Modeling Engineering Retention and Reflections on Strategies for Success

I was pleased to read the current issue of the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) and Will Tyson’s article “Modeling Engineering Degree Attainment and Achievement Using High School and College Physics and Calculus Coursetaking and Achievement”. In his article, he cited my research on engineering student retention, both my JEE article “ Is the Modeling of Freshman Engineering Success Different from Modeling of Non-engineering Success? “ and my Advances in Engineering Education article “ Model for Freshman Engineering Retention” . Both papers were co-authored with university leaders on student success, Professors Eric Dey and Gary Herrin (also past associate dean of engineering) of the University of Michigan.

In researching the modeling of freshman engineering retention, I found there were nine pillars for student success . This is discussed in the AEE paper and includes substantial literature review tables in the appendix.  Here is a link to a brief explanation of the Model. http://www.veenstraconsulting.com/veenstra-model.php

Tyson’s paper recognizes the importance of the Veenstra model and further expands on the pattern of course taking of Calculus and Physics courses both in high school and early college for success as engineering majors. His research showed that “achievement in specific courses explains grades earned in college physics and calculus prerequisite courses.” However, he concluded that there was “no uniform effect of academic integration on engineering degree attainment.” Tyson did not discuss the effect of inadequate financial aid but significantly his conclusions included that students who started at community colleges taking courses required for an engineering major, “were as likely as university course takers to continue in engineering.” For developing strategies degree completion for students from low income families, this is a significant research finding.

Importance of Advising
In my research, I looked at the achievement success of students through the Calculus sequence (I,II,III) . Basically, if a student understands and has learned the concepts of Calculus I, he/she is more likely to do well in Calculus II or III. On the other hand, the evidence was clear that students who earned low grades in Calculus I were much more likely to drop out or earn a “C” or lower in Calculus II. Each course builds on the knowledge of the previous course. The Physics I course can also build on the knowledge of Calculus depending on how it is taught. My data and data of other researchers show significant evidence of the importance of correct placement of students into the first semester courses in the freshman engineering program. Even AP Calculus students must be placed in the appropriate first semester course. If a student is not ready for Calculus II even though she took AP Calculus AB in high school, she will do better academically in the first two years, if she enrolls in Calculus I. As one might expect, advisors get resistance from students on this placement issue. The advisory center and associated faculty must continually improve the university’s placement tests and place students into the appropriate course. We grow STEM graduates one student at a time, starting with advising based on best practices for the first semester.

STEM College-Ready and Generating Interest in STEM
As my model suggests, there are a number of factors that lead to graduation; graduation success if multivariate. Students with good preparation in high school have a higher success rate with the transition to engineering college and get a good start in engineering. We need to ensure that all high school graduates are STEM major college-ready, i.e. are ready for Calculus and science courses. We are very far from this goal today but many school districts and states are beginning to address this concern. For those who are not college-ready, we need positive programs and good advising to encourage students in a course taking  pathway that will work for them. We must adopt the ideas of lean manufacturing and develop lean approaches for helping students be successful in their college career. By this I mean, remove roadblocks where students need to visit several offices- streamline the process so the student makes an easy transition, understands what is expected and is less stressed out by large campuses. Continue to encourage the student.

As had been discussed substantially in the research journals on engineering education, we must also have generated the interest in STEM careers, both in K12 and continuing in college through speakers, activities like a solar car competition and through internships. We need more partnerships between engineering colleges and industry. As more and more research is published on engineering retention, it is clear we need to look at the transition from P-12 to engineering college as a P-16 school system and provide more collaboration between high school and universities.

Revised Publication Page

Our Publication Page has been recently revised; new format, new focus, more research --Check it out for research on helping students succeed in their college studies and especially the first year of college. Includes publications using Baldrige systems thinking and Hoshin planning.

http://www.veenstraconsulting.com/publications.php

 

Cindy

 

Improvement in High School Completion in Math and Science

This past Thursday (April 21) the Washington Post published an article “CEOs Warn of Subpar School Standards.” authored by Ben Wolfgang. In the article, it is reported that the “Change the Equation” organization of educators and CEOs of major American companies had conducted a survey and found that “while students in many schools meet the benchmarks set by their states, those thresholds fall far below national levels set by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Education Program(NAEP)."

The last NAEP testing was conducted in 2009 of 4th, 8th and 12th graders. Since CEO’s are interested in recruiting new workers, let’s limit this discussion to the 12th grade results. How bad is it? The average scores for math and reading were significantly higher than the scores in 2005; however only 38% were proficient in reading and 26% in math. For the 2009 NAEP testing, 21% of the students were considered proficient in science.

This is not exactly encouraging. However what we must keep in mind is that improvement is occurring. It needs to continue at a much higher rate, else the warning by the CEO’s is valid: “U.S. schools have set a standard for their students that‘s too low and that subpar expectations put the country in danger of falling even further behind other nations in reading and math proficiency.” (Add also science).

