such as the lackof self-confidence and fear of not getting accepted in their departments, which do not relate totheir abilities15, and perhaps cause women students to drop out earlier in the program25. Felder etal.35 found that women were more likely to have transferred out in good standing and muchmore likely to have transferred out after failing a course Generally, lower levels of self-efficacyinfluences attrition rates15,47 and women students have poor self-efficacy than men students41. Self-efficacy may be interplaying with academic motivation in determiningpersistence20. Litzler and Young22 provide three constructs for academic motivation – ‘At-Riskof Attrition’, ‘Committed with Ambivalence’ and ‘Committed’. While they found women
-19 pandemic. These results can informrecommendations for proactive interventions, policies, and better information about resources tosupport graduate engineering students.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (award number2034800). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors thank our project evaluator Dr. Elizabeth Litzler for her support andguidance on this project and the authors thank Amanda Manaster, Joseph Strehlow, BrianGreene, and Austin Steinforth for assisting as pilot participants and for conversations whichguided the
that describes personal and structural influences on elective track selection andpossible career implications. Third, this model will form the basis for development of a surveyquestionnaire that will be administered to a larger sample of engineering studies in fall 2020 inorder to quantitatively test the relationships observed in the qualitative data.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1848498. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors also wish to thank Dr. Elizabeth Litzler, the Project Evaluator, for hervaluable
. Inkelas. “Living-Learning Programs: One High-Impact Educational Practice We Now Know a Lot About.” Liberal Education 96. 2, (2010): 36-47. Web. 5 June 2014.http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp10/LESP10_Brower.cfm3 Mody‐Pan, Priti and Knaphus, Emily. STARS Year 1 Evaluation. Center for Workforce Development Universityof Washington Seattle, Washington. September 2014.4 http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1112STEMGUIDE.PDF.5 Litzler, Elizabeth and Samuelson, Cate. “How Underrepresented Minority Engineering Students Derive a Sense ofBelonging from Engineering.” ASEE Paper: ID #6685 Page 26.1579.9
Annual Conference, 2009. 4. Litzler, Elizabeth, Cate C. Samuelson, and Julie A. Lorah, (2014). Breaking it Down: Engineering Student STEM Confidence at the Intersection of Race/Ethnicity and Gender. Research in Higher Education, December 2014, Volume 55, Issue 8, pp 810-832. 5. Margolis, Jane, and Allan Fisher. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002. Print. 6. Metz, Susan, et al., (2011). Implementing Engage Strategies to Improve Retention, ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2011. Page 26.254.12
Practices and First-Year Engineering Courses on Engineering Major Selection. Frontiers in Education Annual Conference. Oklahoma City, OK. Ohland, Matthew W. in Symposium “Connecting Education and Research on Retention in Engineering,” Organizers Suzanne G. Brainard, Elizabeth Litzler (2012). How institution policy, curricular structure and program culture affect students. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vancouver, BC. Ohland, M.W. (2012). Keynote Address. First-Year Engineering Experience Conference. Pittsburgh, PA. Meyers, K.L., H. Matusovich, M.W. Ohland (2012). First-Year Engineering Programs. First-Year Engineering Experience Conference. Pittsburgh, PA. Ohland, M.W
and Sue et al.’s microintervention strategies to provide instructors withdifferent tools and strategies to cultivate a distributed model of teaming.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.# 1936778. We thank the study’s participants for sharing their experiences and time with us. Weacknowledge the contributions of Cara Margherio, Elizabeth Litzler, and Rae Jing Han at theCenter for Evaluation & Research for STEM Equity who collected or curated the instructorinterviews used for this paper.References[1] ABET, “Criteria for accrediting engineering programs,” p. 28, 2009.[2] K. J. Cross and M. C. Paretti, “African American Males’ Experiences on Multiracial Student Teams
ratherthan an internship. He said, “I feel like a more in-depth knowledge of what the company does,and then being able to integrate into that company is more beneficial than working for threecompanies in internships.” He emphasized the benefit of multiple experiences with the samecompany.Table 1. Study Participants Pseudonym Description Reasons interested in Reasons not interested co-op Mariana Latina Pay during co-op Female Long-term career benefits Mechanical Commitment to companyCo-op Student Elizabeth Latina Co-op
enhanceinclusive teaching environments in community colleges. These environments are deemednecessary for the education of an increasingly diverse student population.VII. Acknowledgement of SupportThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no.HRD-1834513 as part of the NSF Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES Aspire Alliance. Theauthors acknowledge Judy Milton, Timothy Immelman, Lucas B. Hill, Nafsaniath Fathema,Elizabeth Litzler, Aasli Abdi Nur, Brooke Wolfe, Millicent A. Oyugi, and Alexa Lamm forproviding formative and summative evaluation reports for the regional change collaboratives.Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily
