indicated that their experience up until the interview was good and
bad. Trisha expressed enthusiasm for coding and looked forward to taking more leadership and
business courses. When asked why they joined the summer bridge program, Trisha explained
that they wanted to see if there “are other people like me in engineering” and learn more about
the discipline itself. While Trisha felt that the summer non-credit course did not prepare them for
college-level mathematics, they did indicate that it showed them how college professors teach.
Furthermore, the non-credit math course did not make them question their decision to major in
engineering but did make them question their math preparation.
In regard to their fall semester math course, Trisha reiterated the challenging aspect of the
academic rigor and described their experience as “horrible” where they “suffered a lot.” Trisha
indicated that the professor was not very helpful, and their first visit to office hours resulted in
62

their desire to never return: having resulted in a conversation where the professor directly asked
if Trisha came from a “bad background,” insinuating a correlation between college preparedness
and their background. While this experience marked their college experience, Trisha explained
that the TA was not judgmental and proved to be helpful in the course.
While Trisha’s experience with their math professor was one of the most challenging
moments in college thus far, Trisha explained that their interactions with engineering faculty
were some of the most inspirational. In describing their computer science professor, Trisha felt
that they could relate to the professor’s background (low-income, first-generation college
student) and saw their trajectory as an inspiration to continue in engineering. Lastly, Trisha
reiterated that their interactions with their fall semester math professor made them upset,
questioning their decision to pursue engineering and rethinking their enrollment in similar math
courses.
Continuing Students
Of the seven participants, three identified as 1st-year students. The order of presentation
of the findings follows the sequence by which the interviews were conducted.
Leo
Leo completed all required math coursework, from Calculus I to Differential Equations.
With a major in environmental engineering and a minor in entrepreneurship, Leo described their
college experience as a “correlation of positive experiences” with highs and lows. Originally
from a neighboring county near the institution, Leo is interested in climate change, carbon
capture, psychology, hiking, nature-related activities, and video games.
When asked about their engagement in the summer bridge program, Leo indicated that
they wanted to get to know fellow engineering students, make friends and get to know the
63

university environment. Leo described the summer math course as being divided into two groups
depending on the student’s math placement and that the actual course was an opportunity to see
how their relationships with college professors could develop. Also, the summer math course
provided some structure to the day and was intellectually stimulating. While the professor played
a large role in helping Leo complete the course, the experience itself had no impact on their
desire to continue in engineering.
Similar to their summer course experience, Leo explained that their fall semester math
course did not have an impact on their decision to major in engineering, although it was helpful
to identify how mathematical concepts are foundational in the overall engineering curriculum.
Their classroom experiences in math courses may not have had an impact on their decision to
major in engineering, but Leo did explain that their interactions with faculty, both direct and
indirect, were significant in their decision to major and persist in engineering. For instance, Leo
described listening to a podcast in environmental engineering narrated by one of their professors;
the podcast episodes encouraged them to dive deeper into their passion for engineering and
engage in research to a greater degree. After completing their undergraduate degree, Leo hopes
to enroll in a PhD program where they can investigate carbon capture and help “mitigate climate
change.” When asked about the role of faculty in helping them meet their aspiration goals, Leo
indicated that they have a “pretty significant role,” especially those who share a field of interest.
Toni
Originally from the same state as the institution, Toni described their college experience
as “strong,” especially with their experience in the summer bridge program. During their first
semester at the institution, Toni enrolled in Calculus II. When asked about their hobbies, Toni
described their interest in surfing and jiu-jitsu. As part of their extracurricular activities, Toni is
64

an active member of the Formula SA Racing Team and the Society of Hispanic Professional
Engineers at their institution.
Having received a scholarship to attend the institution, Toni described coming from a
place of gratitude and appreciation when starting their college career. They participated in the
summer bridge program because it was a free program that would allow them to make new
friends prior to starting their fall semester. Regarding the non-credit math course, Toni described
it as a fun course that provided the opportunity for students to get to know each other and form
study groups. The course fortified their decision to major in engineering because the “immersive
learning environment” made it an enjoyable experience and a good precursor to college math.
Regarding their fall semester math course, their summer math professor helped them
determine placement and eventually enroll in Calculus II. Toni described their fall math course
as a positive experience. While the course was challenging, three of their peers from the summer
bridge program were also enrolled in the course, which facilitated study groups and made the
course an enjoyable experience as well. Toni described calling their mother often as a mode of
support throughout the course and indicated that discussion sessions with the TA were helpful
tools in completing the course. Similar to the summer math course, the fall semester math course
solidified their decision to remain in engineering.
When asked about their aspirations, Toni explained that they have developed over time.
While research has always been at the core of their goals, helping others and fostering strong
relationships are what matters the most to Toni. Additionally, Toni expressed that faculty played
an immense role in helping them meet their goals, serving as mentors and dedicating various
hours to the success of their students. Toni was amazed at how much faculty care and do for their
students at the institution. Toni noted that their positive interactions with faculty began during
65

their research project that was part of the summer bridge program, setting the tone for the
relationships they would develop with faculty and graduate students later in their career. Lastly,
Toni indicated that TAs fortified their decision to continue in engineering due to their great
treatment, the value they placed on Toni’s learning process, and the equitable relationship that
ensued between graduate and undergraduate students.
Alex
Born and raised in the same state as the institution, Alex enrolled in Calculus I during
their first semester at the institution. Overall, they described their college experience as good,
with a couple of rough classes.
Alex indicated that their high school counselor motivated them to participate in the
summer bridge program because it would be a good opportunity to get a head start on college
and make friends. Of the things they most gained from the summer non-credit math course, Alex
explained that they felt the class prepared them for college-level math, especially as it related to
the style and delivery of the course. While the professor who taught the summer course was
helpful, Alex described their interactions with their peers outside the classroom as pivotal to their
classroom success. Furthermore, the summer non-credit class did make them question their
decision to pursue engineering because of the fast-paced nature of the learning environment.
Regarding their fall semester math course, Alex described their classroom experience as
“interesting” and indicated they had the worst possible outcome, failing the course. Alex
explained that the math professor set challenging expectations on students and made Alex fearful
of what was to come in subsequent math courses. While they did not receive the outcome they
desired from their first-semester course, Alex pointed to a friend from their summer bridge
program as the most helpful resource in navigating the course. Lastly, although Alex did not pass
66

the class, they did indicate that they took their experience as an opportunity to improve skills
outside of the classroom that would help them gain academic success in the future, referring to
time management and notetaking. While their first-semester math course made them question
their commitment to engineering, Alex viewed any shortcoming as motivation to continue and
succeeded by later passing the same course with an excellent grade.
When asked about faculty interactions, Alex referred to the biomedical engineering
faculty as a source of encouragement by helping students absorb the content and motivating them
to remain in engineering. Specific to math faculty, Alex indicated that their interactions with
professors reinforced the idea that the material may be tough, but they “could get through it.”
Thematic Findings
In this section, the thematic findings will be presented within the framework of
navigational and aspirational capital using Yosso’s (2005) CCW model to operate on an asset-
based lens and honor the cultural capital that students bring from their home communities
(Yosso, 2005). Regarding each type of capital, common themes arose regarding faculty–student
interactions, classroom experiences and how those two factors influenced the student’s
motivation to persist in the undergraduate engineering program.
Table 2 reintroduces the research questions as they relate to this study’s thematic
findings. The table summarizes responses to the questions, but both context and description of
the findings will be presented throughout this section.

67

Table 2
Findings and Research Questions
Research questions Findings
How do STEM classroom experiences
impact first-generation Latinx
engineering students’ motivation to
persist in engineering and perception of
academic success?
Five participants explained that the summer non-
credit math course did not impact their motivation
to persist. While the traditional semester math
course proved to be challenging, it also did not
impact their decision to persist in the
undergraduate engineering program. It is
important to note that the common theme
consisted of positive experiences, and two
negative experiences did produce doubt in the
student’s motivation to persist.
How do first-generation Latinx students in
engineering use aspirational and
navigational capital to navigate STEM
classrooms?
Participants indicated that faculty were very
important in meeting their aspirational goals as
engineering students. Furthermore, a common
theme that arose included the overlap of
navigational and aspirational capital as students
engaged in the summer bridge program to develop
a strong peer network and sense of community that
would enable them to face the challenges of
academic rigor and expectations of an engineering
student. Relevant findings point to TAs as sources
of support to navigate classroom experiences.
What role do faculty interactions play in
the persistence of Latinx students in
engineering in a highly competitive
STEM undergraduate program at a 4-
year private research institution?
A common theme among participants, faculty–
student interactions served an important role.
While interactions with math faculty were limited
due to the structure of the course or negative,
interactions with engineering faculty were
positive and important in the student’s motivation
to persist. For two participants, negative
interactions with math faculty caused doubt to
persist in the major program.

Navigational Capital
Yosso (2005) defined navigational capital as “the skills for maneuvering through social
institutions” (p. 80). Regarding navigational capital, some of the themes that arose include the
68

value of the non-credit math course as a precursor to the style of university-level coursework,
preparing some participants for the rigor of academic life as engineers. All seven participants
described their interest in the summer bridge program as a means to establish a peer network and
create a sense of community that would transfer to their first-semester experience. Lastly, related
to faculty–student interactions, participants noted that engineering faculty, outside of their math
courses, helped them develop the skills to succeed in engineering, noting them as sources of
support, mentorship and guides toward persistence.
Classroom Experiences
A common thread among participants was that the summer bridge program and non-
credit math course helped them navigate college because they formed a strong sense of
community among peers, learned how to interact with college professors, and developed a better
understanding of the higher education classroom environment. Toni first described their summer
bridge experience:
I mean, for me, I’ve always loved math. I was kind of worried about what was to come.
What was going to happen with coming into [the university]? Like maybe, like, the math
courses would be difficult. But for me, it really solidified my decision. Not only the math
class but the physics class. Like, everything, for me, was enjoyable. So, maybe at points
that there were instances in which it could have been difficult, but more so than anything,
I really enjoyed that summer. I had a lot of fun then. I’m not sure if it was all due to the
professors or it was being. … I think it was mostly because it was one of our first times
being in the immersive university environment, like, live with the people that you’re
going, that … you’re doing school with, like, we would see [the professor] in the lunch
69

aisle. Like, we would see him at [the cafeteria] and we would, like, eat with him, and then
we would go take class.
Adrian also explained how the summer bridge program helped them gain a sense of familiarity
with the college environment, allowing them to better navigate their first semester:
I knew what I was getting into. Once school started, I had a pretty solid foundation, and,
like I knew how to talk to professors. Once I started class, I already knew a professor I
could talk to if I needed to. … The people around me, like the community I built. …
Talking to the professor of the class also helped a lot, but like most of my friends …
helped a lot. … Difficult, very difficult. It’s nothing like high school. A completely
different level of expectations the professors have for us. Less hand holding, more us
studying ourselves.
Adrian also commented on the nature of the non-credit math course and their classroom
experience:
I think it served its purpose. I think it was, like, … it at least helped me feel, like, more
comfortable in my skin when it came to taking my math course in, like, the fall. … it’s
something, like, new, and it’s … almost like, … are you capable of doing the same stuff
that these, like, child prodigies or, like, these, like masterminds are able to do? But, like, I
think, like, taking this course gives me the comfort that, like, not all, like, math, is going
to be like that, and it’s not that it’s not that different from, like, the stuff that you did in
high school and just like sort of having that comfort. It kind of took off some of the
pressure, like, coming in and, like, taking a fall semester math course.
Another participant, Trisha, expressed an interest in seeing if they would encounter peers
of similar backgrounds and develop a sense of community through the summer bridge program:
70

