Dual Model Summer Bridge Programs: A New Consideration for Increasing Retention Rates

Research on engineering undergraduate retention shows that a few programmatic solutions, such as the summer bridge programs that focus primarily on underrepresented populations, can significantly improve college retention rates. Although summer bridge programs are a common solution to engineering colleges’ retention and diversity issues, more initiatives that enroll students of all demographics are needed to combat high engineering student attrition rates. Therefore, the development and institutionalization of retention solutions that can offer a larger population of undergraduate students a more effective solution is the next evolution in contributing to increased engineering retention. The dual model summer bridge program includes a traditional summer bridge program designed for underrepresented populations and a summer bridge program open to all students. The programs run simultaneously during the summer semester and are both comprised of the same components; however, some differences do exist due to funding issues. The six-week programs are comprised of supplemental instruction in chemistry and calculus, courses on the fundamentals of engineering design, AutoCAD, and Labview and a course designed to foster student success. Additionally, both programs involve assigned peer mentors to assist transitioning incoming students into the engineering student role throughout the students’ first year. Other support provided includes corporate presentations, a final design competition, and a poster presentation. This paper will discuss the dual model summer bridge program that is currently offered to all entering engineering students at the University of Florida, a large public land grant institution located in the southeast. Additionally, quantitative results of the programs, including improved retention, which is the primary objective of the dual model programs, will be presented. Further, the less tangible benefits of the programs, such as involvement, independence, leadership and community, will be discussed. Introduction/Background Retaining engineering students: essential for the engineering profession In the coming years, the engineering profession and engineering education are unlikely to produce enough engineers in the United States; the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected a need for 12,200 more engineering positions over the 10-year period between 2008-2018 26 , which does not include the replacement of many retiring engineers. The number of engineering bachelor degrees awarded in the U.S is also contributing to this problem. In 2010, the U.S. produced 79,000 new engineering bachelor’s degrees. Undergraduate engineering enrollment in 2010 grew by 5.3% from 427,503 to 450,685 (a notable improvement from the 1% growth from 2005-2009 11 ), but weakening interest in studying engineering among graduating high school students lends credence to growing concerns of a decrease in engineering degree production in the future. Compounding this concern, only 50% of the students entering U.S. universities as P ge 25480.2 engineering majors complete their engineering degree requirements. 8,27 Since studies have concluded that no difference exists in academic status but rather by negative perceptions and attitudes between students staying in engineering and students that choose to leave for other majors, 5 the high student attrition rates cannot be attributed to lack of academic ability. Loss of students majoring in engineering affects institutions in two primary areas: revenue and loss of human potential represented by student dropouts. 14, 20, 25 Studies in this area have yielded various initiatives to address the problem. 2,18,23,26 For example, engineering colleges and employers have partnered to develop programs aimed at improving the retention of historically underrepresented students in engineering. However, new initiatives are still sought to further enhance retention of engineering students, as longitudinal studies have reported that retention has not improved over time. 4, 15 Studies do suggest significant factors influencing student retention, including, among others, inadequate preparation, high school GPA, SAT Math score, misconceptions about the engineering profession, and classroom dynamics. Students who exit higher education voluntarily before receiving their degree usually leave for one of three reasons: (1) a lack of psychological and social support 3 , (2) a lack of institutional fit and campus integration 24 ,and (3) financial hardships associated with increases in college tuition and fees. 19 In spite of current research on retaining engineering students and programmatic solutions, attrition remains stable. Evidence supports that pedagogies of engagement, such as cooperative learning, problem-based learning, student feedback, and supplemental instruction, may enhance student persistence and learning. 23 Summer bridge programs that focus primarily on underrepresented populations have shown to improve college retention rates of the target population of students. 10 Although summer bridge programs are a common solution to engineering college’s retention and diversity issues, little empirical evidence has been reported to aid other institutions in developing effective programs of this kind. 1,9,10,13,21,22 Most studies offer details on the critical and non-critical factors surrounding retention or models and indicators for retention (e.g., gender, race, high school rank, SAT scores, university cumulative grade point average) and lack programmatic solutions that can be institutionalized. 12,5,7,6 This study will seek to investigate the factors that contribute to the outcomes of a first-year engineering summer bridge program offered to all students entering engineering, regardless of background characteristics, to determine if it improves student retention. History and vision of an inclusive summer bridge program The all-inclusive program studied herein was developed as a sister initiative of a freshman bridge program that was started earlier to target underrepresented students in engineering. The original bridge program was created as part of the Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education (SUCCEED) initiative from the National Science Foundation’s Education Coalitions. The limited population of underrepresented students in the engineering majors and the limited student enrollment of the underrepresented program could not offer a substantial positive effect on retention of the college’s entire engineering student population. Thus, this sister freshman bridge program named the Engineering Freshman Transition Program or EFTP was developed to attract more engineering students to enroll in a bridge program to make a broader impact on first-year retention in the college. This program was introduced in 2003 and repeated in 2004 as a one-week program offered to all incoming engineering freshmen and was designed to offer support to incoming students in calculus, chemistry, design, student P ge 25480.3 success, and career decisions. Over the following two years, the program was expanded to six weeks, with an additional design component and a total of three academic credits covering all elements of the program. In 2007, the program added three more components (classes in AutoCAD, computer programming, and introduction to engineering) to encompass a full sixcredit academic program that has continued through 2010. The initial and subsequent programs were shaped around the same basic assumptions that formed the basis of the underrepresented program. These assumptions are as follows: 1. Every student accepted into the university/college has the potential to successfully pursue an engineering degree. 2. Students are motivated to succeed and will do so if provided the proper support system. 3. The focus of the design of the program is to enhance, not remediate. Because of stringent admissions requirements at this university, each student has successfully established a basic foundation in math (calculus) and the sciences (chemistry, physics) prior to their admission into the university. 4. The primary stakeholders—the university, the college, faculty, the student’s family, the student, and corporate practitioners—will make the necessary investments to ensure the success and sustainability of the program. Investments into this program include, but are not limited to, financial resources, individual/collaborative time contribution, and recognition that each student’s needs are a priority.