1. Bryce E. Hughes, Juan C. Garibay, Sylvia Hurtado, & Kevin Eagan UCLA American Educational Research Association San Francisco, CA May 1, 2013 1

2. National Academy of Engineering (2011) report Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering Wave of retirements “U.S. has one of the lowest rates of graduation of bachelor level engineers in the world: only 4.5% of our university graduates are engineers” (p. ix). Tremendous infrastructural and environmental challenges Despite its national import, much is still unknown about the factors that influence engineering completion 2

3. Student characteristics and precollege experiences Self-efficacy Academic preparation Knowledge of and exposure to engineering (from parents and others) Aspirations and commitment to an engineering career Classroom experiences Teacher-centered practices: Lectures, grading on a curve, individual-based work Student-centered pedagogy: Active learning strategies, collaborative work, design- and problem-based learning 3

4. Practices and Programs in Engineering (ASEE, 2012) : Internships and cooperative experiences Research opportunities Retention programs for URMs Financial assistance Institutional Contexts (For STEM students) Size, selectivity, private, and Minority-Serving Institutions Peer normative context Previous research models on engineering student success have yet to account for these contexts 4

5. To identify institutional contexts that contribute to engineering degree completion within five years of college entry. Identify contexts that “derail” engineering aspirants from the engineering track and improve the use of “evidence-based” approaches 5

6. Longitudinal Data on Engineering Aspirants Data Sources: 2004 Freshman Survey Completion data from National Student Clearinghouse 2007 & 2010 HERI Faculty Survey STEM Best Practices Survey – administered to STEM deans and department chairs at our participating campuses IPEDS Sample: 15,913 first-time, full-time engineering aspirants across 270 institutions Analysis: Multinomial HGLM (HLM software) 6

7. Dependent Variable (measured five years after college entry): Engineering completion compared to: Bachelor’s completion in non-engineering field No bachelor’s degree completion-includes students still enrolled (major not known) 7

8. Independent variables Background characteristics Pre-college preparation and experiences Aspirations and expectations Intended major Aggregate peer effects Institutional characteristics Faculty contextual measures Best practices in STEM 8

9. Dependent Variable Completed engineering degree in five years35.2% Completed degree in other field24.6% Did not complete40.1% Demographics Sex: Female16.88% American Indian1.63% Asian/Pacific Islander13.93% Black8.91% Latino/a7.13% Other race1.52% White66.88% 9

10. Institutional context Control: Private+ Undergraduate FTE+ % STEM faculty engaging undergrads in research+ Avg. STEM faculty score on student-centered pedagogy- Student-level variables Parent employed as engineer+ Sex: Female- Aeronautical/astronautical engineering (ref: mechanical)- Chemical engineering- Computer engineering- Electrical/electronics engineering- Industrial engineering- Other engineering- 10

11. Institutional Context Control: Private+ Undergraduate FTE+ % STEM faculty engaging undergrads in research+ Selectivity+ Avg. STEM faculty score on student-centered pedagogy- Student-level variables Sex: Female+ Parent employed as engineer+ American Indian, Latino/a (ref: White)- Doctoral degree aspiration- Civil engineering+ Aeronautical/astronautical engineering (ref: mechanical)- Computer engineering- 11

12. Non-engineeringNo completion Hispanic-Serving Institution+ Black students (ref: White)-- Black students at HBCUs++ Civil engineering (ref: mechanical)n.s. Other engineering- 12

13. Institutional context matters Driven by mission, affects college’s level of resources Minority-serving institutions continue to meet a crucial need Faculty efforts can aggregate into cultural influences on student outcomes Disaggregating by engineering field informs how differences in culture and coursework affect student outcomes Students may also “go pro” early in some fields 13

14. Individual colleges are uniquely positioned to graduate engineers Understanding this position better informs practice and policy Future research should address the influence of context for community college and transfer students Parsing out micro-, meso-, and macrolevel institutional influences provides a more complete picture of an institution’s degree productivity Degree completion is influenced by institutional mission as well as department-level differences 14

15. 15

16. 16 This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05, the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant 1RC1GM090776-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors. Papers and reports are available for download from project website: http://heri.ucla.edu/nih Project e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu Faculty/Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Mitchell Chang Kevin Eagan Postdoctoral Scholars: Josephine Gasiewski Administrative Staff: Dominique Harrison Tanya Figueroa Gina Garcia Graduate Research Assistants: Juan Garibay Bryce Hughes