Also, some part of me also just wanted to see if there are going to be other people like me
in engineering. … I think it was useful but, at the same time, not useful. Useful in the
sense that I was able to actually know how math class is going to be taught. Like, it’s like
kind of, yeah, I kind of figured out the structure of how math classes are. It just wasn’t as
helpful as I, a lot of the students thought it was going to be, and even me, because a lot of
that math was already, like, math we already knew. And it just didn’t really, like, help us
or build any foundational skills that would be transferable to our actual calculus classes
that we would take.
It is important to note that along with acknowledging the value of learning about the
classroom environment, the non-credit math course also had the shortcoming Trisha described
because it did not necessarily prepare students for the curriculum in the fall semester. Toni and
Leo elaborated on how the professor in the non-credit math focused on teaching them the
approach to mathematical concepts in a way that would make the learning environment
enjoyable. Toni described the following:
He made it a point to not only challenge us but just to really show us how much of an
experience and opportunity this is. And, so, I would say it was fun, relatively challenging
and a good precursor to regular math. So I thought it was good. I mean, it definitely
shook away any rust that you would have gained during the summer and really helped
during the following academic year. … So, I think the professor really posed a lot of
interesting problems, but I wouldn’t say it was challenging just because it was really,
like, a fun learning environment.
Leo explained how both math classroom experiences helped him develop the skills and
familiarity to feel comfortable in the engineering discipline:
71

I guess it would be the assignments that we received. Like, the professor that we took … was
one who liked to make us think. … He wanted to intellectually challenge us, so he came with
some math problems that would allow that to happen. He really wanted us to think about how
we wanted to and how we should approach the problems. … I would say, like, in the later
classes that I ended up taking for math, I was able to see how math is incorporated into the
field of engineering in general. And it helped me understand, like, how math plays into it,
and I guess it wasn’t really something that ended up scaring me away from engineering, but
it made me a little more comfortable with what I would end up doing.
Four participants described the important community formed via study groups in the
summer bridge program’s non-credit math course. According to Toni, “I think that study group
and that ability to form such a group and showing you how much the study groups matter really
helped during the fall.” The peer network developed through the summer bridge program later
served as a source of support in completing fall semester math courses because students relied on
the friendships they made during the non-credit math course to form study groups. Similar to
Toni, Michelle commented,
Mainly … the textbook a lot and then just friends who were in the class because we
would … get together and work on homework together and study together. So, that really
helps.
Alex later described the motivation behind participating in the summer bridge program as a
means to form a strong peer network:
My reason for participating is kind of, I had a little bit of push from my advisor during
high school. I told her about the fact that I was invited to participate in my program, and
she, like, motivated me to apply to see where it could go. She mentioned to me it was just
72

a really good way to get friends and just to get a head start on college. So that’s really
what motivated me to want to do the summer bridge program, and really taking the
advice really helped because it did help you make friends.
When addressing their fall semester math course, Alex explained how their classroom
experience impacted their approach to navigating the educational system and learning
environment. While Alex may acknowledge that “legacy” or non-first-generation students may
have the experience through engineers in their families, Alex continued to operate on an assets-
based approach and described the challenge as environmental rather than individual:
It’s been a really pleasant one. But as a first-generation student, I do not have the
background. Many of my peers have. … Many of my peers are legacy students. They
have a legacy of engineering, engineers in their family, like five or six generations of
engineers. They are like the fifth [or] sixth generation. And they have a lot of experience
in this field that I don’t, and sometimes I feel a little … not at their level, and it’s been
really difficult getting adjusted to, like, … engineering. … I was, like, I didn’t really have
any background in calculus or anything. So, it’s been difficult, but it’s been a pleasant
one. I feel like people are kind. I fit right in. Just like, academically, it’s very competitive.
Moving forward in the interview, Alex explained that they did not pass the course, but the failing
grade did not deter them from retaking the course and later excelling in the material. In facing
the challenge of the academic rigor, Alex leaned on resiliency and their aspirational capital to
acknowledge the difficulty of the course:
It definitely made me more resilient. The course is really hard. I did end up failing it, and
it really made me realize a lot of my shortcomings, and just like the things I had to, like,
to do. Like, you kind of taught me how to be taught, do time management, how to study
73

better for my math courses overall. How to, like, really understand the concept that were
coming at me, and, like, skills I’ve kind of picked up during my time, or just, like, taking
notes, like, actually reading, like, the, like, the textbook these, like, little things that help
me in the future. … It was definitely one of the most difficult classes I’ve ever had to
take. … There were a lot of hard concepts coming at me, one after another. I was, like,
noticing, like, all my peers, like, dropping out of the class. It’s just … it was a really bad
experience because, as my first introduction to math, it made me fearful of what was to
come just from how difficult it was.
Although Alex described the rigor of the fall semester math course as a “difficult experience,”
they also pointed to non-academic markers outside of the classroom that would help him succeed
in future classes.
Similarly, Mark elaborated on changing his style of learning to perform better in his
future classes as well. Although adaptation to the college environment may appeal to a deficit
lens, Mark framed the acclimation to college life as an acclimation to a challenge, highlighting
the capital Mark brings to higher education in adapting to a challenge rather than the system as a
whole:
And you kind of need to tailor your learning style because of it. Like, you need to kind
of, like, adjust it so that way, you can, like, succeed a little bit better for this course. … I
just need to tweak different parts of my lifestyle to better acclimate to the challenge.
A similar thread between Alex and Mark’s experiences, participants described
confronting the challenge of the academic rigor in their math courses. While the challenge
derived from a classroom experience, both leaned into their aspirational capital to develop
noncognitive factors, such as time management and study habits, that would enable them to
74

better perform academically. These two participants showed they were willing to acclimate to the
challenge in place of the environment, which could also be interpreted as overlapping with
resistant capital (Yosso, 2005). In place of conforming to institutional cultural norms or the
campus climate, they focused on acclimating to the challenge of academic rigor.
Faculty –Student Interactions
Three participants explained that, although the teaching style or learning environment in
their math courses may not have been conducive to a high grade, they acknowledged that they
could rely on the professors to navigate their academic and student experiences. More
importantly, faculty engineering faculty were a source of positive interactions and mentorship.
For example, Mark explained,
I mean, his course was tough, and his teaching style was not really suited for me. But I
mean, like, I could tell that he cared about teaching the class, and he wanted his students
to succeed. … It’s all because I know that the professors are not my enemies. … Instead,
he, like, it was like a support, like, I know that I can do this, and I know that the faculty
will be there in order to make sure that I can do this. … It’s sort of like my goal to, like,
form, like, a better connection with some of these university professors because, like, I
know that, like, in the future, they’re the people that are going to sign my
recommendation letters, so, like, having a good rapport with them and, like, showing that
I’m interested in, like, the coursework that they’re, like, teaching, I feel like … only
would do nothing but, like, better me as a student, as a person who is like career-oriented.
Adrian also expressed a similar sentiment as it relates to interacting with faculty as both mentors
and guides to their educational experience:
They are huge. Like, they have a huge impact on that because I feel like they are … they
75

push me so far. They are a big help. I can go talk to my professors if I need help with this.
If I don’t, if I’m lost and like, should I join this club? Should I stay in my degree like?
How can I prepare for an internship interview? Just they’re a good [guide], like a good
mentor. The faculty here.
On a similar trope, one of the major themes that emerged pertains to faculty outside of
the math courses for mentorship, navigation and motivation to persist. Leo explained that faculty
“have a pretty significant role, especially the ones who have a field separate or within my field or
domain.” In comparison, Adrian explained the following:
Everyone is very supportive. They’ve been really understanding of the course load I have
for engineering. For example, my [writing professor] last semester gave me lots and lots
of extensions because I had other work to do. So, just the support they’ve given me.
Toni also expressed a similar sentiment regarding their faculty interactions:
Oh, extremely. I mean those faculty, I think, would be more so like mentors. It really
amazes me that these faculty care as much as they do, especially realizing that doing
more research and doing more work, and realizing how I don’t want to say insignificant,
but how much of an importance my project actually was to their lab? Did it reflect the
amount of time I received, or should I have received? So, I’ve had faculty meet with me
once a week, twice a week, and we’ve spoken for hours about my project and different
research. I’m finding different things I should do. [Dr. K] was a new professor, and she
was extremely busy, and it was Zoom, and she still dedicated like two to three hours a
week on Zoom just to talk to me about the progress of my project, and it wasn’t even just
the PIs, primary investigators. It was also the PhD students that were assigned to me that
would help me, no matter what, inside and outside of the classroom. The amount of time
76

that they did that they dedicated, especially because of their busy schedule and busy
project schedule that they have to do, they would still find time to help me. And even at
[my internship], my mentor, he would always find time, even though he was being grilled
at meetings for not meeting deadlines. I get it. It always has astonished me how much
people want the help, or I’ve been fortunate enough to feel that way where there’s been
an overwhelming amount of help and in all of my projects.
For Alex, even though the number of faculty interactions was limited, they did explain that they
had positive interactions with engineering faculty:
Well, within the biomedical engineering department, they really play the role of just, like,
one, helping me, like, absorb all the content I need to be a biomedical engineer, helping
me, like, maybe get all the problems on the skills that I need. Other than that, they also
act as encouragement. But I don’t really talk with faculty much, but the few times I have,
they’ve been very encouraging and telling me, you know, to keep applying if I need a
recommendation, they’d be willing to give it.
Finally, Leo also explained how engineering faculty were influential in helping him
navigate the discipline:
I guess one for one in particular. It wasn’t like a direct interaction, but there was a
podcast that I was listening to about environmental engineering, and it was from the
professor who I’m actually doing research with. She was explaining the background of
the field, and I think that’s what drew my interest towards environmental engineering,
even though that’s not really the field that I’m as interested in now as I was starting with
the beginning of my undergraduate career.
77

