Engineering undergraduate attrition and contributing factors

International Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 929-940

  Haag, Susan ^a   Hubele, Norma ^a   Garcia, Antonio ^a   McBeath, Karen ^a  

^a Arizona State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Advising; Assessment; Culture; Curriculum; Education; Engineering; Faculty; Persistence; Retention

Indexed keywords

EID: 36348987698     PISSN: 0949149X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. P. Wankat and F. Oreovicz, Starting with square one, Prism, 15(3), 2005, p. 46.
2. E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press (2000)
3. E. Seymour, The problem iceberg in science, mathematics and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates, J. College Science Teaching, February 1992, p. 230-232.
4. A. P. Sanoff, Competing forces, Prism, 15(2), 2005, p. 26-29.
5. National Academy of Engineers (N.A.E.), Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2005).
6. S. Brainard and L. Carlin, A longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science, in Frontiers in Engineering Education, 1997.
7. M. Loftus, Lending a hand, Prism, 14(5), 2005, p. 25-29.
8. E. Seymour, Tracking the process of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 1, 2001, pp. 79-105.
9. E. Seymour, Undergraduate problems with teaching and advising in SME majors: explaining gender differences in attrition rates, J. College Science Teaching, March/April 1992, pp. 284-292.
10. Seymour and Hewitt (1997).
11. Hewitt and Seymour (1991).
12. M. Cronin and E. Scott, Crow leads forum on K-12 costs, in Arizona Republic, 2005, Phoenix.
13. M. Jensen et al., Helping graduate teaching assistants lead discussions with undergraduate students, J. College Science Teaching, 344(7), 2005, pp. 20-24.
14. A. L. Gardner, C. L. Mason and M. L. Matyas, Equity, excellence and just plain good teaching, The American Biology Teacher, 51(2), 1989, pp. 72-77.
15. J. Robst, J. Keil, and D. Russo, The effect of gender composition of faculty on student retention, Economics, 17(4), 1998, pp. 429-439.
16. A. W. Astin, What Matters in College? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1993).
17. R.C, Women in Science and Engineering: Increasing their Numbers in the 1990s, 1991, National Resource Council: Washington, DC, pp. 7-27.
18. Women in Engineering Program Advocates (WEPAN), Statistical Information, 1998. http://www.wepan.org
19. S. Reeve, J. W. Hammond and W. S. Bradshaw, Inquiry in the large-enrollment science classroom: Simulating a research investigation, J. College Science Teaching, 14(1), 2004, pp. 44-48.
20. S. Swarat et al., Opening the gateway: Increasing minority student retention in introductory science courses, J. College Science Teaching, 34(1), 2004, pp. 18-23.
21. P. Wankat and F. Oreovicz, Teaching prospective engineering faculty how to teach, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 21(5), 2005, pp. 925-930.
22. A. W. Astin, K. C. Green and W. S. Korn, The American Freshman: Twenty Year Trends, UCLA: Higher Education Research Institute (1987).
23. A. W. Astin et al., The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1988, UCLA Higher Education Research Institute (1988).
24. A. C. Green, A profile of undergraduates in the sciences, The American Scientist, September/October 1989, pp. 475-480.
25. J. L. Melsa, The 'L' word, Prism, 14(6), 2005, p. 60.
26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Standards for School Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, The Council, Reston, VA (1989).
27. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson and M. B. Stanne, Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-analysis (2000).
28. L. Springer, M. E. Stanne and S. S. Donovan, Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 1999, pp. 21-51.
29. S. Ender and F. Newton, Students Helping Students: A Guide for Peer Educators on College Campuses, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (2000).
30. M. Loftus, Circle of support Prism, 15(2), 2005, pp. 42-43.
31. V. Tinto, Colleges as communities: taking research on student persistence seriously, The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 1998, pp. 167-177.
32. R. F. Yuretich, Encouraging critical thinking. J. College Science Teaching, 33(3) 2004, pp. 40-45.
33. Felder and Brent, 1996, Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction, College Teaching, 44, pp. 43-47.
34. D. B. Kaufman, R. M. Felder and H. Fuller, Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. J. Eng. Educ., 89(2), 2000, pp. 133-140.
35. E. Ingram et al., Fostering inquiry in nonlaboratory settings, J. College Science Teaching, 34(1), 2004, pp. 39-43.
36. Vivas and Allada, Enhancing engineering education using thematic case-based learning, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 22(2), 2006, pp. 236-246.
37. K. A. Smith et al., Pedagogies of engagement:classroom-based practices, J. Eng. Educ., 94(1), 2005, pp. 87-101.
38. G. Hadgraft, Problem-based learning: A vital step towards a new work environment, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 14(1), 1998, pp. 14-23.
39. M. Nesbit et al., A design and assessment-based introductory engineering course, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 21(3), 2005, pp. 434-445.
40. G. W. Ellis, A. N. Rudnitsky and G. E. Scordilis, Finding meaning in the classroom: Learner-Centered approaches that engage students in engineering. Int. J. Eng. Educ., 21(6), 2005, pp. 1148-1158.
41. D. Grasso, K. M. Callahan and S. Doucett, Defining engineering thought, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 20(3), 2004, pp. 412-415.
42. J. Dohn, D. W. Pepper and E. Sandgren, Creating innovative curricula: developing new programs with new paradigms, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 21(2), 2005, pp. 233-238.
43. F. G. Splitt, Engineering education reform: Signs of progress, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 20(6) 2004, pp. 1005-1011.
44. L. L. West, Effective Strategies for Dropout Prevention of At-Risk Youth, Aspen, MD: Gaithersburg (1991) Ch. 11.
45. P. Wankat and F. Oreovicz, A perfect 10, Prism, 14(1), 2004, p. 48.
46. J. Alper, The pipeline is leaking women all the way along, Science, 260, 1993, pp. 409-411.
47. P. A. Rosati and L. M. Becker, Student perspectives on engineering, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 12(4), 1996, pp. 250-256.
48. L. Gafney, The role of the research mentor/tearcher, J. College Science Teaching, 14(4), 2005. pp. 52-56.
49. B. A. Nagda et al., Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention, Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 1998, pp. 55-72.
50. National Science Foundation (NSF), Government Statistics, 2006 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/.