The Creation Of The Multiple Institution Database For Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (Midfield)

A longitudinal database containing student records from each of the universities participating in the Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education (SUCCEED) has been under continuous development since 1996. The database compiles records from 1987 through the present. An extensive body of research has been conducted using this database. Technological advancements have made it possible to expand the scope of the data included in the database, and thus expand the studies that can be conducted. The partner universities have agreed to contribute transcript information—the courses that students have taken and the grades they have earned in them. With these data from nine universities placed in a common format, exciting research questions can be addressed. This paper discusses the development of the original database, plans for the design of the MIDFIELD database, and expected uses of this valuable resource. The SUCCEED Longitudinal Database A longitudinal database is under continuing development by the SUCCEED Coalition with records for undergraduate students from 1987 to present (2002 data are being added) at each of the SUCCEED institutions: • Clemson University • Florida A&M University • Florida State University • Georgia Institute of Technology • North Carolina A&T State University • North Carolina State University • University of Florida • University of North Carolina at Charlotte • Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Data from all nine universities have been placed in a common format, so the SUCCEED Longitudinal Database can be used for cross-institutional studies. Descriptions of the database design and assembly are available, and the fields presently included in the database are included later. 1-3 The database is a unique resource that has been studied extensively. 1,2,4-17 Highlights of publications related to the present work include • studies of retention and performance of students in a number of special programs implemented in the SUCCEED Coalition, including various freshman programs, integrated curricula, an entrepreneurship program, minority engineering programs, P ge 9.244.1 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education • descriptive studies comparing the characteristics of engineering students with each other and with non-engineering students • analysis of the paths taken by students leaving engineering • coordinating a quantitative study of retention of women in engineering with a qualitative study of the climate performed at SUCCEED institutions These publications, and others in review and in development, are indicators of the value of this database resource. One of the more interesting studies indicates that students who leave engineering tend to change into a major according to their grade-point average at the time of attrition. This certainly has implications for retention efforts and advising. The Opportunity to Expand the SUCCEED Longitudinal Database Negotiations initiated in 2002 with the SUCCEED partner institutions resulted in a new partnership to form the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD). Prior to this new partnership, the participating institutions had already committed to providing supplementary data annually to the SUCCEED Longitudinal Database until three years after the end of the SUCCEED Coalition (NSF funding terminated in 2003). The database in its current configuration has significant value to the engineering education community. The value will be improved significantly through the addition of course enrollment and grade data for the entire population. The addition of course and grade data will make possible a broader range of research questions. The MIDFIELD Model of Student Pathways in Engineering To study course sequencing and student pathways, it is necessary to model the engineering curriculum in such a way that different engineering curricula can be interpreted through a common framework. On the surface, this might seem to cast aside the variation needed to study these issues. This common framework is needed to even begin analysis of the curriculum of the various schools. In this case, the variation will be provided by the students themselves, who will take myriad pathways through the curriculum as a result of differences in their high school preparation, scheduling preferences, educational objectives, and other factors. This common framework is the MIDFIELD Model of Student Pathways in Engineering, which generalizes the paths a student might take to graduate in engineering and the paths a student might take before leaving engineering. The model, shown in Figure 1, creates a common framework by defining checkpoints in the engineering curriculum as stages in the model. The model can be expanded to study a particular part of the curriculum in greater detail—such as specifically where the students who leave engineering go. In studying data from multiple institutions, this broad model is most applicable, because the greater the detail of the model, the more divergent the institutions, their curricula, and their policies become.