Engineering faculty were a very strong influence on the participants’ navigational capital. Both
direct and indirect interactions between faculty and students were influential in how the
participants navigated their field of study and academic trajectory.
Aspirational Capital
Yosso (2005) defined aspirational capital as “the ability to maintain hopes and dreams for
the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers” (p. 77). Five participants described
how faculty members supported their goals, especially those in their respective programs or
outside of math classrooms. As sources of support, faculty members helped the participants
mitigate the expectations they encountered. Many participants noted feeling overwhelmed by
expectations, including academics, but also identified means to navigate that pressure to meet
short- and long-term goals. For instance, Toni described,
I think I had this idea of what college was supposed to be and, like, I had this … I feel
like I had this overwhelming expectation of like, oh, man, I’m not making the most of my
college experience, or like, oh no, like, I only still have, like, my [summer bridge]
friends. Like, I’m only still hanging out with the same group of people, and, like, I think
it was just so hard this, like, own pressure I had put on myself of, like, what it was to,
like, go to college and, like, integrate into college. So, and then, on top of that, I was,
like, the first time living alone. Like, having to feed myself, having to do laundry. And,
so, I think the combination of all those things just made the semester kind of hard in itself
even though the courses themselves I didn’t find particularly difficult. It was more so,
like, what was happening in the background, and, like, the dialogue I was having with
myself that made that whole semester a little harder than it needed to be.
78

When describing their goals, Toni explained that these developed over time in light of the need
to meet certain expectations:
It’s really developed over time. I think, like, as a freshman, for me at least, it was pretty
simple. It was, like, very stereotypical. Like, I need to do research. I need to find an
internship. I need to have a high GPA. And, so, I think in the beginning, there was, like, a
lot of that going on. And then, once I achieved them, it was, like, oh, I need to find a full-
time job. I need to get a secure job. I need to do all these things, and I think once I
achieved all the things that I wanted that I thought I wanted to achieve and I realized that
not a lot of those things like bring you, I thought they were going to bring a lot of
happiness, but then when I achieved those things it was kind of overwhelming and that
actually made me a little sad. … So, I, in the beginning, I think I was pretty naive and
really one of those, like, superficial monetary ambitions. But when we realized that those
things actually don’t really make you that happy. I think, now more so than ever, it’s just
to have a contribution to the betterment of humans.
A common sentiment among participants, all seven participants described expectations
associated with their aspirational goals as engineering students. They explained that to succeed
during and after their undergraduate experience, they needed to fulfill expectations of going
beyond classroom experiences and getting involved in cocurricular activities. Adrian assessed
the situation as a need to put in more work outside of the classroom:
It’s a lot of work, for sure. I wasn’t prepared for this. It was unexpected. The amount of
work, like, the expectations they have here because not just learning, like, going to class.
They expect you to go to clubs, do internships, get a job while you’re here. So, it’s very
79

rigorous, probably more than any other program here. Maybe architecture, like, film is
more rigorous, but … I just need to put in the work, I guess.
Michelle also described indirectly the expectations of entering a rigorous engineering program
and how those perceived standards played a role in their approach to their aspirational goals:
I think this first semester is kind of more, like, … it felt more like a test. I feel like next
semester, I kind of know what to … kind of what to, like, … focus more on. And … I feel
like I’m going to try harder: join [more] clubs and stuff.
On a similar trope of expectations, Toni highlighted the adversity that aligns with the
expectations of engineering students to do everything inside and outside the classroom to
succeed. Toni described feeling a sense of comfort from not being the only student feeling “lost”
in the midst of challenging courses. Furthermore, Toni explained that their familiarity with
adversity allowed them to recognize the adversity in the academics:
Yeah, I don’t know. I mean, it’s been pretty difficult. There’s been a lot of classes that
seem impossible. And I think what’s nice is, from my experience, almost everybody
seems to be lost. It’s not just, like, a unique thing, and some people hide it better than
other people. So, it’s definitely a major choice that I’m not sure is unique in this sense.
But there is definitely a lot of adversity related to it, but I feel like, for me at least, the
way I grew up was filled with a lot of adversity, so it wasn’t necessarily something I
wasn’t used to. And yeah, I’m just happy I have the opportunity to be at [institution] and
study what I wanted to study.
Within the construct of aspirational capital, the participants identified the need to fulfill various
expectations in addition to the academic rigor as a barrier they needed to overcome. The
academic challenge of the coursework was met by the expectations placed on them to also
80

engage in professional development opportunities such as internships, student organizations and
research.
Going Beyond Classroom Experiences
A related and relevant topic that arose, four participants expressed their desire to join
student organizations as a mechanism to apply the knowledge they were learning in the
classroom to real-world problems. Michelle elaborated on their interest in joining a student
organization that would allow them to apply such knowledge:
And then also, like, joining a club. That’s more, like, hands-on because SHPE is kind of
just … it’s more social. And I kind of want to join when that’s actually, like, applying the
stuff we learn in class.
Mark also described the desire to use student organizations as a mode of hands-on application to
better meet their goals as an engineering student as well:
And maybe, like, join a couple of other things. Like, recently, I applied for this … club
called 3D4D, which is like a 3D printing club. And I’m, like, yeah, cause I’m, like, I did
some, like, CAD work through, like, my intro to aerospace engineering class, and, like, I
love designing things, and I love, like, making things and, like, seeing them, like. … I
love … making things that I can then, like, see, like, actually be, like, produced in, like,
the real world. And … I think 3D printing kind of embodies that sort of mindset of mine,
so I kind of want to do more work with it. So that’s why I kind of, like, applied for the
club, and I’m hoping I get accepted. That’d be really cool.
Mark also provided insight into the competitive nature of applying to student organizations. This
finding aligns with the previously discussed theme because applying to a student organization
may be an additional barrier to engagement in high-impact practices for undergraduate students.
81

Among the seven participants, six participants described their aspirations as being rooted
in passion, the desire to empower society and help others. For example, Alex described his
interest and drive to pursue a career in biomedical engineering:
So, I’ve studied biomedical engineering. So, my aspiration ever since I was small was
really just to be able to help people. I was really interested in just being able to create an
impact on a world, especially in the health field. That’s really what inspired me to pursue
engineering and also me to get going through it. I just like to think about all the good I
can do with it, so that just keeps pushing me forward. … So, besides that first math
course with Calculus 1, where like really, just like that whole experience, like, overall
made me doubt if I wanted to do engineering, the rest of the courses I took to follow were
really helpful, and like making me keep doing engineering, I ended up taking [calculus]
again during the next semester, and I actually managed to pass it with an A, which was
really good.
Many of the goals the participants identified went beyond their institution and applied to
society at large. Their aspirational capital in and outside the classroom connects to an intrinsic
desire to pursue an engineering degree as part of their passion for the discipline.
Faculty –Student Interactions
Transitioning to faculty interactions and aspirational capital, two participants described
how negative interactions impacted their aspirations in the classroom. While the two participants
eventually passed their math courses, the experiences with faculty marked their undergraduate
career and caused doubt in their ability to continue in the major program. Trisha explained,
I think it was the hardest class that I’ve taken, like ever. I remember one time, like, I was,
you know, doing so bad that even my professor asked me out of nowhere, like, do you
82

come from a “bad background?” And I that was, like, one of the little culture shocks I
had that I guess, like, my lack of preparedness so, like, compared to my other classmates,
can kind of be, like, correlated to where I came from. Kind of weird. I’m not sure why he,
like, said that. … And yeah, I struggled a lot with the course material. It was very heavy,
and if you missed one class, I think you just got lost for the rest of the semester because I
was completely lost. I think I was able to pass it because, like, I was able to just practice a
lot of problems and do the extra points of, or get the point of doing it at least, so it doesn’t
necessarily have to be right. … It was not a good experience. I didn’t know half the time
what I was doing, and there wasn’t sufficient help.
Feeling “completely lost” in the class, Trisha further explained how engagement with their
engineering faculty helped mitigate the effects of such a negative interaction with their math
faculty:
Well, faculty help me a lot realize that, like here in college, I should come with the
mentality that I want to like work and have, like, the ultimate goal, … like, a big goal like
maybe owning a company. … I have this professor who has kind of been mentoring me
and helping me kind of realize that I have bigger goals. I think that they play a big role in
me trying to stay in engineering and focus on what I want to do. … I think that professor
and another professor from my freshman engineering class. … He kind of inspired me.
He was also, like, first-generation, low-income, and he just like showed me that, despite a
lot of the adversity that was kind of in front of him, especially during that time, he was
able to pursue his dreams and have a really good lifestyle because of that. So, he’s kind
of like a person that I aspired to be because of how he was able to build a good life with
engineering.
83

On a similar note, Alex described how, generally, engineering faculty have been a source of
support in working toward their aspirations:
All the other professors really just kind of reinforced this idea that, yeah, it’s going to be
hard, but you can get through it. Like, it’s been just really like a journey of like me trying
to push forward and like the professors kind of being there … to offer support in the
academic sense.
Alex shows a collective outlook on faculty–student interactions with professors in the
engineering school. While some negative experiences with math professors may have strongly
impacted the experience of some participants, positive interactions with engineering faculty tend
to arise as a common theme.
Motivation to Persist
Regarding persistence, common themes were intrinsic motivation, polarity of classroom
experiences, and the support and direction participants received from the TAs. To start, six
participants identified their passion and intrinsic motivation to become engineers as sources of
motivation to persist in their undergraduate engineering program. Michelle explained,
I kind of just like the subject. Like, I like math, and I like coding, so that’s kind of why I
went into engineering. So, I kind of just want to continue with that. ’Cause I feel like it’s
… it provides a good challenge, and it’s just fun. I guess.
Although Trisha had an unfortunate experience with their math professor in the first semester,
they explained how their overall experience was rooted in a passion for the computer science
discipline:
84

I think it’s been both great and horrible in the sense of, great in the sense that I’ve been
actually enjoying what I learn. Like, a lot of my … major classes are really fun for me. I
really like coding and that aspect of coding. I’ve been enjoying this semester.
This intrinsic motivation to pursue a career in engineering also functioned as a form of
aspirational capital when students encountered challenging or negative classroom experiences.
Classroom Experiences
While the motivation to persist was rooted in passion and an affinity toward the
coursework, some of the math course experiences did make two participants question their
ability to progress in the engineering program. Trisha explained,
It made me question if I was going to be able to handle taking a [computer science] class.
I think it’s called differential math. And I’ve heard it’s horrible, and I’ve heard it’s more
horrible than calculus from my classmates who are taking it right now. It’s affecting right
now, like, if I’m able to pass it, and if I don’t fail. I’m not going to be able to continue in
this program, so I’ll get kicked out. It’s making me question if I can do it. … So, it’s
again to that professor for my Calculus I class. Yeah, he kind of made me upset, and you
know, I think rethink about if I’m going to be able to handle courses like math in other
math courses because, I don’t know, he just kind of made me feel like I wasn’t prepared
enough or not sufficient enough to pass on to next level.
It is important to note that the doubt Trisha described did not only apply to their major program
but to the subsequent course in the math curriculum, touching on the student’s self-efficacy to
continue academically. Similarly, Alex expressed how their math course made them question
their persistence in engineering, as described here:
85