(grant number2034800). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors thank our project evaluator Dr. Elizabeth Litzler and advisory boardmember Diana Gonzalez for their support and guidance on this project. The authors also thankthe Year 2 participants for supporting this work by sharing their experiences in our survey.References[1] T. M. Evans, L. Bira, J. Beltran-Gastelum, L. T. Weiss, and N. L. Vanderford, “Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 36, pp. 282- 284, 2018.[2] A. K. Flatt, “A Suffering Generation: Six factors
upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1848498. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors wish to thank Dr. Elizabeth Litzler, the Project Evaluator, for hervaluable input, and Hannah Chiou for her assistance in reviewing codes. Additionally, we thankthe students, advisors and faculty who participated in the study for sharing their experiences.References[1] M. T. Cardador, "Promoted up but also out? The unintended consequences of increasing women’s representation in managerial roles in engineering," Organization Science, vol. 28, pp. 597-617
. Women and Science: The Snark Syndrome. Bristol: The Falmer Press, 1993.5. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences.Boulder: Westview Press.6. Litzler, Elizabeth & Sheila Edwards Lange (2006). Differences in climate for undergraduate and graduatewomen in engineering: the effect of context. ASEE7. Moos, R. H. (2002). The Mystery of Human Context and Coping: An Unraveling of Clues. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 30(1), 21.8. Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the Odds: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Women in Mathematics,Scientific, and Technological Careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215-246.9. Bandura, A. (1985). Social Foundations of Thought
Success and Failure in Engineering With Implications for Increased Retention." Journal of Engineering Education, 2007: 263-274.8. Litzler, Elizabeth, and Jacob Young. "Understanding the Risk of Attrition in Undergraduate Engineering: Results from the Project to Assess Climate in Engineering." Journal of Engineering Education, 2012: 319-345.9. Eris, Ozgur, Debbie Chachra, Helen Chen, Sheri Sheppard, Larry Ludlow, Camelia Rosca, Tori Bailey, and George Toye "Outcomes of a Longitudinal Administration of the Persistence in Engineering Survey." Journal of Engineering Education, 2010: 371-395.10. Ohland, Matthew W., Sheri D. Sheppard, Gary Lichtenstein, Ozgur Eris, Debbie Chachra, and Richard A. Layton. "Persistence, Engagement, and
consideration of local context or individual differences, to be a misguided approach.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNumber 2034800. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. The authors thank our project evaluator Dr. Elizabeth Litzler for valuablefeedback on our research design and findings. The authors thank the survey participants for theirinsights and contributions to our research. The authors also thank Austin Steinforth, AmandaManaster, Joe Strehlow, and Brian Greene for their assistance in piloting the interview protocol.References
in their paper that portions of variance inacademic performance can be explained through different measures of effort and motivation onthe part of the student. They, further, state that these measures are true regardless ofsocioeconomic differences in the students’ backgrounds.[15] Marshall Geiger and Elizabeth Cooper,[16] tried to explain how expectancy theory andneeds theory variables could be used to predict student performance in college based on theirgrade point average.[16] Expectancy Theory as developed by Vroom[45] is defined as the“motivation to act is a combination of the perceived attractiveness of future outcomes and thelikelihood one’s actions will lead to these outcomes” and needs theory is defined as “individualmoated
. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Professor of Engineering at Iowa State University and a Faculty Fellow of the Virtual Reality Applications Center. Dr. Vance is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and past chair of the ASME Design Engineering Division. She is a former Associate Editor of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design and an NSF CAREER award recipient. She served as department chair of Mechanical Engineering at Iowa State University from 2003 to 2006 and she spent two years at the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the Program Director for Engineering Design and Innovation. She is a past member of the NSF Engineering Directorate Advisory Committee and served as co-chair of the NSF
student success; and (c) cultivate more ethical future scientists and engineers by blending social, political and technological spheres. She prioritizes working on projects that seek to share power with students and orient to stu- dents as partners in educational transformation. She pursues projects that aim to advance social justice in undergraduate STEM programs and she makes these struggles for change a direct focus of her research.Devyn Elizabeth ShaferDr. Brianne Gutmann, San Jos´e State University Brianne Gutmann (she/her) is an Assistant Professor at San Jos´e State University. She does physics education research with expertise in adaptive online learning tools, identity-responsive mentoring and community