A Longitudinal Study of Veteran Student Efficacy in the College of Engineering & IT at Georgia Southern - Year 0

Drawing upon recent published studies concerning veteran students and the Post 9/11 GI Bill, the authors extract the top issues military veterans face during their transition into an academic environment and pursuit of higher-level education. Building upon models proposed by Malone (2009) related to military individual training, Lowman (1995) related to student learning and Ambrose (2013) concerning student motivation, the authors adapt an ecological model used by Packard (2016) in her targeted STEM mentoring programs to develop a mentoring program focused on improving the efficacy of veteran students pursuing STEM majors as a means of mitigating those issues and improving graduation rates. The authors describe the longitudinal study of veteran student efficacy they will conduct in the College of Engineering & Information Technology (CEIT) at Georgia Southern University (2016-2020) to assess the effectiveness of the STEM mentoring effort. Major Issues Faced by Veteran Students The most significant challenges faced by veteran students in their transition from military to civilian life as well as those experienced in the transition to an academic environment are described in three relatively recent and comprehensive surveys conducted between 2010 and 2015. The most recent study (2015), conducted by the Institute for Veterans & Military Families (IVMF), analyzed survey answers provided by over 4900 respondents (Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard, Veterans and Dependents)1. The IVMF survey noted that military service tends to motivate servicemembers to believe furthering their education after transitioning to civilian life is key to their future success. Table 1 lists the top reasons provided along with the corresponding percentage of survey responses. TABLE 1: Top 5 Motivators of Servicemembers for Pursuing Higher Education % Career/Job Improvements 86 Self-Improvement 71 Potential for Increased Salary 69 Professional Advancement 56 To Use Earned Benefits 51 Clearly military servicemembers are highly motivated to seek additional education for positive reasons when they transition to civilian life but, in turn, the IVMF Survey also listed the top challenges they face in getting started. Table 2 lists the top barriers along with the corresponding percentage of survey responses. TABLE 2: Top 5 Barriers to Servicemembers’ Pursuit of Higher Education % Financial Resources 56 Personal/Family Obligations 28 GI Bill Benefits Expired 25 Health/Disability Issues 23 School/Job Conflict 22 Once the former servicemembers actually started their higher educational pursuits, the veteran students described the major challenges impeding their academic progress. Table 3 lists the top problems encountered along with the corresponding percentage of survey responses. TABLE 3: Top 5 Problems Servicemembers Face Pursuing Higher Education % Age Differences 37 Financial Resources 32 Working Full Time 32 Family Responsibilities 29 Few Veteran Resources on Campus 26 The Veteran Economic Opportunity Report (2015) contains data collected by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2002 to 2013 and offers additional findings related to issues affecting the academic performance and integration of military veterans into academic environments.2 Of particular note, veteran graduation rates ranged from 40 50% with the exception of the Air Force which had a graduation rate of 65%. The findings from a study conducted by RAND (2010) along with the results from the IMVF (2015) survey and the VA report (2015) appear to indicate veteran students begin their transition from military service into academic pursuits well-motivated to succeed but with varying degrees of resilience to the most common challenges faced by students.3 Educational models of student learning in a STEM environment offer a vehicle for developing a program to mitigate these issues and improve graduation rates by increasing the efficacy of veteran students. Malone’s Training Model (2009) In 1984, the lead author was part of a small cohort mentored by Colonel (Retired) Dandridge Malone on the key leadership principles contained in his book Small Unit Leadership.4 In his book, which he had refined during his long career to include combat in Vietnam, Colonel Malone describes an approach junior leaders can use to improve training programs in their small units. This approach is highly focused on individual soldiers and requires situationally dependent assessments of their current level of training (i.e. Skill) and motivation to successfully complete the task at hand (i.e. Will). To improve a soldier’s performance, a leader must first understand the task to be accomplished then determine if the soldier has the required prerequisite level of training skill as well as the proper motivation to successfully perform the required activity. The best leaders seek to move all their soldiers into a “High Skill – High Will” training category thus improving organizational performance by increasing every unit member’s ability to successfully execute the unit’s most critical tasks. Although applications of Malone’s Training Model certainly vary by method and level of intensity across the different military branches of service, it is fair to assume that all servicemembers have some positive experience with training related to skill and motivational improvement by the time they leave active duty and enter an academic environment. Lowman’s Learning Influence Model (1995) In his discussion of exemplary teaching, Lowman (1995) identified three independent sources of influence on student learning: the student, the instructor and the course.5 The sources were binary in nature. For the student, the influence components were “ability” and “motivation.” For the purposes of this paper, the instructor and course sources of influence are captured within the support structure known as “the academic learning environment” within which the student exists. Lowman’s variables of “ability and motivation” appear to correlate strongly with Malone’s variables of “skill and will” which implies past success in a military environment could translate well into a future academic experience. Lowman’s learning influence model presumed a student’s ability affected learning more strongly than did his/her motivation but more recent research described by Ambrose et al (2010) suggests a relationship between student efficacy, support provided by the learning environment and the subjective value placed by a student on achieving a desired goal when it comes to motivating that student to learn. Ambrose’s Learning Model (2010) Ambrose et al (2013) describes the importance of student motivation to learning in terms of the subjective value students place on their academic goal and their expectation that they will be successful in reaching that goal.6 More specifically, students who seek to attain competence as they learn do better than those who seek only to avoid doing badly in their studies. Research also suggests that having multiple goals which align with each other is a source of positive motivation for students. The top 5 motivators listed in Table 1 by servicemembers for seeking an academic degree show a range of subjective value. Some have intrinsic value while others have only attainment value. All have instrumental value though which describes the degree to which achieving the goal helps the service member accomplish other goals considered important. Having a mix of intrinsic, attainment and instrumental goals is considered optimal but not sufficient to properly motivate behavior. Ambrose states that students must see a positive linkage between actions and desired outcome. Efficacy factors in here as well since students must also believe that they have the requisite skills and motivation to accomplish goals. Ambrose’s model predicts that within the context of a supportive learning environment, well-motivated students with a mix of intrinsic, attainment and instrumental goals perform the best. Packard (2016) presents an ecological model for creating a successful STEM mentoring program to provide just such a supportive learning environment and leverage the skills and motivations servicemembers bring to their transition into academic environments as veteran students. Packard’s STEM-Mentorship Model (2016) Packard (2016) argues strongly for the use of well-defined STEM student support structures to improve the performance of under-represented minorities in undergraduate STEM education programs.7 In her literature review, Packard shows that positive mentoring experiences correlate well with improved student persistence and graduation rates. In her work, Packard defines mentoring to include support designed to help students reach important goals and develops the structure of her STEM mentoring effort using an ecological model to depict the interrelated factors that influence the persistence or resilience of STEM students to stay focused and engaged in pursuit of their personal academic goals. Of particular importance to Packard’s STEM mentorship program development are three factors she labels “capacity”, “interest” and “belongingness.” Capacity refers to a student’s ability to learn and demonstrate requisite performance. Mentors can help students improve their personal capacity through various practice opportunities and timely, effective feedback. More importantly, such mentoring can improve a student’s self-efficacy of confidence which Packard indicates is often a better predictor of future performance than demonstrated capability. A student’s interest in STEM can be expected to wax and wane as they pursue their degree but when maintained and reinforced via mentorship their interest will provide positive support when needed. Mentors can reinforce student interest through practical and professional engagement. Most professional organizations provide affordable access to their activities to students. The sense of belongingness measures