It really made me question it. I wasn’t entirely sure whether I would be able to keep
going forward. I think what it came down to was, like, stubbornness because, during my
math course, I was taking other courses which were difficult. I was taking general
chemistry at the time, which is also another hard course. … But despite the fact of how
much I … hated the fact that I was failing in this class, it ultimately also made me realize
that I really need to work harder, and, like, it kind of pushed me in a way to just try to,
like, challenge myself and keep going forward.
While Trisha and Alex explained how their fall semester math course made them
question their ability to move forward with the engineering curriculum, other participants
experienced stark differences and indicated the math course did not affect their motivation to
persist. Leo’s statement illustrates the polarity of the contrast:
I don’t think it played a major decision or major role in me deciding whether I should
stick with engineering or not. … I don’t think it played a major role in me deciding
whether I want to major in engineering.
While Leo expressed that the semester math course did not affect their decision or motivation to
remain in engineering, Mark showed a combination of sentiments where the math course did not
make them question their motivation to persist because their passion to become an engineer
outweighed their classroom experience. For example,
And, so even, though I … didn’t necessarily do, like, the most like exceptional job, like,
it doesn’t necessarily, like, … I’m not disappointed, and it’s not, like, deterring me from
continuing to be, like, an engineer. Like. I still … I’m still passionate about space. I’m
still passionate about engineering. I’m still passionate about solving technological
86

problems in order to better society. Like, my passions haven’t changed … because I
majored in engineering before I got here.
Mark makes a valid point here where they indicate their decision to major in engineering was
made prior to their college experience. He continued by explaining,
I mean, I feel like my high school teachers were more conducive of, like, the major that I
decided to go with rather than like my professors. … I mean, my intro to aerospace
engineering professor … was very nice and understanding and empathetic, and I enjoyed
taking his class. So, I mean, I guess that … fortified my decision to stay in my major, …
but … I feel like, in order to do well, you have to be very passionate about the stuff that
you did. Like, if I would not have gone through the fall semester, I wouldn’t have been
able to have the mindset I have for spring semester if I wasn’t, like, confident that this
was … the thing that I wanted to do for the rest of my life. … And I think that’s, like, I
think that’s like the thing that helps motivate me to keep me going.
Mark explained that engineering faculty may have helped fortify his persistence in engineering,
but his passion for the discipline is truly the root of his motivation:
Because, like, if there is someone else in my place who was, like, was wishy washy
about, like, doing engineering, and this was, like, the experience that they got, … they
may have just, like, quit, but, like, I want to challenge myself. I want to be able to, like,
approach, like, this curriculum and excel at it. … Because I know that if I do, then I’ll be
able to work in the industry that I’ve been like dreaming about since I was like four, and
so I think like people should do stuff because they’re passionate about it because it will
be a lot easier for them to get up from like hardship. If they are motivated by the fact that
if they do, they’ll get a reward, that is rewarding for them, I guess.
87

Mark’s explanation ties the motivation to persist back to both aspirational and navigational
capital as they relate to classroom experiences and faculty interactions. While their motivation is
intrinsic, their classroom experiences shaped how they use their aspirational capital to navigate
the curriculum, separating their experience in one class from their identity as an engineer and
their goal to work in the industry they have been “dreaming about” since childhood.
Faculty –Student Interactions
Similar to intrinsic motivation and committing to an undergraduate engineering major
program in high school, other participants shared the sentiment that high school teachers had a
stronger influence on their decision to major in engineering prior to their starting college. Alex
described the following:
So, in high school, I actually had an engineering teacher who I would really talk with
regularly. I was part of a robotics club which he managed, and ultimately, he was the one
that really pushed me towards his decision to do biomedical engineering. It was at a time
before I decided well what major I wanted to pursue. I didn’t know whether it would be
biology or chemistry, but he really allowed me to see that I do like engineering, and he
also recommended that I look into biomedical engineering, which is the impact that well,
the push and you to pursue engineering. In terms of faculty, there hasn’t really been I’d
say a faculty member who has pushed me to stay in engineering. They’ve all been very
kind and helpful in sharing their experiences of what I can do. But I’ve never really
talked one-on-one with them, and, like, had them kind of push me to continue pursuing
engineering.
On the other hand, several participants noted TAs played an important role in their
decision to continue in engineering. Toni described the following:
88

He treated us like we were a lot smarter than what we actually were, and I really
appreciated that. It really inspired me personally to be treated like, “Hey, like you’re an
engineering student. Like, you should be here.” … And, so, for me, it was like, wow, like
being treated. I’m being treated like I know something. And so I have to go ahead and
actually learn these things because this is what it’s expected of me. … And, so, I think
being treated like a competent engineering student by [the TA] early on, as well as
finding the amount of how much you can actually contribute to the well-being and health
of other people really solidified my decision to be an engineer.
When asked who or what helped them complete their fall semester math courses, four
participants attributed academic support to the TA in place of the faculty. Although this finding
aligns strongly with navigational capital, it also shows how the connection to the TA for their fall
semester math course influenced their success. Trisha, who had previously had a negative
interaction with math faculty, described the contrasting experience with their TA:
Helping me the most is the TA of my discussion group. He was very kind to me in the
sense that he didn’t really judge me, and then he would also be able to help me during
homework and stuff. And I think that’s what kind of helped me keep afloat in the class,
my TA. And then also watching a lot of videos online, like there were a lot of YouTube
channels that kind of taught me more than the professor.
Adrian also commented on the TA’s important effect on completing his fall semester
math course. He described his experience:
The professor definitely was helpful. The TA … was an immense help. He was
immensely helpful. … He went over what we went over in class. He helps us with
homework. I think the TA for sure was the biggest help.
89

Lastly, it is important to note that the majority of participants, five of the seven, attributed
conversations, experiences, or interactions with their engineering faculty as a factor that fortified
their decision to remain in engineering. For example, Adrian explained,
He was my professor that semester, … and I sat with him and talked to him about if I
should stay in engineering or not, and he was a really big help to give me an insight into
what engineering is like after college, and I decided to stay.
While faculty supported and encouraged students to remain in their major program, it is
important to note the consensus among participants that their intrinsic motivation as engineers
influence their decision to major in engineering and persist in the field.
Summary
The current study’s findings provide various narratives of first-generation Latinx
engineering students who attended a summer bridge program at a private highly selective
research university. Considering the CCW model (Yosso, 2005), the aspirational and
navigational capital these students employed during their first experiences in classrooms and the
university helped them persist to the subsequent semester, in light of the academic rigor they
encountered and some negative experiences with faculty. Table 3 summarizes the thematic
findings by participant, while Table 4 offers a comparison of the thematic findings by type of
math course, faculty–student interactions, and relevant findings.

90

Table 3
Summary of Findings by Participant

Michelle Mark Adrian Leo Toni Trisha Alex
Navigational
capital
Summer bridge interest
based on developing
sense of community
x x – x x x x
Summer bridge interest
based on gaining
familiarity college
environment
x x x x – – x
Summer bridge peer
network transitioned to
study groups.
x x – – x – x
Student organization as
vehicle for hands-on
experience
x x x – – x

Aspirational
capital
Faculty teaching style in
semester math course
challenging
– x – – – x x
Engineering faculty
important in
aspirational goals
– x x x x x –
TA had important support
role.
x – x

x x –
Motivation to
persist
Motivation to persist
based on
interest/passion
x x – x x x x
Semester math classroom
experiences produced
doubt in engineering.
– – – – – x x
Semester math classroom
experiences did not
influence motivation to
persist.
x x x x x – –
Engineering faculty
support to persist in
engineering
– x x x x x –

Note. Cells with dashes indicate the finding was not relevant to the specific participant or theme.

91

Table 4
Comparison of Thematic Findings Across Math Courses, Faculty –Student Interactions, and
Relevant Findings
Summer non-
credit math course
Fall semester
credit math
course
Faculty–student
interactions
Relevant
findings
Motivation to
persist
Common theme
shows that the
summer non-
credit math
course did not
have an impact
on their
motivation to
persist.
Two participants
indicated the
course may
have caused
doubt in their
ability to
perform well
in future
courses.
Engineering
faculty played a
major role in
motivation to
persist. Two
participants
described
negative
interactions with
math faculty that
caused doubt.
TAs had an
impact on
engineering
students -
equitable
relationships
and expertise
viewed as
support.
Navigational
capital
Provided
familiarity of
college courses.
Faculty are key in
helping think
conceptually
and place into
fall semester
math courses.
For two
participants,
the math
course, as a
means to
navigate the
engineering
and academics,
overlaps with
aspirational
capital.
Engineering
faculty are key
in navigating
major program
and cocurricular
activities such as
research and
internships.
Student
organizations
as vehicles to
use classroom
knowledge in
the real world
and develop
hands-on
experience.
Aspirational
capital
Sense of
community to
confront future
barriers; peer
network for
both academic
and social
integration to
the university.
Academic rigor
of the semester
math course
was a
reflection of
the standards
students
encounter in
engineering.
Two participants
described how
math faculty
were barriers.
Five participants
described
engineering
faculty as
mentors and role
models for
holistic
experience.
Motivation to
persist was
intrinsic in
nature,
derived from
passion and
childhood
experiences.
92

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings, Implications and Conclusion
In this final chapter, the discussion of findings, limitations, and implications for both
practice and future research will inform and provide direction on the significance of the current
study. While the interpretation of findings will highlight student narratives within the conceptual
framework embedded in Yosso’s (2005) CCW model, the limitations of the study will pivot
toward how these findings can be utilized to improve the student experience of first-generation
Latinx engineering students and guide both higher education practitioners and faculty members
in collaborating to foster positive academic outcomes (Yosso, 2005). Future research will then
address a need for longitudinal data derived from the lived experiences of the student population
and from institutional mediums that support traditional academic measures such as semester-to-
semester enrollment and cumulative GPA (Swanson et al., 2021).
Discussion of Findings
This study’s findings provide the unique experiences and perspectives of first-generation
Latinx engineering students as it relates to their motivation to persist in engineering, with a
specific focus on classroom experiences and faculty–student interactions. Yosso (2005)
explained that different forms of capital can overlap in the CCW model. Although the research
questions were designed to examine how navigational and aspirational capital separately related
to faculty–student interactions and classroom experiences, the findings were that participants
used a combination of both (Yosso, 2005).
Navigational Capital
Similar to previous research, this study’s participants explained that their interest in the
summer bridge program stemmed from a desire to get to know the college environment and
make friends (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al.,
93

