presentation slides - College of Engineering

The Role of ‘Doggedness’ in the Completionof an Undergraduate Degree in EngineeringJanice McCain, Ph.D.*Lorraine Fleming, Ph.D.Dawn Williams, Ph.D.Kimarie Engerman, Ph.D.Howard UniversityPresented at the ASEE Annual Conference and ExpositionHonolulu, HawaiiJune 27, 2007

Background• APS Data Collected from Four Institutions:• Public/ Private• Research/ Technical Orientation• Size of Student Population• Ratio of Male to Female Students

Introduction• Research over the past 15 years has shown that the interestin pursuing undergraduate degrees in engineering hasdeclined.• Research focuses on factors used to predict the likelihoodthat a student will successfully complete an undergraduatedegree in engineering.• There is a lack of research and discussion pertaining to thesignificance of characteristics that can be described as‘doggedness’.

Methodology• Subset of the larger APS sample used to assess levels ofcommitment, persistence, and satisfaction• Second year study participants were asked open andclosed-ended questions• Data from structured interviews were analyzedqualitatively• A ‘within case’ analysis was used to provide a snapshot ofcharacteristics that demonstrate doggedness in the sample

What is Doggedness?• Doggedness entails perseverance, tenacity, and theability to stubbornly adhere to a course of action.• It holds the potential promise of pointing to avaluable personality attribute or characteristic thatsupports greater levels of persistence inengineering students.

How Doggedness wasDetermined• Primary evidence for doggedness was revealed bystudent responses in two areas:– level of commitment– persistence• Enjoyment and satisfaction were used assecondary measures for doggedness to assesswhether or not they are important factors, and todetermine the range of responses for persisters.

How committed are you topursuing an engineering major?YEAR 12004YEAR 22005YEAR 32006Freq%Freq%Freq%Very Committed2745.04981.65286.7Somewhat Committed2745.0813.3610.0Not Very Committed23.300.023.3Not Committed11.711.700.0Invalid Response23.311.700.0No Response00.011.700.0Don’t Know11.700.000.0n = 60100%n = 60100%n = 60100%

How committed are you topursuing an engineering major?And why?• Students displayed a range of responses to “why”they selected a particular level of commitment• The intensity of their persistence stood out• Examples of student responses include:“I've gone too far to turn back now'; “I've put in alot of work and there's no reason to back outwhatsoever right now”; and “I'm in too deep toleave and, even though its very hard right now, Ithink it will pay off in the end”

Three types of 'dogged''students• Unyielding Persister• Intense Goal Setter• Economic Rationalizer

Unyielding Persister• Brian, a male petroleum engineering major:During his second year, he indicated that he wasvery committed to getting a degree in engineering.He pointed to the number of times that he had toretake some of his courses, and his insistence that“I will stay here as many years as I have to, to getmy petroleum degree”, as testimony to hispersistence. In the end, he declared, “if I wasn’tcommitted then I wouldn’t be here”.

Economic Rationalizers• Philip, a male management science and engineering major, said thatthere was “a practical reason for being very committed to completingthe major in engineering”. If he were to change majors, he predictedthat he “would be in school for another four years”. In addition, hesaid that he really enjoyed his classes related to engineering, andpredicts that he will enjoy the companies that he plans to work for inthe future.• Steven, a male mechanical engineering major. Steven allowed time toexplore courses in political science, philosophy, and history in themidst of a very demanding engineering program. Engaging in othersubjects allowed him to determine that he “would never want to dothose majors” and stated that “at this point in my school career, I’mnot changing majors [because] my parents are not going to pay for afifth year in college and I wouldn’t finish anything at that pointanyhow”. He concluded by adding, “when I looked at all the differentmajors I could possibly pursue at school, engineering was the only onethat really appealed to me”.

Enjoyment and Satisfaction• During the structured interview,students were asked, “Are there anyaspects of engineering that youparticularly like?” and “Are there anyaspects of engineering that youparticularly dislike?”• Questions probed specific features ofengineering programs that studentsexperience.

ResponsesLikes: A greater frequency of students stated theyliked their engagement in problem solving and thedesign aspects of their courseworkDislikes: The quantity of work, associated stress, andthe considerable amount of time required to carryout class assignmentsThe subset of very committed and persistent students,when reviewing level of program enjoyment, left afairly unchanged group of respondents called'dogged'.

Future Plans of DoggedEngineering StudentsPlansShort Term PlanLong Term PlanWork in EngineeringGraduate School in EngineeringUncertainTravel/ Take Time OffEngineering ManagementWork in Non-Engineering%45.222.612.911.36.54.8%17.18.10.00.03.21.6

FINDINGS• A small but identifiable group of dogged engineering students wasfound in the structured interview segment of the study• High levels of commitment, persistence, and satisfaction are conveyedacross the spectrum of engineering majors• Doggedness is a characteristic that develops and increases with time• Students identified as dogged exhibited varying levels of enjoymentand satisfaction. Students that primarily enjoyed experiencesassociated with pursuing their engineering degrees were more intent onworking in the engineering industry

Conclusion• Continued effort needs to be made to promotegraduate education among engineering degreerecipients• To increase the number of engineering studentsentering graduate school, undergraduate programcoordinators need to address some of the aspectsof the program that students dislike.

References• 1. French, B.F., J.C. Immekus and W.C. Oakes (2005). An Examination ofIndicators of Engineering Students’ Success and Persistence. Journal of EngineeringEducation, October 2005; 94, 4, pp. 419-425.• 2. Swail, W. S. (with Redd, K. E. and Perna, L. W.). (2003). Retaining MinorityStudents in Higher Education: A Framework for Success. ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 2. Washington, DC: The George Washington University,School of Education and Human Development.• 3. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. (2006). What matters tostudent success: A review of the literature. Commissioned report for the NationalSymposium on Post Secondary Student Success: Spearheading a dialogue on studentsuccess.• 4. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures ofStudent Attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.• 5. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Entry and Persistence ofWomen and Minorities in College Science and Engineering Education. U.S.Department of Education.• 6. Deci, E.L. and R.M. Ryan. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determinationin Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.• 7. Eccles, J. S. and A. Wigfield. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals.Annual Review of Psychology; 2002; 53, Research Library, pp. 109-132.• 8. Seymour, E. and N. Hewitt. (1997). Talking About Leaving: WhyUndergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Colorado.

Acknowledgements• This material is based on work supported by theNational Science Foundation under Grant No.ESI-0227558, which funds the Center for theAdvancement of Engineering Education (CAEE).• We would also like to acknowledge the researchcontributions of Dr. Karen Bland, Andrene Taylor,M.A., and our undergraduate research assistants.