Faculty as a Critical Juncture in Student Retention and Performance in Engineering Programs

Journal of Engineering Education, Jan 2008 by Vogt, Christina M

ABSTRACT

Large numbers of students depart from engineering programs before graduation. For example, in fields such as engineering and computer science, students have commented on the inaccessible or unapproachable nature of faculty. To evaluate this problem, this study gathered data across four research universities. Using structural equation modeling, it measured environmental effects, i.e., academic integration or faculty distance on (a) self-efficacy, (b) academic confidence and (c) self-regulated learning behaviors effort, critical thinking, help-seeking and peer learning, and (d) GPA. Results showed that faculty distance lowered self-efficacy, academic confidence and GPA. Conversely, academic integration had a positive effect on self-efficacy, which in turn had strong positive effects on effort and critical thinking. Consequently, ongoing educational reform efforts must encourage engineering faculty to understand the significance of their student/professor relationships and seriously undertake measures to become personally available to students.

Keywords: academic integration, classroom climate, self-efficacy

I. Introduction

While nearly 80 percent of traditional-age students who start out majoring in engineering finish bachelor's degrees within eight years, 40 percent of those who start out majoring in engineering either earn their degree in a different major or do not finish. These data suggest problems ranging from misunderstanding of what adequate preparation means to misconceptions of what the profession of engineering actually entails (Adelman, 1998). However, there are other factors such as faculty members' approachability and teaching skills, which may make the difference in student performances (Vogt, Hocevar, and Hagedorn, 2007). In engineering classrooms and lecture halls, faculty may or may not realize the critical role they play in a student's decision to persist in engineering studies. Undoubtedly, classroom dynamics may exert tremendous influence on students' academic persistence or willingness to sustain the necessary effort to excel in their subjects (Goodman Research Group, 2002; Seymour, 1995; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Vogt, Hocevar, and Hagedorn, 2007). In Seymour and Hewitt's book (1997), the high attrition rates for science, math, and engineering students are linked to the intimidating nature of the classroom, the dullness of the lecture model, and inadequate faculty guidance. While many faculty members may disagree that they are overtiy discouraging some students, very subde and often undetectable behaviors may have a negative effect on students (Astin and Astin, 1992; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Vogt, Hocevar, and Hagedorn, 2007).

Astin and Astin (1992) were among the first to document that schools of higher education treat students differendy. Astin and Astin further documented that student interaction with faculty often has positive effects on student development, involvement, and retention; however, it was also found that this conventional wisdom was not true for engineering students. Specifically, greater interaction with engineering faculty may not have the same positive effect on engineering students simply because these interactions are less likely to be perceived as positive. Further, Serex (1997) identified males and females in education and nursing programs (i.e., female-dominated professions), who regardless of gender, unanimously felt the classes had a "warm" atmosphere. Conversely, in this study, both males and females in accounting and engineering rated their classrooms as "cooler".

"Chilly" environments may have an efficient but not necessarily supportive function. If we consider the alternative to traditional college lecture halls, collaborative learning research has highlighted the distance between faculty and students in institutions of higher education, where the detached and impersonal lecture style remains the norm (Goodsell, Maher, and Tinto, 1992). This might create a set of classroom dynamics which may thwart persistence for less efficacious students as compared to one which fosters academic growth and persistence.

Incentive for this paper originated when conducting gender research in engineering. In the pre-and-post-survey interviews, both young men and women spoke out and indicated dieir majors were, at times, academically overwhelming, and faculty support was not forthcoming. Therefore, the former research study was modified to highlight the importance of faculty approachability not only for females but for all students in engineering programs. Finally, suggestions will be given to engineering faculty to address potential shortcomings in their interactions with students.

A. Conceptual Framework-A Social Cognitive Model

To frame this study in a grounded body of research, Bandura's Social Cognitive Model (1986) provided the theoretical basis. Bandura's Model (1986) classifies these three self-referent constructs: environment, self, and behaviors as self-reinforcing, symbiotic, and dynamically changing. Encompassing a holistic perspective, it includes the objective characteristics of a setting, the behaviors of the participants, and the participants' subjective experience and the interpretation of events, which in this paper focuses on students' interactions with professors in an engineering classroom.