Board 349: Predicting Persistence in Engineering via Framing Agency

Vanessa Svihla; Madalyn Wilson-Fetrow; Ruben D. Lopez-Parra; Yuyu Hsiao

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: June 26, 2024
Conference Session: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 7
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--46931
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/46931
Download Count: 74

Paper Authors

biography

Vanessa Svihla University of New Mexico orcid.org/0000-0003-4342-6178

visit author page

Dr. Vanessa Svihla is a learning scientist and associate professor at the University of New Mexico in the Organization, Information and Learning Sciences program and in the Chemical and Biological Engineering Department.

visit author page

author page

Madalyn Wilson-Fetrow University of New Mexico orcid.org/0000-0002-0509-2720

biography

Ruben D. Lopez-Parra Purdue University, West Lafayette orcid.org/0009-0007-8901-5688

visit author page

Ruben D. Lopez-Parra is a Post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering at the University of New Mexico. His Ph.D. is in Engineering Education from Purdue University, and he has worked as a K-16 STEM instructor and curriculum designer using various evidence-based active and passive learning strategies. In 2015, Ruben earned an M.S. in Chemical Engineering at Universidad de los Andes in Colombia, where he also received the title of Chemical Engineer in 2012. His research interests are grounded in the learning sciences and include how K-16 students develop engineering thinking and professional skills when addressing complex socio-technical problems. He aims to apply his research to the design of better educational experiences.

visit author page

author page

Yuyu Hsiao University of New Mexico

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

With perennial interest in broadening participation in engineering, much focus has been given to predicting persistence. Persistence intentions related to degree completion and career are commonly connected to developing a strong sense of identity in the discipline and feelings of confidence (or self-efficacy) about disciplinary practices. While psychosocial factors like identity and self-efficacy are often studied in engineering, they are less often linked to specific learning experiences, such as design education. Specifically, we extend typical models of persistence intentions to examine the effects of engagement in a core engineering practice—design problem framing. We conjectured that framing agency, the capacity to make decisions consequential to design problem framing [1], relates to engineering identity and engineering design self-efficacy. We sought to answer a research question: To what extent do framing agency constructs predict first-year and senior students’ design self-efficacy, engineering identity, and persistence intentions? The current study uses structural equation modeling of survey responses to investigate the relationships between students’ perceptions of their agency, identity, self-efficacy, and persistence (N = 991). We used the framing agency survey [2,3] and collected a national sample: 59% (583) were first-years and 31% (305) seniors; a majority (69%, 685) were men and from racial and ethnic groups that are privileged in engineering (82%, 809). Overwhelmingly, students reported working in teams (96%). We found that students expressed a strong intention to persist to degree (Figure 1, M = 6.46; SD = 1.67, all constructs on scale 1-7), not surprising given the percent of seniors in the sample. They also expressed generally positive intentions to persist in engineering careers following graduation (M = 5.80; SD = 1.23). Students reported high design self-efficacy, (M = 5.64; SD = 1.00) and engineering identity (M = 5.55; SD = 1.17). In terms of the framing agency constructs, students reported very high shared consequentiality (M = 6.22; SD = 0.96); high individual consequentiality (M = 5.98; SD = 0.72); high learning consequentiality (M = 5.67; SD = 0.98); and moderately high constrainedness (M = 5.02; SD = 1.23); the scale on tentativeness, which probes students’ certainty that their role is to solve the problem as if it were well-structured rather than an ill-structured design problem, is reversed (such that a high score is aligned with design practice), and students expressed neither certainty nor uncertainty about this (M = 4.09; SD = 1.29). Several framing agency subconstructs explained variance in engineering identity and engineering design self-efficacy, which in turn predicted persistence intentions to degree and beyond. In particular, individual consequentiality—the sense that one is responsible for making decisions about the design problem—predicted engineering identity and design self-efficacy. For first-year students, shared consequentiality also predicted engineering identity. For seniors, shared consequentiality and learning as consequentiality predicted self-efficacy and also post-graduation persistence. Our results underscore the importance of design education experiences that provide students opportunities to direct problem framing.

Citation
Format

Svihla, V., & Wilson-Fetrow, M., & Lopez-Parra, R. D., & Hsiao, Y. (2024, June), Board 349: Predicting Persistence in Engineering via Framing Agency Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--46931

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - With perennial interest in broadening participation in engineering, much focus has been given to predicting persistence. Persistence intentions related to degree completion and career are commonly connected to developing a strong sense of identity in the discipline and feelings of confidence (or self-efficacy) about disciplinary practices. While psychosocial factors like identity and self-efficacy are often studied in engineering, they are less often linked to specific learning experiences, such as design education. Specifically, we extend typical models of persistence intentions to examine the effects of engagement in a core engineering practice—design problem framing. We conjectured that framing agency, the capacity to make decisions consequential to design problem framing [1], relates to engineering identity and engineering design self-efficacy. 
We sought to answer a research question: To what extent do framing agency constructs predict first-year and senior students’ design self-efficacy, engineering identity, and persistence intentions? 
The current study uses structural equation modeling of survey responses to investigate the relationships between students’ perceptions of their agency, identity, self-efficacy, and persistence (N = 991). We used the framing agency survey [2,3] and collected a national sample: 59% (583) were first-years and 31% (305) seniors; a majority (69%, 685) were men and from racial and ethnic groups that are privileged in engineering (82%, 809). Overwhelmingly, students reported working in teams (96%).
We found that students expressed a strong intention to persist to degree (Figure 1, M = 6.46; SD = 1.67, all constructs on scale 1-7), not surprising given the percent of seniors in the sample. They also expressed generally positive intentions to persist in engineering careers following graduation (M = 5.80; SD = 1.23). Students reported high design self-efficacy, (M = 5.64; SD = 1.00) and engineering identity (M = 5.55; SD = 1.17). In terms of the framing agency constructs, students reported very high shared consequentiality (M = 6.22; SD = 0.96); high individual consequentiality (M = 5.98; SD = 0.72); high learning consequentiality (M = 5.67; SD = 0.98); and moderately high constrainedness (M = 5.02; SD = 1.23); the scale on tentativeness, which probes students’ certainty that their role is to solve the problem as if it were well-structured rather than an ill-structured design problem, is reversed (such that a high score is aligned with design practice), and students expressed neither certainty nor uncertainty about this (M = 4.09; SD = 1.29).
Several framing agency subconstructs explained variance in engineering identity and engineering design self-efficacy, which in turn predicted persistence intentions to degree and beyond. In particular, individual consequentiality—the sense that one is responsible for making decisions about the design problem—predicted engineering identity and design self-efficacy. For first-year students, shared consequentiality also predicted engineering identity. For seniors, shared consequentiality and learning as consequentiality predicted self-efficacy and also post-graduation persistence. Our results underscore the importance of design education experiences that provide students opportunities to direct problem framing. 

AU  - Vanessa Svihla
AU  - Madalyn Wilson-Fetrow
AU  - Ruben D. Lopez-Parra
AU  - Yuyu Hsiao
CY  - Portland, Oregon
DA  - 2024/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Board 349: Predicting Persistence in Engineering via Framing Agency
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/46931
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--46931
ER  -