Ernzen, J., & Judson, E., & Krause, S. J., & Collofello, J., & Chen, Y., & Beeley, K. R., & Culbertson, R. J. (2015, June), Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of Engineering Students  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23916

\bibitem{asee_peer_23916}
  Ernzen, J., \& Judson, E., \& Krause, S. J., \& Collofello, J., \& Chen, Y., \& Beeley, K. R., \& Culbertson, R. J. (2015, June), \emph{Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of Engineering Students}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.23916

John Ernzen, Eugene Judson, Stephen J Krause, James Collofello, Ying-Chih Chen, Kendra Rae Beeley, and Robert J Culbertson.  "Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of Engineering Students".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/23916 Internet.  15 Dec, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_23916}
  John Ernzen, Eugene Judson, Stephen J Krause, James Collofello, Ying-Chih Chen, Kendra Rae Beeley, and Robert J Culbertson.
  "Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of Engineering Students".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/23916 Internet.  15 Dec, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_23916
author = "John Ernzen, Eugene Judson, Stephen J Krause, James Collofello, Ying-Chih Chen, Kendra Rae Beeley, and Robert J Culbertson"
title = "Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of Engineering Students"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/23916}
number = {10.18260/p.23916}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                 Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of                                Engineering StudentsBackground/RationaleRecent research indicates that engineering students leave the major at a rate similar to studentsenrolled in the humanities, business, and education (Chen, 2013). However, this provides littlesolace since engineering is the field least selected by students changing majors. This dilemma ofhigh attrition coupled with low matriculation leads to the need to place high priority on retention.Attrition issues are often ascribed to multiple factors, including course load, poor instruction, anda student’s sense of belonging within the discipline (Matthews, 2012; Seymour, 2006). This studyfocused on this final concern regarding belonging, examining if reforms, designed to addressbelonging, could affect retention within a large engineering college at a public university in theSouthwestern United States.Beginning in the late 1990s the college instituted various strategies to address attrition ofengineering students. Many of these focused on ASEE best practices including elucidatingprograms of study and adjusting advising procedures. Although the reforms were not alwaysconsistent across engineering disciplines, the college did experience incremental growth inretention rates.In 2007 a more concerted retention effort was made. To that date, reforms implemented wereconsidered programmatic but did not systematically address students’ sense of belonging. Tocombat this, the college instituted systemic changes addressing students’ feelings of displacementas first- and second-year engineering students.This new suite of strategies included 1) Co-Curricular Experiences: undergraduate researchopportunities, freshmen engineering summer camps, and professional student societies, 2) CourseCurricular Experiences: student success course for all students and a revised introduction toengineering course, and 3) Student Support Programs: upper-division engineering students as peermentors and undergraduate teaching assistants, an engineering-specific tutoring center, andfreshmen engineering residential communities.MethodTo evaluate the effects of the reforms that were initiated in the 2007-08 academic year, aninterrupted time series approach was utilized. Enrollment and retention data were available from1998 through 2013. A quasi-experiment of comparing retention of incoming freshmen engineeringstudents from their first semester to the beginning of their junior year was applied. This yielded asequence of nine pre-intervention two-year cohorts that were compared to five post-interventioncohorts.Trends were first evaluated among the engineering students as a whole. Further, to determine ifreform efforts had particular effect on sub-groups, data were disaggregated and analyzed by genderand ethnicity. In all cases, retention rate was the relevant measurement. Mean retention rates (i.e.,slope) were compared and evaluated to determine if change, such as abrupt change or delayedchange occurred (Glass, 1997).ResultsIt was evident there existed an overall 14-year upward trend in the proportion of freshmenengineering students who persisted in the major through their junior year (Table 1). This was trueboth pre- and post-intervention. Although, in many cases the trend was not significantly differentfollowing institution of the reforms.Over the 14 year period, retention rate, as represented by linear regression, increased at an averagerate of 1.1 percent per year. Figure 1 depicts the shift in retention rate growth followingintroduction of the student-centered programs. Prior to reforms, the increase in freshmen persistingin engineering until their junior year increased at an average of 0.9 percent per year. Followingintervention, the trajectory of retention rates shifted to 1.6 percent per year. This occurred while atthe same time the incoming freshman class increased from an average of 774 to 957 students.Examination of data, based on gender, indicated that overall retention rates continued to risefollowing implementation of the suite of belonging-based reforms for both men and women.Similarly, retention rates of underrepresented minorities (URM) (i.e., American Indian, Black,Hispanic) continued to exhibit an overall upward trend. However, subgroup analysis did not revealthe same type of abrupt change as did examination of aggregate data.ConclusionsThe reforms were instituted not to address a lagging retention rate. Rather, reforms were launchedduring a period when retention rates had experienced overall steady increase. The concern wasthat retention would soon reach a ceiling, if not decline. Therefore, a linear progression toward100% retention was not the realistic goal. Instead, the objective was to maintain momentum bypromoting belonging among engineering students. As is, these data provide inconclusive results.While we can say that retention rates did experience substantial change overall, the interventionyear did not result in a polynomial transition for all subgroups.               60               55                       PRE: y = 0.93x + 43.0               50                                                       POST: y = 1.61x + 50.6        %               45               40               35Figure 1. Engineering students retained in major
AU  - John Ernzen
AU  - Eugene Judson
AU  - Stephen J Krause
AU  - James Collofello
AU  - Ying-Chih Chen
AU  - Kendra Rae Beeley
AU  - Robert J Culbertson
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Effect of Student-Centered Programs on Retention of Engineering Students
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/23916
DO  - 10.18260/p.23916
ER  -