2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). All seven participants spoke about the peer network they created
during the program, which, in turn, developed into their social communities during their first
semester. The peer network also was a positive academic outcome because, in addition to a sense
of community, it served as study groups, which participants credited for helping them complete
the fall semester math course. Thus, these findings support previous research that indicated
students who engage in summer bridge programs are likely to have more positive student
outcomes or experiences (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016;
Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016).
Interestingly, one difference noted in the current findings is the type of value students
received from the non-credit math course in the summer bridge program. Previous research
indicates that summer bridge programs address math preparation, which has been identified as a
factor that influences the persistence of historically marginalized students in STEM (Carver et
al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al.,
2016). Different from previous literature, a common thread that arose in the current findings is
that the students did not feel the non-credit math course prepared them for the rigor and
curriculum in future math courses (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh,
2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). Again, touching on navigational capital, the value
of the non-credit math course aligned more closely with gaining familiarity with the learning
environment, the opportunity to see how university faculty conduct college courses, developing a
conceptual thought process of mathematics, and the sense of community derived from their peers
via study groups. All of these factors hold non-academic value that resulted in a relatively
positive experience for most of the participants.
94

In addition, the value derived from the non-credit math class experience was a common
theme among students connected to faculty’s assistance in navigating their major program and
eventual persistence. In alignment with previous research, positive faculty–student interactions
outside of the classroom, where faculty served a role more closely related to that of a mentor,
had positive implications on reducing attrition and helped redesign the department’s climate
(Christie, 2013). The current findings show that the majority of the participants viewed
engineering faculty as mentors, sources of support and guides on how to navigate their major
program. Many of the interactions described by the participants occurred outside of the
classroom, during office hours, and the conversations included topics directly related to the
student’s experience at their institution, such as internship and research opportunities, as they
directly align with the student’s goals and aspirations. Even when the participant described a
negative experience with math faculty, the engineering faculty mitigated its effects by serving as
role models and inspiration. By way of description, the current findings indicate that students
used positive experiences and developed relationships to explore their major program and
identify steps to meeting their goals as future engineers (Hong & Shull, 2010).
Aspirational Capital
Previous research shows that aspirational capital is directly linked to goal development
and realization, which can influence persistence in STEM majors (Johnson, 2016; Kuh et al.,
2008; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016). In the current study, a common theme that emerged included
the intrinsic motivation of engineering Latinx students to continue working toward their goals.
Specifically, the participants explained that their interest in their major program, whether it be
coding for computer science majors or carbon emission for environmental engineers, was always
at the root of their decision to pursue their majors: the key element being the passion for
95

engineering that these participants brought from their experiences in their home communities of
high school experiences. When encountered with obstacles or barriers, many participants
described looking back at why they originally majored in engineering and using that capital as
motivation to overcome any obstacles and continue on the major trajectory in light of the
academic rigor; especially seen in participants who repeated their fall semester course.
One of the most enlightening experiences included that of Trish, who, unlike the other
participants, had a negative experience both in the math classroom and with their math professor
during office hours. Trish encountered a professor who questioned their background as a form of
inquiry or rationale into their difficulty managing the curriculum of the fall semester math
course. After this encounter, Trish explained that they did not return to office hours and
struggled to complete the course. Trish’s experience highlights the hostility created in the STEM
classroom environments that persists and can compromise a student’s experience and learning
opportunities by causing doubt in their ability to continue with the curriculum. Peck (2021)
found that a deficit approach to students’ learning could result in a negative experience and limit
the opportunity for faculty to engage in the students’ learning process. This research is further
strengthened by Killpack and Melón (2016), who emphasized developing culturally relevant
pedagogy to honor the skills and knowledge students from historically marginalized
communities bring to higher education, linking the role of faculty to aspirational capital. Using
an assets-based approach to student learning may enable faculty to create positive relationships
with students and shift the focus of learning from an ability-based perspective to one of a growth
mindset, showing the importance faculty have on the student experience and outcomes (Killpack
& Melón, 2016; Newman, 2011; Park et al., 2020; Vogt, 2008).

96

Motivation to Persist
Researchers previously found that the shift to creating positive relationships with students
in place of focusing on the creation of new knowledge in the STEM classroom could have
positive implications on students’ persistence and retention (Christie, 2013; Newman, 2011;
Vogt, 2008). For faculty–student interactions, the current findings suggest that positive
experiences had a strong impact on students’ desire to continue in engineering, especially with
faculty in their major program. With the exception of negative interactions, experiences with
math faculty in the current study were either limited or not perceived as significant in the
participants’ motivation to continue in engineering.
Relevant Findings
Of the seven participants, two hoped to use their engagement in student organizations to
apply the knowledge they gained in the classroom to real-world situations. Previous research has
shown that Latinx women in engineering engage in identity-based student organizations to
maintain a sense of belonging, build resiliency against barriers on college campuses, and counter
marginalization (Rodriguez & Blaney, 2020). The current findings suggest that in addition to the
non-academic factors, participants have an interest in applying the skills and knowledge they
gain from STEM classroom experiences by participating in student organizations. This finding is
supported by previous research that shows engagement in high-impact activities may have a
positive relationship with persistence (Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008).
Previous literature shows that major and career preparation are more important to
students of color and first-generation students since it is the first time these students are
navigating new spaces and encountering new expectations placed on them by the culture of the
institution (Ikuma et al., 2019; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). With that said, the current findings
97

must be viewed as a complement to the previous research that highlighted a sense of belonging
through identity-based student organizations and its relationship to persistence (Carver et al.,
2017; Strayhorn, 2011). The current findings show that student organizations can serve as a
vehicle for belonging as well as a hands-on application of academic knowledge (Ikuma et al.,
2019; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). Lastly, it is important to note that interest in using student
organizations as a form to apply classroom knowledge can highlight an overlap of navigational
and aspirational capital: navigational in accessing resources available to students and aspirational
in identifying steps toward realizing their goals of being a successful engineering student (Yosso,
2005).
Lastly, approximately half of the participants highlighted TAs in helping them complete
the math courses and strengthening their decision to pursue a major in engineering. Participants
described the equitable relationships TAs created by leaning into the knowledge the students
could contribute to research and the classroom. Additionally, TAs were more accessible when
the students needed help with the math curriculum and did not make students feel judged. These
findings show the importance of agents in the educational system that may be overlooked by
researchers and practitioners alike. While TAs are generally graduate students, they hold a
different place than their peers due to their expertise and student status. Thus, the current
findings point toward the influence TAs could have on Latinx undergraduate engineering
students.
Limitations
While the current study contributes to the research on persistence and noncognitive
academic factors, classroom experience and faculty–student interactions, its limitations relate to
instrumental implementation and applicability.
98

To begin, the study’s generalizability is limited, given its small sample (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). With only seven semi-structured interviews, the participant pool was very small
and not indicative of all students’ experiences, limiting practitioners’ ability to use the findings
in their own contexts. Furthermore, the length of the interviews was shorter than anticipated.
Although each interview lasted between 30 and 55 minutes, the recording began after the
introduction I provided. On average, each interview lasted approximately 22 minutes in place of
45 to 50 minutes, as initially anticipated. While this may have been a limitation of the current
study, all interview questions were covered in each interview, and I obtained enough data to
identify trends in the findings, resulting in categorical and thematic findings.
Secondly, the interviews included both 1st-year students and continuing students,
meaning students in their 2nd or consequent year of study. Although I had intended to interview
only 1st-year students, the limited pool of potential participants required renegotiating how to
proceed with data collection. To maintain consistency across the following two self-reported
eligibility markers, first-generation and Latinx, I engaged with continuing students and invited
them to participate in the interviews. While this may have seemed like a limitation because
continuing students have a larger gap between their experiences in the summer prior to starting
college and their first semester of college, the interview protocol was specifically designed to
address these two timeframes. All continuing student participants addressed the specific nature
of the questions and recalled their experiences in detail and with accuracy.
Lastly, the current study does not include institutional or longitudinal data due to its
qualitative, short-term nature (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Swanson et al., 2021). For this reason,
the persistence the study measured was framed as a psychosocial construct of motivation to
persist, emphasizing the reciprocal nature of a student’s engagement with their classroom
99

environment and faculty interactions that relate to their decision to either remain or leave the
engineering program. As such, the findings are based on student narratives and do not include
institutional data on semester-to-semester enrollment or cumulative GPA. Also, without
institutional data, the current study did not include additional demographic information such as
gender or socioeconomic status, limiting possible comparisons. It is important to note that during
the IRB approval process, I was asked to remove any self-reported fields in the screening
questionnaire that did not align with the criteria for participant eligibility. Gender and
socioeconomic status questions were removed from the questionnaire. In conclusion, the lack of
both longitudinal and institutional data limits the ability of the research to create a bigger picture
of the student experience that includes both qualitative and quantitative metrics (Swanson et al.,
2021).
Implications and Recommendations for Practice
Regarding the implications for practice, institutions could improve the first-generation
Latinx student experience in engineering by focusing on a holistic approach to student
development and fostering positive faculty–student interactions, including interactions with TAs,
who also operate with a sense of authority in the classroom.
To operate on an assets-based holistic approach to student development, institutions can
use a person-first, student-second framework (Tomasko et al., 2016). This framework would
enable institutions to support student development to persistence through both academic and
non-academic factors, contributing to literature that supports the merging of both academic
affairs and student affairs (Swanson et al., 2021). Traditionally, in some institutions, these two
domains are kept separate and, at times, may contradict one another. In place of adversity
between the two domains, the current findings would encourage the collaboration of both of
100

these areas to better support first-generation Latinx engineering students. Program design and
curriculum development should include institutional agents from both domains to better inform
the creation of inclusive classroom environments and strategies to foster positive faculty–student
interactions as well as strengthen students’ academic outcomes (Swanson et al., 2021). A
strategy that could foster these endeavors is creating a connection between faculty and student
learning centers to give students a physical space to operate study groups and connect with
faculty outside the classroom. As indicated in the findings, faculty engagement both inside and
outside of the classroom, especially in the same field as the student’s major program can be
extremely beneficial and influential in the success of students. Bridging together the efforts of
both academic affairs and student affairs through communication, collaboration and connection
could have measurable effects on the engineering student experience, especially among first-
generation Latinx students.
Regarding the cultural capital marginalized students bring to their college experience,
institutions should hold themselves accountable to cultivate and foster the knowledge and skills
these students bring to their learning environment; validating the contributions these students can
bring to the field (Harper, 2010; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016). Considering both social and
academic integration into the undergraduate STEM community, students should have an
opportunity to establish equitable relationships with their peers and colleagues on campus,
reframing their skills and knowledge as a strength rather than a lack of or deficit of other skills
considered valuable to the field (Harper, 2010; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016). The root of this
cultivation of equitable outcomes is working with students in curricular and co-curricular
engagement opportunities to partner in the co-construction of knowledge, validating a student’s
contribution to the field and cultivating a positive science identity (Johnson, 2016). By
101

