Affinity Groups: More Bang For The Buck

Retention of students in engineering programs is an on-going challenge. Many students are lost because of a decline in their interest in engineering, poor faculty pedagogy, or a feeling of isolation. The latter is a problem that is frequently encountered by women or other underrepresented groups in engineering programs. On commuter campuses there are additional challenges as the external environment continues to compete for the time and attention of students. This pull is particularly disruptive when a student is enrolled in a program as rigorous as engineering. Minority students and women often bring different personal and social histories to their college and engineering experience and they may require different persistence strategies. Students with higher levels of self-confidence tend to perform better and remain enrolled. Selfconfidence tends to correlate with other positive indicators of persistence such as higher levels of interest in coursework, positive relationships with faculty, involvement in student societies, seminars, conferences and events, and participating in internships. Research suggests that affinity groups can play a significant role in the persistence of women and minority engineering students by providing exposure to the field as well as opportunities to enhance the self-confidence of the student. Through affinity groups, students forge stronger relationships with faculty and tend to become more involved with the campus. St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley was the first community college in the country to obtain a student chapter in the National Society of Black Engineers. Since doing so in the late nineties, the student chapter has played a significant role in retaining African-American students and attracting new students to the campus. This paper examines the value of this organization, the process for achieving this recognition and the accomplishments of the students over the last five years. Introduction The twenty-first century will be dominated by technological change as the United States economy becomes increasingly dependent on a technically literate workforce. Engineering is one of the careers that will help fuel the engine of economic growth. If the United States is to maintain its technological leadership in this interdependent global economy, it must take advantage of the entire pool of talent that the nation has to offer. Many major corporations now support the thesis that diversity makes good business sense. Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans, however, still remain significantly underrepresented in science and engineering with roughly half of the science and engineering degrees awarded to minority citizens going to Asian Americans. The difficulty of meeting the engineering needs of the U.S. economy is exacerbated by a disturbing trend. Over the past twenty years, there has been an increase in attrition of engineering students. In 1975, the attrition rate for engineering freshmen was 12% and by 1990 it had grown to 24%. Less than half of the students who start college as P ge 871.1 “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2003, American Society for Engineering Education” engineering majors actually graduate with an engineering degree. The attrition for minority students is approximately 70%. Most underrepresented engineering students attend predominantly White institutions where the importance of mentoring relationships to the success of underrepresented constituencies is often underestimated. Although faculty can successfully mentor students across gender and ethnicity lines, there are some clear advantages that accrue when students of color are mentored by faculty of color or female students by female faculty. They can offer evidence of success that can resonate on a personal level. They present proof that diversity and excellence are not mutually exclusive. This advantage, however, cannot be readily achieved using faculty mentors from underrepresented populations, because their numbers are also low. Hispanics account for 3.1% of full-time engineering faculty/staff while African Americans and American Indians account for 2.8% and less than 1% respectively. Without students of color entering science and engineering in representative numbers, there is little chance that there will be an increased presence among faculty. Within the next 50 years, minority students will surpass the number of white students on college campuses. More women currently attend college than men in virtually every ethnic category, yet women are underrepresented and often isolated in mathematics, science and engineering. They are also challenged in finding the role models, academic mentors, and cultural support that could improve persistence. The prospect of significantly increasing the population of minority and female faculty in science and engineering is daunting. The process is both long-range and costly. The greatest cost, however, may be in lost opportunity in motivating underrepresented groups to pursue careers in engineering, mathematics, science, and technology. Astin, Tsui, & Avalos (1996) conclude that persistence in engineering is typically different than persistence in college because of the rigorous demands of the engineering program. Moller-Wong & Eide (1997) determine that switching is a significant factor in the high attrition in engineering. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) examine the reasons that 40% of undergraduates leave engineering programs, 50% leave physics, and 60% leave mathematics. One of the major findings of their research is that students who switch majors do not differ from those who do in the individual attributes of performance, attitude and behavior. The authors offer the following conclusion: Contrary to the common assumption that most switching is caused by personal inadequacy in the face of academic challenge, one strong finding is the high proportion of factors cited as significant in switching decisions, which arise from structural or cultural sources within institutions, or from students’ concerns about their career prospects. (p. 32) They go on to suggest that the same problems that encourage students to leave science, mathematics, and engineering make persistence difficult for those who choose to stay. Landis (1995) also observes the negative impact that the culture of engineering may have on student persistence. Besterfield-Sacre, Atman, & Shuman (1997) conclude that students who switch may start out with the intention of graduating in engineering, but their general level of commitment is not as high as those who choose to stay. Takahira, Goodings & Byrnes (1998) reinforce many of the previous findings about the culture of engineering and also suggest that inadequate advising and help also contributes to why students choose to leave engineering: 8 Padilla et al. (1997) focus on retention by building an expertise model . The underlying assumption of their model is that successful college students are experts at achieving success at a specific college. Students arrive on campus with a certain amount of theoretical and practical knowledge that they acquired throughout their academic careers. Once on campus the successful P ge 871.2 “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2003, American Society for Engineering Education” students acquire the additional practical knowledge that is required to successfully negotiate the challenges of campus life. Typically this heuristic knowledge is not provided in a formal manner. Padilla, et al. (1997) identify four broad categories of barriers that successful minority students have to overcome. They label them as follows: (1) discontinuity barriers which include obstacles to a student’s smooth transition from high school to college, (2) lack-of-nurturing barriers which stem from the absence of supportive resources to facilitate the development and adjustment of minority students, (3) lack-of-presence barriers which occur when there is an absence of minorities in the college population or program, and (4) resource barriers related to insufficient financial aid. Reichert & Absher (1997) identify related barriers to African American success in engineering such as inadequate academic preparation, substandard educational resources, mismatched social and academic expectations, lack of encouragement, psychological intimidation, unstable familial and financial circumstances, inadequate peer support, lack of role models and mentoring, low expectations by faculty, racism, and poor instruction/advising. Henes, Bland, Darby, & McDonald (1995) confirm that women are less likely to enter and persist in undergraduate engineering programs. They also present five major reasons why women become discouraged with engineering. The first reason involves a sense of isolation that occurs in several ways. Prior to college, women are isolated from the engineering and technical professions to a much greater extent than their male counterparts. If they persist, they find that engineering students are isolated from each other in their early coursework. This isolation is exacerbated for women because of their relatively small numbers. A second reason for discouragement is a failure to see the relevance of theoretical material to the applied problem solving discipline of engineers. Many women may turn to other majors where the relevance is clearer. There is a similar pressure on men, but there is less isolation. A third reason for lower persistence by women is the increased intimidation that stems from lower rates of hands-on experience with mechanical and electrical devices, and less familiarity with the associated jargon. Although many men have similar experience levels, they are less likely to see their lack of experience as a weakness. The fourth reason cited for discouragement is the compet