1. Two Time-Effective Strategies to Improve Undergraduate Retention in Engineering Tricia Berry, Director Women in Engineering Program (WEP) The University of Texas at Austin October 26, 2012 Tricia Berry

2. WEPAN 2012-2013 Webinar Series Host: Diane Matt, Executive Director, WEPAN, Women in Engineering ProActive Network Co-Host: Susan Staffin Metz, ENGAGE Project Principal Investigator, Stevens Institute of Technology Presenter: Tricia Berry, Director Women in Engineering Program (WEP), The University of Texas at Austin Moderator: Shawna Fletcher, Interim Director, Women in Engineering Program, The Ohio State University

3. 3 General Info and Q&A The webinar uses Voice Over Internet. If your sound quality is not good, a teleconference line is available: Phone: +1 (646) 307-1726, Access Code: 841-997-976 Audio Pin: Check your screen once you dial in. Participant microphones are muted for quality. Undock, expand “Questions” pane in control panel. Stay with us if we are temporarily disconnected. Download PowerPoint and link to recorded webinar at www.wepan.org > Webinars.www.wepan.org

4. About WEPAN www.wepan.org www.wepan.org Core Purpose: To propel higher education to increase the number and advance the prominence of diverse communities of women in engineering. Core Values: Knowledge, Collaboration, Inclusion and Leadership 700 members from 200 engineering schools, corporations, government and non-profits Support WEPAN’s work! Become a member and make a donation at www.wepan.orgwww.wepan.org

5. WEPAN Knowledge Center http://wepanknowledgecenter.org http://wepanknowledgecenter.org Goal: Increase the number, scope and effectiveness of initiatives to advance women in engineering. Catalogued and fully cited resources-1,300+ Research, reports, data and statistics, agenda papers, bibliographies, best practices, Online Professional Community Network, collaborate, identify experts, share information

6. 6 Co-Host: Susan Staffin Metz, ENGAGE Project Principal Investigator, Stevens Institute of Technology

7. Extension Service Project funded by NSF Program for Research on Gender in Science & Engineering (GSE)  Modeled after the Cooperative Extension Services of Land Grant Universities  Extending a successful product or strategy to a community who will benefit from the strategy Unique opportunity to take research off the shelf and put it into practice. 7

8. Project Goal To increase the capacity of engineering schools to retain undergraduate students (1 st and 2 nd year) by facilitating the implementation of research-based strategies to improve the educational experience. 8

9. Arizona State Cal State, Fullerton Cal Poly Pomona Clarkson Cornell CU Boulder Drexel Embry Riddle Harding Johns Hopkins Kettering Louisiana Tech Manhattan College 9 Missouri U NJIT NYIT NC State Ohio State Purdue Rose Hulman Santa Clara Stevens Syracuse Tidewater CC U Arizona UC San Diego U Dayton U Delaware U Illinois, Chicago U Louisville U Maryland,College Park U Memphis U New Mexico U Pennsylvania U South Carolina U South Alabama U Texas, Austin U Tennessee, Knoxville U Wisconsin, Platteville Virginia Tech ENGAGE is working with ……….

10. Research-Based Strategies #1 Improve spatial visualization skills of students with weak skills #2 Use everyday examples in engineering to teach technical concepts #3 Improve and increase interaction between faculty and students 10

11. Research Findings: Faculty-Student Interactions Influence Progress and Persistence -American Society for Engineering Education. (2009). Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering. - MentorNet. (2008). Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Need for Mentors as They Progress Through Academic Studies in Engineering and Science. A report to the National Science Foundation. - Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C.M., Branchaw, J., Lauffer, S.M., Handelsman, J. (2006) The Merits of Training Mentors. Science. (311), 473 ‐ 474. 11

12. Faculty benefit too! Students perceive greater accessibility Better learning outcomes from students Saves faculty time in office hours Empower TAs to plan, organize and implement Stronger course evaluations! Gall, K., Knight, D. W., Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (2003, Oct). Making the grade with students: The case for accessibility. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 337-343. Dee, K. C. (2007, Jan). Student Perceptions of High Course Workloads are Not Associated with Poor Student Evaluations of Instructor Performance. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 69-78. 12