promoting a student’s cultural capital and positive science identity, institutions can continue
working towards equity-minded practices that foster a sense of belonging and community,
which, in turn, can impact the persistence of students in their major program (Carver et al., 2017;
Harrington et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016).
Lastly, honing on previous research related to meaningful engagement opportunities,
institutions should refer back to the role of the TA and the impact these institutional agents could
have on the undergraduate student experience (Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). For instance, TAs
may serve as a source of support to complete a mathematics course and foster positive self-
efficacy through equitable relationships. These equitable relationships invite the student’s
knowledge and skills as contributions to the discipline and generation of new knowledge. Thus,
the TAs become part of the student’s support network by operating on an assets-based lens and
strengthening the self-efficacy of first-generation Latinx students (Rincón & George-Jackson,
2016). If a stronger sense of confidence is linked to a better learning experience at the college
and a greater likelihood to persist in STEM major programs, institutions should focus on training
and supporting the leadership development of TAs in STEM classrooms. Training on implicit
bias and culturally responsive pedagogy for both TAs and faculty could provide the tools to
foster inclusive learning environments and classroom experiences.
Student success is not solely up to the student but rather depends on the initiatives and
strategies institutions are willing to implement to support the student’s self-efficacy, motivation
and, eventually, persistence (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013; Harrington et al., 2016;
Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). Through empowerment,
research shows that educators, faculty, and student development professionals alike can become
institutional agents in helping first-generation Latinx students use their navigational and
102

aspirational capital to persist in engineering, with such research reinforcing the importance of
self-reflection and consciousness of institutional agents in developing a socially just educational
practice (Elmi, 2020; Jagers et al., 2018; Kennedy, 2019).
Recommendations for Future Research
Shifting the focus on institutional accountability, researchers have also found that
summer bridge programs designed to help students transition from high school to the university
setting are positively correlated with academic outcomes and retention (Cabrera et al., 2013).
Part of this correlation could be due to the wide array of educationally meaningful activities
incorporated into the summer bridge experience (Cabrera et al., 2013; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al.,
2008). In engineering specifically, students of color and women generally express a sense of
exclusion or isolation (Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). Considering the lower persistence rates of
historically marginalized engineering students, it is imperative that research be conducted to
identify how summer bridge programs impact long-term retention and individual student
persistence, going beyond the first academic year and leaning into the last years leading to
graduation (Bauer-Wolf, 2019; Cabrera et al., 2013; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Swanson et al.,
2021).
Another critical element, noncognitive factors, such as sense of belonging, mattering and
self-efficacy, should be studied longitudinally as they relate to enrollment, cumulative GPA, and
graduation rates (Swanson et al., 2021). By combining noncognitive factors with traditional
academic outcomes, future research could help strengthen the relationship between academic
affairs and student affairs (Swanson et al., 2021). Previously mentioned as an implication for
practice, researchers could also contribute to this merger by looking at the relationship between
103

noncognitive or non-academic factors (student-affairs-oriented work) and academic outcomes
(academic-affairs-oriented work).
To better inform institutions of higher education, research should focus on the
comparison of persistence, retention, and student outcomes of historically marginalized students
in STEM who participate in summer bridge programs in comparison to historically marginalized
students who do not participate in the summer bridge programs (Bauer-Wolf, 2019; Cabrera et
al., 2013; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). Such a comparative analysis may help delineate the
specific indicators or elements of a summer bridge program that positively impact the persistence
and retention of students historically underrepresented in engineering (Bauer-Wolf, 2019;
Cabrera et al., 2013; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008). Important considerations include an overview
of programmatic elements that contribute to marginalized students’ long-term persistence, such
as math preparation for incoming STEM students and student identity development as it relates
to an evolving identity as an engineer and/or scientist (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013;
Johnson, 2016; Tomasko et al., 2016).
Lastly, the current study did not hold for gender differences. As previously discussed,
while gender was originally incorporated into the screening questionnaire, the IRB requested
removing information outside of the participant’s eligibility criteria. Furthermore, with previous
research focused on binary gender norms, future research could be more inclusive of all gender
identities and hold space for comparison between the groups (Carver et al., 2017; Graham et al.,
2013; Johnson, 2016; Kuh, 2016; Kuh et al., 2008; Tomasko et al., 2016). This would enable
researchers to conduct investigations into the student experiences with a more inclusive lens and
identify any thematic trends among gender identities, especially as previous literature indicates
104

women in STEM often have different experiences than their male counterparts (Rincón & Lane,
2017; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Yosso, 2014).
Recommendations for Policy
At the institutional level, universities, and colleges alike could lean into both the current
findings and previous research to address the national concern of attrition and look toward policy
change. Previous research shows a positive correlation between sense of belonging and retention,
especially among Latinx students in STEM, so institutions should incorporate culturally relevant
pedagogy into faculty training (Carver et al., 2017; Killpack & Melón, 2016; Peck, 2021;
Strayhorn, 2011). Peck (2021) provided insight into the deficit perspective used by many STEM
faculty, noting its implications on the student experience and a call for faculty to, instead, operate
on an assets-based pedagogical framework. On a similar trope, Killpack and Melón (2016)
discussed the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy in increasing students’ sense of
belonging.
Through STEM faculty training on culturally relevant pedagogy, institutions could merge
both domains of thought and positively influence Latinx students’ persistence in engineering
(Carver et al., 2017; Killpack & Melón, 2016; Peck, 2021; Strayhorn, 2011). This training could
include how to create an inclusive learning environment, how to honor a student’s cultural
identity and capital, and, most importantly, how to achieve both traditional markers of academic
outcomes while creating a learning environment that recognizes the skills and knowledge of
every learner in the classroom (Killpack & Melón, 2016; Swanson et al., 2021).
Lastly, Graham et. al. (2013) offered a persistence framework in Figure 3 that could
guide improvements in policy. The framework depicts a circular motion of confidence and
motivation around opportunities for engagement, including active learning, early research and
105

learning communities, as they interact with learning science and identifying as a scientist. This
framework could guide the conversation in promoting persistence by looking at the validation of
cultural capital in learning environments as a form of cultivating a positive science identity
amongst historically marginalized students (Graham et. al., 2013; Johnson, 2016; Yosso, 2005).
Conclusion
While it may be difficult to assess whether classroom experiences and faculty interactions
have a direct effect on first-generation Latinx students’ persistence, this study’s findings indicate
that first-generation Latinx students do seek faculty interactions as sources of support, inspiration
and modeling for their goals as future engineers. Furthermore, faculty serve a significant role in
helping these students navigate their college experience, especially faculty members outside of
the mathematics department. In regard to math classroom experiences, several participants
indicated that the classroom environment did not have an impact on their desire to continue in
engineering. Overall, first-generation Latinx engineering students used their navigational and
aspirational capital to better integrate into the university community and operationalized
adaptation to the college environment as a means of managing adversity and challenges.

106

References
American Society for Engineering Education. (2016). Engineering by the numbers: ASEE
retention and time-to-graduation benchmarks for undergraduate engineering schools,
departments and programs. https://ira.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-
Engineering-by-the-Numbers-3.pdf
Ballysingh, T. A. (2021). Aspirational and high-achieving Latino college men who strive “por mi
madre”: Toward a proposed model of maternal cultural wealth. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 20(4), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192719870925
Barnhardt, C. L., Reyes, K., Vidal Rodriguez, A., & Ramos, M. (2018). A transformative mixed
methods assessment of educational access and opportunity for undocumented college
students in the southeastern United States. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4),
413–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816652764
Bauer-Wolf, J. (2019, February 26). Early departures. Inside Higher Education.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/02/26/latinx-black-college-students-leave-
stem-majors-more-white-students
Bissonette, S., & Szymanski, D. M. (2019). Minority stress and LGBQ college students’
depression: Roles of peer group and involvement. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and
Gender Diversity, 6(3), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000332
Bowman, N. A., Jang, N., Kivlighan, D. M., III, Schneider, N., & Ye, X. (2020). The impact of a
goal-setting intervention for engineering students on academic probation. Research in
Higher Education, 61(1), 142–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09555-x
Bracket, M. (2019). Permission to feel: unlocking the power of emotions to help our kids,
ourselves, and our society thrive. Celadon Books.
107

Briody, E. K., Wirtz, E., Goldenstein, A., & Berger, E. J. (2019). Breaking the tyranny of office
hours: Overcoming professor avoidance. European Journal of Engineering Education,
44(5), 666–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1592116
Burt, S., Stone, B. D., Motshubi, R., & Baber, L. D. (2023). (2020). STEM validation among
underrepresented students: Leveraging insights from a STEM diversity program to
broaden participation. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16, 53–65. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000300
Cabrera, N. L., Miner, D. D., & Milem, J. F. (2013). Can a summer bridge program impact first-
year persistence and performance? A case study of the new start summer program.
Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-
9286-7
Carver, S. D., Van Sickle, J., Holcomb, J. P., Jackson, D. K., Resnick, A. H., Duffy, S. F.,
Sridhar, N., Marquard, A. M., & Quinn, C. M. (2017). Operation STEM: Increasing
success and improving retention among mathematically underprepared students in
STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 18(3), 30–39.
Castagno, A. (Ed.). (2019). The price of nice: how good intentions maintain educational
inequity. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvpwhdfv
Castellanos. (2018). Examining Latinas’ STEM Career Decision-Making Process: A
Psychosociocultural Approach. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(4), 527–552.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1435133
Castellanos, J., & Gloria, A. M. (2007). Research considerations and theoretical application for
best practices in higher education: Latina/os achieving success. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 6(4), 378–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707305347
108

Cohn, J. (2021, March 12). Faculty and staff often don’t trust one another. How do we fix that?
The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/faculty-and-staff-
often-dont-trust-one-another-how-do-we-fix-that
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for
Retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555–580.
Christie, B. L. (2013). The importance of faculty–student connections in STEM disciplines.
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(3).
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Dei, G. J. S. (2005). Chapter One: Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies: An
introduction. Counterpoints, 252, 1–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978742
Elmi, C. (2020). Integrating social emotional learning strategies in higher education. European
Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 10(3), 848–858.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10030061
Espinoza, A. (2013). The college experiences of first-generation college latino students in
engineering. The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 5(2), 71–84.
https://doi.org/10.18085/llas.5.2.p38569tj26k6w972
Espinoza, A., & Cole, D. (2012). Engineering the academic success of racial ethnic minority
students at minority serving institutions via mentoring and research. In R. T. Palmer, D.
C. Maramba, & M. Gasman (Eds.), Fostering success of ethnic and racial minorities in
STEM: The role of minority serving institutions. Routledge.
109

Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G.,
Hurtado, S., John, G. H., Matsui, J., McGee, R., Okpodu, C. M., Robinson, T. J.,
Summers, M. F., Werner-Washburne, M., & Zavala, M. (2016). Improving
underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE Life Sciences Education,
15(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038
Fernández, É., Rincón, B. E., & Hinojosa, J. K. (2021). (Re) creating family and reinforcing
pedagogies of the home: How familial capital manifests for students of color pursuing
STEM majors. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 26(2), 147–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1997971
Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Fry, R., Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2021). Stem jobs see uneven progress in increasing gender,
racial and ethnic diversity. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/04/01/stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-
increasing-gender-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/
García, R., Morales, J. C., & Rivera, G. (2014). The use of peer tutoring to improve the passing
rates in mathematics placement exams of engineering students: A success story.
American Journal of Engineering Education, 5(2), 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v5i2.8952
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Gandhi-Lee, E., Skaza, H., Marti, E., Schrader, P. G., & Orgill, M. (2015). Faculty perceptions
of the factors influencing success in STEM fields. Journal of Research in STEM
Education, 1(1), 30–44.
110

Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A.-B., & Handelsman, J. (2013).
Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455–1456.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487
Harper, S. R. (2010). An anti-deficit achievement framework for research on students of color in
STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 63–74.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.362
Harrington, M. A., Lloyd, A., Smolinski, T., & Shahin, M. (2016). Closing the gap: First year
success in college mathematics at an HBCU. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 16(5), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.14434//josotl.v16i5.19619
Hong, B. S., & Shull, P. (2010). A retrospective study of the impact faculty dispositions have on
undergraduate engineering students. College Student Journal, 44(2).
Hu, S. (2011). Reconsidering the relationship between student engagement and persistence in
college. Innovative Higher Education, 36(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-
010-9158-4
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011).
“We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different
college contexts. The Journal of social issues, 67(3), 553.
Ikuma, L. H., Steele, A., Dann, S., Adio, O., & Waggenspack, W. N., Jr. (2019). Large-scale
student programs increase persistence in STEM fields in a public university setting.
Journal of Engineering Education, 108(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20244
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018). Equity & social and emotional learning:
A cultural analysis. CASEL.
111

Johnson, J. M. (2016). Managing transitions, building bridges: An evaluation of a summer bridge
program for African American scientists and engineers. Journal for Multicultural
Education, 10(2), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-01-2016-0010
Johnson, M. D., Sprowles, A. E., Goldenberg, K. R., Margell, S. T., & Castellino, L. (2020).
Effect of a place-based learning community on belonging, persistence, and equity gaps
for first-year STEM Students. Innovative Higher Education, 45(6), 509–531.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09519-5
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning:
Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership,
29(6), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619867469
Killpack, T. L., & Melón, L. C. (2016). Toward inclusive STEM classrooms: What personal role
do faculty play? CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-
01-0020
Kouyoumdjian, C., Guzmán, B. L., García, N. M., & Talavera-Bustillos, V. (2017). A
community cultural wealth examination of sources of support and challenges among
latino first- and second-generation college students at a Hispanic serving institution.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(1), 61–76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715619995
Kuh, G. D. (2016). Making learning meaningful: Engaging students in ways that matter to them:
Making learning meaningful. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(145), 49–
56. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20174
112

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J. L., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the
effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of
Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory–What it is not. In M. Lynn & D. D. Dixon
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 34–47). Routledge.
Liera, R. (2019). Moving beyond a culture of niceness in faculty hiring to advance racial equity.
American Educational Research Journal, 57(5), 1954–1994.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219888624
Litzler, E., Samuelson, C. C., & Lorah, J. A. (2014). Breaking it down: Engineering student
STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher
Education, 55(8), 810–832.
Litzler, E., & Young, J. (2012). Understanding the risk of attrition in undergraduate engineering:
Results from the project to assess climate in engineering. Journal of Engineering
Education, 101(2), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00052.x
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Luedke, C. L. (2017). Person first, student second: Staff and administrators of color supporting
students of color authentically in higher education. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0002
Mack, K. M., Winter, K., & Rankins, C. M. (2021). Faculty Professional Development for
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in STEM Higher Education: Examining the TIDES
Model. In Research Anthology on Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning (pp.
998-1018). IGI Global.
113

Martin, J. P., Stefl, S. K., Cain, L. W., & Pfirman, A. L. (2020). Understanding first-generation
undergraduate engineering students’ entry and persistence through social capital theory.
International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), Article 37.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00237-0
Matos, J. M. (2021). Utilizing Latinx cultural capital for the retention and graduation of Latinx
students in higher education. Journal of Latinos and Education, 22(3), 1250–1267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2021.1941030
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Metz, G. W. (2004). Challenge and changes to Tinto’s persistence theory: A historical review.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.2190/M2CC-
R7Y1-WY2Q-UPK5
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Undergraduate Retention and Graduation
Rates. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ctr
National Science Foundation. (2022a). What is the S&E retention rate in U.S. 4-year
institutions? STEM education data and trends.
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/college-10.html
National Science Foundation. (2022b). What percent of S&E degrees do women and racial
ethnic minorities earn? STEM education data and trends.
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/college-11.html
114

Navarro, R. L., Flores, L. Y., Legerski, J. P., Brionez, J., May, S. F., Suh, H. N., Silvensky, D.
R., Tapio, F., Lee, H.-S., Garriott, P. O., Hunet, H. K., Desjarlais, C. D., Lee, B.-H., Diaz,
D., Zhu, J., & Jung, A. K. (2019). Social cognitive predictors of engineering students’
academic persistence intentions, satisfaction, and engagement. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 66(2), 170.
Newman, C. B. (2011). Engineering success: The role of faculty relationships with African
American undergraduates. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
17(3).
O’Grady, K. L. (2021, February 22). How to manage through emotional exhaustion. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-manage-
through-emotional-exhaustion
O’Leary, E. S., Shapiro, C., Toma, S., Sayson, H. W., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Johnson, T., &
Sork, V. L. (2020). Creating inclusive classrooms by engaging STEM faculty in
culturally responsive teaching workshops. International Journal of STEM education,
7(1), 1–15.
Park, J. J., Kim, Y. K., Salazar, C., & Hayes, S. (2020). Student–faculty interaction and
discrimination from faculty in STEM: The link with retention. Research in Higher
Education, 61(3), 330–356.
Peck, F. (2021). Towards anti-deficit education in undergraduate mathematics education: How
deficit perspectives work to structure inequality and what can be done about it. PRIMUS,
31(9), 940–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1781721
115

Revelo, R. A., & Baber, L. D. (2018). Engineering resistors: Engineering Latina/o students and
emerging resistant capital. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(3), 249–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717719132
Rincón, B., De La Rosa, B., & Chapa, J. (2017). A state of neglect: Latino educational
attainment. In A. De Los Santos, L. I. Rendón, G. Keller, A. Acereda, E. M. Bensimón,
& R. J. Tannenbaums (Eds.), New directions: Assessment and preparation of Hispanic
college students (pp. 59–74). Bilingual Press.
Rincón, B. E. (2020). Does Latinx representation matter for Latinx student retention in STEM?
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(4), 437–451.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192718820532
Rincón, B. E., & George-Jackson, C. E. (2016). Examining department climate for women in
engineering: The role of STEM interventions. Journal of College Student
Development, 57(6), 742–747.
Rincón, B. E., & Lane, T. B. (2017). Latin@s in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) at the intersections. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 182–
195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301838
Rincón, B. E., & Rodriguez, S. (2021). Latinx students charting their own STEM pathways: How
community cultural wealth informs their STEM identities. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 20(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192720968276
Rodriguez, S. L., & Blaney, J. M. (2021). “We’re the unicorns in STEM”: Understanding how
academic and social experiences influence sense of belonging for Latina undergraduate
students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 441.
116

Rodriguez, S., Pilcher, A., & Garcia-Tellez, N. (2021). The influence of familismo on Latina
student STEM identity development. Journal of Latinos and Education, 20(2), 177-189.
Salinas, C., & Lozano, A. (2019). Mapping and recontextualizing the evolution of the term
Latinx: An environmental scanning in higher education. In E. G. Murillo, Jr. (Ed.),
Critical readings on Latinos and education (pp. 216–235). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021206-14
Samuelson, C. C., & Litzler, E. (2016). Community cultural wealth: An assets-based approach to
persistence of engineering students of color. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1),
93–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20110
Shin, J. E. L., Levy, S. R., & London, B. (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and
non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12371
Smith, C. A. S., Wao, H., Kersaint, G., Campbell-Montalvo, R., Gray-Ray, P., Puccia, E.,
Martin, J. P., Lee, R., Skvoretz, J., & MacDonald, G. (2021). Social capital from
professional engineering organizations and the persistence of women and
underrepresented minority undergraduates. Frontiers in Sociology, 6.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.671856
Stites, N. A., Berger, E., DeBoer, J., & Rhoads, J. F. (2021). Are resource-usage patterns related
to achievement? A study of an active, blended, and collaborative learning environment
for undergraduate engineering courses. European Journal of Engineering Education,
46(3), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1783208
117

Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation
for college through a summer bridge program. The American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2),
142–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210381871
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students ’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293
Student Research Foundation. (2020). Hispanics & STEM: Hispanics are underrepresented in
STEM today but Gen Z ’s interest can change the future. Student Research Foundation.
https://www.studentresearchfoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/Hispanics_STEM_Report_Final-1.pdf
Swanson, E., Melguizo, T., & Martorell, P. (2021). Examining the relationship between
psychosocial and academic outcomes in higher education: A descriptive analysis. AERA
Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211026967
Tight, M. (2020). Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 44(5), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1576860
Tinto, V. (2022). Increasing student persistence: Wanting and doing. In student support services
(pp. 53–70). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_33
Tolbert, D. A., & Cardella, M. E. (2015, June 14–17). Mathematics as a gatekeeper to
engineering: Preliminary findings from the interview data [Paper presentation]. ASEE
Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24472
Tomasko, D. L., Ridgway, J. S., Waller, R. J., & Olesik, S. V. (2016). Association of summer
bridge program outcomes with STEM retention of targeted demographic groups. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_90
118

