Outcomes of engaging engineering undergraduates in co-curricular experiences

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Burt, Brian A ^a   Carpenter, Donald D ^b   Finelli, Cynthia J ^a   Harding, Trevor Scott ^c   Sutkus, Janel ^d   Holsapple, Matthew ^a   Bielby, Robert M ^a   Ra, Eunjong ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b Lawrence Technological University ^*  (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATES; LEADERSHIP SKILLS; STUDENT PERSISTENCES;

STUDENTS;

EID: 85029089930     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21535965     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four Critical Years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Kezar, A. (2006) Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 149-172.
6. Pike, G.R., Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R.M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students' involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education. 44, 241-261.
7. Umbach, P.D, & Wawrynski, M.R., (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-183.
8. Chen, H.L., Lattuca, L.R., & Hamilton, E.R. (2008). Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of faculty to student engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 339-353.
9. Heller, R.S., Beil, C., Dam, K., Haerum, B., (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 253-261.
10. Ohland, M.W., Sheppard, S.D, Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R.A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of College Student Development, 97(3), 259-278.
11. Harper, S. R. (2005). Leading the way: Inside the experiences of high achieving African American male students. About Campus, 10(1), 8-15.
12. Kuh, G. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-20.
13. Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. (2008). Promoting persistence and success of underrepresented students: Lessons for teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 21-38.
14. 14. Pascarella, E.T., (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research. 50(4), 545-595.
15. Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of College Student Development, 94(1), 87-101.
16. Reason, R.D. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 659-682.
17. Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., Montgomery, S. M., & Passow, H. J. (2006). Engineering students' perceptions of and attitudes towards cheating. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 181-194.
18. Harding, T. S., Carpenter, D. D., Finelli, C. J., & Passow, H. J. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 311-324.
19. Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. M., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007).The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in humanities and engineering undergraduates. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 255-279.
20. Passow, H. J., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students' decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 643-684.