13. Two Time Effective Programs That Work to Increase FSI Connections Class Faculty Focus Large and small classes in short timeframe Talk to Me Student Focus Preparing students to interact with faculty 13

14. ENGAGE Faculty-Student Interaction (FSI) Mini-grant Opportunity Objective: To offset expenses associated with first year implementation of an FSI program. Eligibility: Four-year degree granting engineering schools. 2010 and 2011 ENGAGE Schools are not eligible. Application and FAQs: http://www.engageengineering.org/?page=139 $2000 minigrant – application due November 1st

15. 15 www.engageengineering.org/ ?page=139

16. Two Time-Effective Strategies to Improve Undergraduate Retention in Engineering Tricia Berry, Director Women in Engineering Program (WEP) The University of Texas at Austin October 26, 2012 Tricia Berry

17. Poll: Faculty Student Interaction Why don’t faculty have more frequent, high quality interactions with students? –A: Not enough time –B: Difficult to interact with so many students –C: Don’t want to get too close to students –D: Student interaction is not a priority –E: Formal mentoring is too demanding 17

18. Connections Classes Cookies in the Classroom (Cookies Connections Classes) The University of Texas at Austin Cockrell School of Engineering 18

19. Connections Classes Concept Creation ENGAGE team brainstormed how to get faculty to pay attention to faculty-student interaction Created “Cookies in the Classroom” concept Offered pilot in Spring 2011; Fully engaged faculty in Spring 2012; Offered again Fall 2012 19

20. Connections Classes Invitation Process Identify all 1 st & 2 nd year engineering courses Invite faculty to have “Cookies Delivered to Their Classroom” –Includes requirements –Personalized for class, date, time –Mentions ties to college/department goals 20

21. Connections Classes Connections Class Requirements Must be a 1 st or 2 nd year engineering course Must spend at least 20 minutes during one class period sharing information about their research, interests, how they decided to become a professor, hobbies, and/or any other information they feel comfortable with Must send post survey follow-up 21

22. Connections Classes Invitation Example 22

23. Connections Classes Overall Reach – 3 Semesters 44 Total Classes –Spring 2011 – 1 Class –Spring 2012 – 19 Classes –Fall 2012 – 24 Classes 2,286 Total Student Enrollment All Departments Represented –Students from all 8 Majors / 7 Departments –Faculty from 6 Departments 23

24. Connections Classes Impact – Student Post Surveys Total Respondents = 387 –132 (34.1%) Female –255 (65.9%) Male –16.9% Response Rate out of possible 2,286 Total Students Enrolled 24

25. Connections Classes Impact – Student Post Surveys “I learned something new from my instructor during the “Connections Class.” –97% strongly agree or agree; 2% neutral Describe your impressions of your professor during and after the “Connections Class.” 25 –16% - Nice –12% - Interesting –11% - Fun/Funny –7% - Knowledgeable –7% - Cares –6% - Open

26. Connections Classes Impact – Student Post Surveys “There is value in having a “Connections Class.” –94% strongly agree or agree; 5% neutral What value, if any, did you find in the “Connections Class”? –43% - Connection to Professor –22% - Learn about Professor –13% - Career Path –8% - Real World Applications 26 –7% - Interesting –5% - Motivating

27. Connections Classes Impact – Student Post Surveys He seemed passionate about his work and research. This motivates me as a person and as an engineer. After my professor's lecture I decided that I wanted to try to get involved in the program he had mentioned. My professor sparked a new interest for me, I actually started trying to research new technologies used to dispose of toxic waste It showed that the professor had a personality. 27

28. Connections Classes Impact – Student Post Surveys I think it makes the professor more approachable. Honestly, it might make going into office hours a lot less intimidating. You should look into this. I think that there might be some sort of correlation between office hours attendance and these ENGAGE things. I was already planning going, but if it makes a difference at all, I think it would be a small cost to pay for something that could make a pretty big impact. Freaking awesome! 28