Tucker, K., Sharp, G., Qingmin, S., Scinta, T., & Thanki, S. (2020). Fostering historically
underserved students’ success: An embedded peer support model that merges non-
cognitive principles with proven academic support practices. Review of Higher
Education, 43(3), 861–885. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2020.0010
Turki, F., Jdaitawi, M., & Sheta, H. (2018). Fostering positive adjustment behaviour: Social
connectedness, achievement motivation and emotional-social learning among male and
female university students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 145–158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731202
Turner, M., McCallum, C., & Benson, J. (2021). Beyond the bridge: Exploring the experiences
of a summer bridge program through student voices. Journal of College Orientation,
Transition, and Retention, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v28i1.3540
Vogt, C. M. (2008). Faculty as a critical juncture in student retention and performance in
engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 27–36.
Wirtz, E., Dunford, A., Berger, E., Briody, E., Guruprasad, G., & Senkpeil, R. (2018). Resource
usage and usefulness: Academic help-seeking behaviours of undergraduate engineering
students. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 23(2), 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2018.1525889
Won, S., Hensley, L. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2021). Brief research report: Sense of belonging and
academic help-seeking as self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Education,
89(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1703095
Yang, Y., Grauer, B., Thornburg, J. R., & Betz, A. R. (2020, June 22–26). Engineering students’
views on the effectiveness of peer tutors in scholars assisting scholars program. [Paper
119

presentation] 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--
34563
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Yosso, T. J. (2014). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. In L. Parker & D. Gillborn (Eds.), Critical Race Theory in Education (pp.
181–204). Routledge.
Zaniewski, A. M., & Reinholz, D. (2016). Increasing STEM success: A near-peer mentoring
program in the physical sciences. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0043-2

120

Appendix A: Recruitment Email
Potential participants received the following recruitment email.
Email
Greetings,
As a doctoral student at Rossier School of Education pursuing a doctoral degree in
Educational Leadership, I wanted to request your permission to contact undergraduate
engineering students in an effort to recruit them to participate in my dissertation study. The
purpose of the study is to better understand how students’ classroom experiences in math courses
and faculty interactions influence their motivation to persist in engineering. To be eligible to
participate in the study, students must self-identify as Latinx, have participated in the summer
engineering summer bridge program offered through their institution and enroll or have enrolled
in a degree-granting mathematics course during their first semester at the institution.
Would you be able to help me identify a cohort of students that would be eligible for the
study and send out the email below with the attached flier? Additionally, it would be great if you
could please share the recruitment flier on your department’s social media page. Please let me
know if you would be interested in helping me recruit participants for my study.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Monica
Recruitment Text
Are you interested in participating in a dissertation study as a participant? A doctoral
student in Rossier is currently recruiting Latinx 1st-year students in engineering to share their
experiences in the classroom and how those experiences influence their motivation to remain in
121

their major program. Eligible students will receive a $25 Amazon gift card for their participation
after completing the interview. For more information about the study and to see if you are
eligible, please see the attached flier. For any questions or concerns, please contact Monica
Prado García (monicapr@usc.edu).

122

Appendix B: Recruitment Flier
Appendix B: Recruitment Flier

123

Appendix C: Screening Questionnaire
Appendix C: Screening Questionnaire

124

125

126

Appendix D: Study Information Sheet
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Persistence of First-Generation Latinx Engineering Students: Developing a
Better Understanding of STEM Classroom Experiences and Faculty Interactions

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Monica Prado García, Ed.D. Candidate

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Sheila Banuelos, Ed.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to better understand how classroom experiences and faculty
interactions in math courses affect Latinx engineering student motivation to persist through their
undergraduate degree. Classroom experiences will be based on a comparison between a summer
bridge program, non-credit math course and a fall semester, traditional math course at the
university. From there, researchers hope to learn how classroom experiences and faculty
interactions influence a student’s motivation to remain in engineering and a student’s academic
success. You are invited as a possible participant because you self-identified as a Latinx 1st-year,
fall-start student who participated in the summer bridge program offered through the engineering
school in summer 2022 and enrolled in a fall 2022 semester math course at the university.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to complete a brief online screening questionnaire of
3–5 minutes to verify eligibility. Researchers will then invite eligible students to participate in a
one-on-one interview that will last approximately 45–60 minutes. During the interview, the
researcher will reiterate the purpose of the study and have questions prepared that will help guide
the conversation. The individual interview will be conducted virtually through Zoom and
recorded. At any time during the interview, the participant can decide to end the interview and/or
stop the recording. All recordings will be saved on a password-protected computer to sustain
confidentiality.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $25 Amazon electronic gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all
of the questions in order to receive the card. The gift card will be sent via email to the preferred
contact email you list in the initial screening questionnaire.

127

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

Information collected through the study will be kept confidential by saving recordings and notes
on a password-protected computer. Additionally, participants will have the option to provide a
preferred pseudonym on the pre-survey to make sure no information is identifiable. Participants
have the right to review/edit the audio/video-recording and transcripts. The audio/video
recordings will be maintained for the length of the study and erased after being published. Lastly,
aside from the principal investigator, the faculty advisor will have access to the audio/visual
recordings. Please note that once recordings are erased, both the principal investigator and
faculty advisor will no longer have access to the files.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator, Monica Prado García
(monicapr@usc.edu), and/or the faculty advisor, Sheila Banuelos (smsanche@usc.edu).

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

128

Appendix E: Interview Script/Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my study and interview with me. I will
open the interview with a brief introduction of myself, an overview of the study, and then I have
some questions for you. I anticipate the interview will flow more as a conversation and should
last anywhere between 45–50 minutes. Does that sound okay with you?
My name is Monica Prado García, and I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at
USC Rossier School of Education. In the past, part of my professional role included working
with undergraduate students in engineering and I am very interested in learning the student
perspective on persistence and classroom experiences. Particularly, my study focuses on the
meaning applied to classroom interactions and how it impacts a student’s motivation to continue
in engineering. I asked you to participate in my study since you are a first-time, fall-start
freshman and were a part of the summer bridge program within the engineering school that
included a non-credit math course. I anticipate interviewing approximately 7–10 students.
Please note that my role is strictly that of a researcher and learner. There is no right or
wrong answer and I will not be judging or evaluating your responses.
As you probably saw in the study information sheet, everything discussed in this
interview will be kept confidential. I will use a pseudonym and make every effort to make any
information provided in this interview not identifiable. Also, if you have a preferred pseudonym,
please feel free to let me know. You may also keep your camera off during the interview. Please
note that at any time, you can decide to end the interview.
I was hoping to transcribe this interview and will be recording this interview on Zoom so
that I can accurately note your responses. I will keep these recordings confidential and saved in a
password-protected computer. Is it okay with you that I record our conversation?
129

Do you have any questions before we start the interview?
I will start the interview by asking you some questions related to your experiences in the
summer bridge program and your first semester at your institution:
1. Tell me about yourself (Hometown, major in college, current or fall math course,
extracurricular activities, hobbies).
2. What has your experience been like at your institution so far?
Classroom Experiences and Faculty Interactions: Summer Bridge Non-Credit Math
Course
Now, I will ask questions related to your classroom experiences in the non-credit math
course offered as part of the summer bridge program.
3. What motivated you to participate in the summer bridge program?
4. How would you describe the non-credit math course in your summer bridge program?
5. What did you gain from your participation in the non-credit math course?
6. What was the most challenging part of the non-credit math course?
7. What and who helped you throughout the course?
8. Could you please describe how the course made you feel about your decision to major
in engineering?
Classroom Experiences and Faculty Interactions: Fall Semester Math Course
Now, I will ask questions related to your classroom experiences in your first semester,
fall semester math course.
9. Why did you decide to enroll in your fall semester math course?
10. How would you describe your fall semester math course?
11. What did you gain from the fall semester math course?
130

12. What was the most challenging part of the fall semester math course?
13. What and who helped you throughout the course?
14. Could you please describe how the course made you feel about your decision to major
in engineering?
Next, I would like to ask you about your interactions with the faculty that taught the math
courses. I would also like to learn about your goals and what motivates you to continue in
engineering.
Faculty Interactions, Persistence and Academic Success
15. What are your aspirational goals as an engineering student?
16. What steps are you taking to realize those goals?
17. What role do faculty play in meeting your goals?
18. Could you describe any faculty interactions that were key in your decision to major in
engineering?
19. Could you please describe how interactions with faculty in the math courses affected
your desire to continue in engineering?
20. Is there anything else regarding your experience as an engineering student that you
would like to share with me?
Closing
Thank you so much for sharing your perspective. Do you have any questions for me?
I really enjoyed our conversation and learning your perspective on classroom experiences
and faculty interactions. If I have any follow-up questions, would it be okay to contact you via
email? Also, if you know anyone that would be interested in participating in the study, would
you be willing to refer to me or send them the flier to the study?
131

Thank you again and as a gesture of my gratitude, I will be sending you an Amazon gift
card via the email address previously provided!

132

Appendix F: Interview Protocol Matrix
Appendix F: Interview Protocol Matrix

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Considering increasing rates of attrition among Latinx students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), this study helps contextualize the student experience in a highly competitive engineering program as it relates to classroom experiences and faculty–student interactions. Framed by Yosso’s community cultural wealth model, an assets-based approach was used to investigate how students used navigational and aspirational capital as they engaged with their learning environments, with a focus on summer bridge participation, including a non-credit math course and enrollment in a traditional semester math course during their first semester at the university. Seven first-generation Latinx engineering students took part in semi-structured interviews. The study’s findings indicate that engineering faculty had a very important role in students’ motivation to persist in engineering and that classroom experiences were less important when positive and very impactful when negative. Implications for practice and future research should be centered on the relationship between faculty and students, especially within the same field of study, the collaboration of academic and student affairs professionals to improve the student experience, cultivating a science identity in connection with the persistence of students and developing methods to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy in STEM classrooms.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

Struggles build character: the impact of developmental math and the psychological, social and cultural factors that influence Latino males' persistence in STEM

PDF

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

PDF

Addressing the underrepresentation of women in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math: a focus on African American and Hispanic women in community college and university programs

PDF

¿Dónde están todos los hombres latinos? A qualitative exploration of barriers to and enablers of participation in study abroad for first-generation Latino male college students

PDF

Humanizing career development for international graduate students: an exploration of career development support offered by a higher education institution

PDF

The relationship between Latinx undergraduate students’ mental health and college graduation rates

PDF

A curriculum for faculty implementation of culturally relevant instruction in a community college classroom

PDF

Navigating transitions: experiences of female students from refugee backgrounds in higher education

PDF

The effects of technology on the mathematical achievement of Black and Latinx students

PDF

STEM identity development: examining the experiences of transfer students

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Applying Schlossberg’s transition theory to the student veteran transfer experience at the University of Southern California: a qualitative case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Prado Garcia, Monica Paola (author)

Core Title Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/05/2023

Defense Date 06/21/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Capital,culturally relevant pedagogy,engineering students,faculty interactions,first-generation,Latinx,math course,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,science identity,STEM,STEM classroom experiences,summer bridge

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banuelos, Sheila (committee chair), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee member), Cole, Darnell (committee member)

Creator Email monicapr@usc.edu,mprado1590@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113260755

Unique identifier UC113260755

Identifier etd-PradoGarci-12018.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PradoGarci-12018

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Prado Garcia, Monica Paola

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230705-usctheses-batch-1061 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu