The challenge and impetus to increase both the quantity and quality of engineers in the United States is well-documented (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, 2007; National Academy of Engineering, 2004; NSB, 2008). There have been considerable efforts to recruit students to engineering, yielding modest results (Seymour, 2002; NSB, 2008). However, the increase in enrollment has not coincided with a parallel increase in engineering graduates, indicating that retention is the core issue.At the same time, the field of engineering has been responding to calls for educational reform from within the discipline and industry (Prados et al., 2005). An increasingly complex economy demands a broadening of the intended learning outcomes and a move toward outcomes-based assessment of engineering programs (ABET, 1995; 1997; Kastenberg, et al., 2006; National Academy of Engineering, 2004). As a result, the accrediting body ABET issued a new set of learning outcomes and assessment criteria that subsequently spurred innovation in engineering education.The influential work of Seymour and Hewitt (1997) on students who switch out of STEM fields identified classroom experiences as the primary cause of disciplinary departure. As a result, reform efforts focused primarily on classroom interventions (e.g., Coward, Ailes & Bardon, 2000; Sheppard et al., 2009) because addressing deficiencies in pedagogy and curriculum could yield improvement not only in student learning but also in disciplinary retention. Despite research confirming the link between certain types of classroom innovations (e.g., active learning) and improved retention and learning gains (Felder, 1995; Felder, Felder & Dietz, 1998; Smith et al., 2004), inertia and the culture of faculty work has prevented widespread adoption of these practices. Accordingly, non-classroom interventions such as living-learning communities (LLCs) should be considered as part of the solution.The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of LLCs on disciplinary retention and learning outcomes in engineering. I identified the differences between LLC participants and non-participants in terms of (a) pre-college characteristics, (b) indirect measures of persistence, (c) direct measures of persistence, and (d) learning outcomes. I compared these groups using chi-square analyses, t-tests, and regression modeling, including measures of change over time. The results of this study identified some differences between the two groups on pre-college characteristics in terms of demographic representation, the process of choosing engineering as a major, and expectations for college. On indirect persistence measures, LLC participants reported stronger connections to other undergraduate engineers and greater commitment to engineering. Moreover LLC participants experienced more significant gains over time on three measures: (a) Commitment to Engineering, (b) Connection to Engineering College and (c) Connection to Engineering Peers. These results suggest that the LLC may have a differential impact on participants in these domains. On direct persistence measures, LLC participants differed from non-participants on only one measure: choice of major in sophomore year. The retention rate for LLC participants was 85.1% compared to 76.1% for non-participants. Finally LLC participants and non-participants did not differ on learning outcomes measures for the most part, although LLC participants reported more significant gains over time on the Leadership construct.
Read