This month the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) published a report related to the NAEP testing: “America’s High School Graduates: Results for the 2009 NAEP High School Transcript Study”. It looked at the transcripts from a random sample of 2009 high school graduates and had some promising findings and  conclusions:
• On the average, the 2009 graduates enrolled in 3 more credits than 1990 graduates.
• From 2005 to 2009, the percent of high school graduates completing Algebra II has increased from 78% to 84%
• From 2005 to 2009, the percent of high school graduates completing Pre-Calculus has increased from 30% to 35% and in Calculus, from 14% to 17%.

The increase in enrollment in math courses is good news; however due to the competitive nature of college and especially of the STEM courses; and considering the course speed, we need to encourage more high school students to enroll in {and be successful] in pre-calculus and calculus.
• From 2005 to 2009, the percent of high school graduates completing advanced biology has increased from 40% to 45%.
• From 2005 to 2009, the percent of high school graduates completing chemistry has increased significantly from 56% to 70%.
• From 2005 to 2009, the percent of high school graduates completing physics has increased from 36% to 39%.
• From 2005 to 2009, the percent of high school graduates completing technical courses such as engineering or computer science has decreased slightly from 31.9 to 31.1%.

It is encouraging that 70% of the graduates enrolled in chemistry; however more need to be enrolled in physics. It is also encouraging that we are making significant progress especially for the mid-level math courses.

The report indicated that those graduates who participated in a rigorous curriculum or AP course in math or science, on the average tended to score as proficient in math or science. These students will be well-prepared for college. With the national goal of 60% of young adults earning a college degree (based on economic growth and more than 50% of new jobs requiring a college degree -see Lumina Foundation website), the CEOs are correct in raising a warning.

A summary of the report is available at http://nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_2009/summary.asp

Cindy

Time for Reflection on Strategic Planning for Student Success

As the winter semester draws to a close with finals week, it is a time for reflection for administrators and faculty for improving student success processes for next year. Here are five questions that may be useful.

1) What processes went right and what processes need to be improved? How can we better measure them?
2) What curricula changes are needed?
3) What training is needed to help faculty engage more with students in their classrooms and to use quality tools to help them assess how well students are learning? How can technology be used more effectively in the classroom?
4) What student support functions need to be reviewed and improved?
5) How do we design a seamless and integrated approach to student success? How do we help freshmen and transfer students with their transition? As a first impression, do students see our staff as helpful or as a maze of offices to visit? How do we help upperclassmen complete their degree?

Cindy

Competing Objectives in Higher Education:International Students

I opened the Chronicle of Higher Education today and found an interesting article “Commerce Dept. Takes Greater Role in Promoting U.S. Higher Education Overseas” (April 3).   Fifty-six American colleges from Columbia University to the University of Texas will send their staff to Indonesia and North and South Vietnam to establish educational partnerships with universities in these countries, for the purpose of recruiting more international students. This effort is being organized by the Commerce Department. Francisco Sanchez, under-secretary of commerce is quoted as “Education is one of our most valuable exports”.

In a related commentary by Sanchez, “No Better Export: Higher Education”, educating students from Indonesia is seen as a long term benefit to U.S. companies as they look for U.S. educated professionals  who have returned to these countries to establish a strong business presence.  Sanchez also states that the international students pay full tuition and this “opens opportunities for more American students to receive financial aid and scholarships” and that from his perspective, this is part of a strategy as President Obama stated in his State of the Union address to “ out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world”.

One reason universities like international students is because they do pay the higher out-of-state tuition and are often the cream of the crop students in their countries, so they tend to do well in the college classrooms. However, they tend to stay in the U.S. for graduate work and compete directly with American students for fellowships, assistantships and financial aid. In all U.S. engineering colleges , 58% of the 2008 Ph.D. graduates were international. In many engineering programs, this percentages is much higher so that the American students really are a minority (Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, ASEE).
What is being ignored here is that there are a limited number of seats in the college classrooms. For every international student who is accepted, another American student is sent a reject letter, not admitting them to the same college, or forcing them to attend a college that does not offer the same quality of a program the student was interested in. The competition is real. National leaders along with a number of foundations like the Lumina Foundation are supporting the educational goal of 55-60% of the traditional college age students completing a college degree. This number is currently at about 41% and has been consistently in this range for a number of years.    To “out-educate” means to educate American students(not international students) , so that they can provide the innovation needed for the economic success of the U.S.   (This is not a suggestion that we should not admit international students)

At the same time, as reported by the Chronicle (April 1) in the article, “Elite Colleges Fail to Gain More Students on Pell Grants”, the same elite universities that are exploring international partnerships are not recruiting low-income American students at the rate they should. Pell grants are awarded to students whose families have a low income. Here are some examples of the percent of students on Pell grants from the colleges participating in the Commerce Department’s international program and also with some of the largest endowments: Columbia University 15%, Penn State University, 15%, and Indiana University 13%.

Where should our priorities be for recruiting students?

Would not the efforts at the Commerce Department be better placed to help colleges and universities improve their graduation completion rates by devoting the same amount of effort to promoting the systems thinking of the Baldrige Program for Excellence at these 56 universities? See http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/enter/education.cfm for more information on the Baldrige program.