1. What is the Effect of Establishing
Programs that Address Sense of Belonging
on Undergraduate Engineering Retention?
Frontiers in Education Conference
October, 2015
Dr. Eugene Judson ∙Ms. Bethany Smith ∙ Mr. John Ernzen ∙ Dr. James Middleton
∙ Dr. Stephen Krause ∙ Dr. Robert J Culbertson
Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering & Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
Arizona State University
Supported by National Science Foundation Grant No.
1226586

2. Why is There a Need to Address Sense of Belonging in Engineering?
Engineering 2-Year Persistence and 4-Year & 6-Year Graduation Rates
2007 Cohort: 50% depart in first 2 years and 8% depart in last 4 years
OR 85% departure of all leavers occur in first 2 years and 15% in last 4 years
Conclusions: Strong need for increase in evidence-based retention interventions
Effectiveness of innovations may begin to be assessed after 2 years
First Time
Freshman
2-Year Persistence
Rate
4-Year
Graduation Rate
6-Year
Graduation Rate
1998 644 45% 11% 34%
2004 765 50% 18% 38%
2007 720 50% 26% 42%
2009 890 57% 32% NA
2011 1197 58% NA NA
2014 2450 NA NA NA
2

3. How Does 2-Year Persistence Correlate to 6-Year Graduation Rate?
Conclusions: 2-year persistence is a good predictor of 6-year graduation rate
Significant differences exist between disciplines 3

4. 2007: A New Suite of Strategies
• Co-Curricular Experiences (research opportunities,
engineering camp, professional societies)
• Course Curricular Experiences (two mandatory
introductory courses focused on study skills and
beginning design)
• Student Support Programs (residential community,
tutoring center, undergraduate teaching assistants)
• Purpose: To keep status quo in retention, in spite
of increasing enrollment

5. Research Question and Methods
• What is the effect of establishing programs
that address sense of belonging?
• We focused on 2-year retention
– High correlation with graduation
– Using ASU online database, examined . . .
• entire engineering student body, then
• by gender
• by ethnicity

6. 2-Year Engineering Retention
47.7% Retained 2 Years
1998 - 2006
Freshmen
Freshmen
Freshmen
56.5% Retained 2 Years
2007 - 2014
Freshmen
Freshmen Freshmen

7. 26.3% Graduated in Engineering
within 4 Years, 1998 - 2006
Freshmen
Freshmen
Freshmen
39.2% Graduated in Engineering
within 4 Years, 2007 - 2010
Freshmen
Freshmen
Freshmen
4-Year Engineering Graduation Rate

8. 34.9% Graduated in
Engineering within 6 Years,
1998 - 2006
Freshmen
Freshmen
Freshmen
43.5% Graduated in
Engineering within 6 Years,
2007 & 2008
Freshmen
Freshmen
Freshmen
6-Year Engineering Graduation Rate

9. 2-Year Retention, Overall
Retention in engineering at ASU has
been increasing since 1998.

10. Before Reforms
Retention rate was on the rise during
these years at a rate of 0.9% per year.

11. After Reforms
The rate of increasing retention rose
to an average of 1.6% per year.

12. Before Reforms, By Gender
The rate of retention was 0.6%/year for women
and 1.0%/year for men.

13. After Reforms, By Gender
The rate of retention growth increased for males
(1.0% to 1.9% per year) but stayed the same for
females (0.6% per year).

14. Before Reforms, By Ethnicity
The growth in retention rates were similar for
both groups. Overall retention for URMs
(underrepresented minorities) was consistently
lower than that of Asian and White students.

15. After Reforms, By Ethnicity
Average increase in retention grew by about
0.4% per year for both groups. The gap in the
retention rates, however, did not close.

16. Conclusions
• 2007 strategies seem to have increased the rate at
which retention is growing
– Increased retention has been paralleled by rising
graduation rates
– Simultaneous with growing class size
• Possible future investigation: different effects
across the subgroups
– Large jump for males, little to no effect for females?
– Did not close or shrink retention gap between minority
groups?

17. Thanks for listening!