Johnson, J., & Niemi, A. D. (2015, June), A First-year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23380

\bibitem{asee_peer_23380}
  Johnson, J., \& Niemi, A. D. (2015, June), \emph{A First-year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.23380

Jeff Johnson and Alan D. Niemi.  "A First-year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/23380 Internet.  19 May, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_23380}
  Jeff Johnson and Alan D. Niemi.
  "A First-year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/23380 Internet.  19 May, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_23380
author = "Jeff Johnson and Alan D. Niemi"
title = "A First-year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/23380}
number = {10.18260/p.23380}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - A First-Year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?AbstractMany retention programs measure success through the basic metrics of 1-, 2- and 3- yearretention rates and/or 6-year graduation rates. When these numbers are increasing we can inferthat the retention initiatives are successful. Further study of this retained population throughsurveys and focus groups can yield additional insight into the reasons behind student persistence.But, what if we changed our perspective and instead examined the inverse population? Whatvaluable insight can be gained by looking at the reasons behind why some still leave STEMprograms? More specifically, are there predominant factors still underlying the loss of studentsfrom an engineering program even when overall retention is improving?In 2009, a small, private university sought to identify the reasons behind low graduation rates inthe school of engineering and engineering technology. They deployed an exhaustive survey tostudents that had left the school asking these former students (leavers) to rank the influencesbehind their decision to leave engineering. Results were utilized to help develop several first-year retention initiatives targeted at engineering persistence of FTIC students. These initiatives,aided with funding through an NSF-STEP grant began with the 2010 cohort and have continueduntil present. Subsequent deployments of the identical survey to cohorts 2009 through 2013 haveresulted in two distinct populations: PRE-STEP (cohorts 2006-2009) and POST-STEP (cohorts2010-2013).This exhaustive survey requests input such as:      Rank the top reasons why you changed your major from engineering or engineering       technology to something else. Considering factors such as: lost interest or motivation to       study engineering, had difficulty with coursework, uncertain of future career options,       began engineering due to parental pressure but decided it was not for me.      If difficulty with coursework was a reason for leaving, please indicate the degree that       certain factors played in this decision such as: inadequate study or time management       skills, inadequate preparation in math and/or science, inadequate note-taking skills,       addiction to gaming, or inadequate computer skills.      State in your own words why you left.This paper begins with a summary of the school’s STEP retention initiatives providing a contextfor the subsequent comparison of survey results between the pre and post populations. It thenprovides composite survey results revealing the dominant factors affecting engineering attritionin the entire population. Differences in the results between the pre and post populations are thenexamined, revealing both areas of significant improvement and areas that show little change. Thepaper concludes by suggesting refinement to the current retention program.
AU  - Jeff Johnson
AU  - Alan D. Niemi
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - A First-year Attrition Survey: Why Do They Say They Are Still Leaving?
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/23380
DO  - 10.18260/p.23380
ER  -