29. Connections Classes Impact – Faculty Post Surveys Total Respondents = 8 –3 (38%) Female, 5 (62%) Male –67% response rate out of possible 12 total faculty participants for Fall 2012 –3 (38%) Professor –2 (25%) Associate Professor –1 (13%) Assistant Professor –2 (25%) Lecturer/Senior Lecturer 29

30. Connections Classes Impact – Faculty Post Surveys Items Shared with Students –100% - Work History –88% - Current Research Area / Work –50% - Personal Background –38% - Hobbies –25% - Family Information 30 I think it definitely helped build a better relationship with the students -- it definitely changed their body language towards me, if that makes sense.

31. Connections Classes Impact – Faculty Post Surveys Value of Connections Class –50% - Increased sense of accessibility to students –38% - Improved relationship with students –25% - Added an informal feeling to the class –25% - Value in sharing experiences with students 31 It helped students to see me as a person they could relate to. I think that doing this early in the semester helps with breaking the barrier early on, so that students can then feel more comfortable to ask questions. Feel like my relationship with the students is a little more personal.

32. Connections Classes Future Plans Continue offering to faculty at beginning of each fall and spring semester –Email invite and WEP Faculty Committee invites Incorporating cost into grant proposals Seeking department/school support as an initiative that supports retention Continued assessment and evaluation 32

33. 33

34. Poll: Student Interaction with Faculty Why don’t students engage in interactions with their faculty? – A: Not enough time – B: Not having trouble in class – C: It’s intimidating to approach faculty – D: Don’t know what to say – E: Don’t see the value

35. Talk to Me is for Students Talk to Me piloted in 2010 with 223 students in 5 schools – Facilitator instructional materials, student handouts – Methods of delivery, coaching suggestions – Assessment tools – Funded by grants to WEPAN from the Engineering Information Foundation – 5 pilot schools: The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, Virginia Tech, University of Louisville, Kettering University

36. Talk to Me Pilot Project Results 223 students completed the post-seminar survey 95% felt Somewhat or Very Increased Interest in meeting with professor 88% felt Somewhat or Very Much Increased Confidence in meeting with professor (33% somewhat, 9% not much) 87% indicated they planned to meet with at least one professor 36

39. Talk to Me Toolkit Toolkit Content Presentation PowerPoint –Talk To Me Seminar: Secrets of Success Talk to Me Facilitator's Guide Student Handouts Seminar Evaluation 1 Month Follow-Up Survey 39

40. Talk to Me Toolkit Presentation Content What happens when you talk to professors Misconceptions about talking to professors Starting Points / Talking Points Logistics of setting up a meeting How to make a great first impression What could go wrong 40

41. Talk to Me What did we do? Led workshop for student participants in First- year Interest Groups (FIGs) led by Women in Engineering Program – Fall 2010 –Additional faculty-interaction workshops Fall 2011 and Fall 2012 Logistics: 20 minute presentation, Q&A, survey, follow-on discussion in later FIG session 41

42. Talk to Me What were the Fall 2010 results? 57 students completed the survey 65% felt an increased interest in meeting with their professor (35% somewhat) 58% felt an increased level of confidence to meet with their professor (33% somewhat) 98% indicated they planned to meet with at least one professor 42

43. Talk to Me Future Plans Each WEP FIG offers at least one workshop related to “Talk to Me” content –Faculty panel or faculty guest discussion –Presentation by WEP staff/students on content With 4-year graduation rate increase focus, Cockrell School developed core common FIG curriculum which includes this content 43

44. 44 www.engageengineering.org/ ?page=139

45. Asking Questions and Discussion Participant microphones are muted for webinar quality. Undock and expand the “Questions” pane in the webinar control panel

46. Thank You for Attending We Hope You Enjoyed the Webinar! Links to the PowerPoint and recorded webinar will be posted at www.wepan.org > Webinars.www.wepan.org Share with your colleagues! Survey following the webinar—please respond! Invest in WEPAN—make a donation at www.wepan.org > Donate. www.wepan.org Pay a personal tribute to someone who has made a difference in your life or the lives of others.