A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF AN
ENGINEERING ORIENTATION COURSE
0N HIGH ABILITY ENGINEERING FRESHMEN
Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CRAIG DAVID LAUBENTHAL
1969
- " "E-‘E‘J,~.Jv, '
LIBRAIZ 2., s...
Michigan SL593
Llnlk'ergity I
l 11be5 J
? :17
“we. 91-4-4. - -,.
This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF AN
ENGINEERING ORIENTATION COURSE
ON HIGH ABILITY ENGINEERING FRESHMEN
presented by
Craig David Laubenthal I
has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for
Ph.D. Education
degree in
I
0-169
ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF'THE EFFECTS OF AN
ENGINEERING ORIENTATION COURSE ON
HIGH ABILITY ENGINEERING FRESHMEN
BY
Craig David Laubenthal
There is a concern in engineering education that
engineering students have an insufficient understanding
of engineering as they begin their college studies. Due
to the nature of engineering curricula, student contacts
are not available with engineering courses and faculty
to develop this understanding until approximately the
Junior year. Engineering educators contend that such a
lack of understanding contributes to student difficulties
in choosing specific engineering majors, and to high engi-
neering school attrition rates. Many methods have been
tried to orient students to engineering including, in
particular, freshman engineering courses. Beyond
descriptive studies of student satisfaction, little
evaluation of such courses has been conducted.
It was the purpose of this study to evaluate the
effects of a ten week course in computer programming,
containing presentations describing six engineering special-
ties, on high ability, first-term engineering freshmen at
Michigan State University. Students in the orientation
course were compared with a similar group of students
taking a computer course with no orientation. Questionnaires
Craig D. Laubenthal
and interviews were used at the beginning and end of
the computer courses for both groups of students.
Identifying the students receiving the orientation
as the experimental group and those receiving no
orientation as the control group, the following hypotheses
were made:
1.
The experimental group has significantly
greater knowledge of engineering than the
control group.
The experimental group is significantly more
affected than the control group in identifica-
tion with engineering as a career.
The experimental group is significantly more
affected than the control group in desire for
engineering as a career.
The experimental group experiences significantly
more changes of major than the control group.
Control and experimental groups differ signifi-
cantly in their views of required non-engineering
courses.
Control and experimental groups differ signifi-
cantly in their definitions of each of the
Craig D. Laubenthal
engineering fields available for study.
The results of the study showed no support for any
of the six hypotheses. In addition to hypotheses, the
following conclusions were drawn:
1.
The orientation presentations as a whole were
seen as helpful for understanding the work of
engineers, but, when rated individually, were
seen as only of moderate value.
The orientation presentations were seen as well
integrated with the computer science content of
the course.
The orientation course was seen as a fairly
profitable and enjoyable experience.
Both experimental and control subjects were
little concerned with major choice and under-
standing engineering as a career, and were
predominately concerned with grades and
academic success.
Students who completed the orientation course
showed greater satisfaction in the interviews
with their knowledge of engineering as a career
than the students who completed the control
course 0
The results were discussed noting that previous
studies were incomplete because student satisfaction was
Craig D. Laubenthal
the only variable considered. The results of this study
pointed out that student satisfaction with a course may
be satisfactorily high even when the effects of the
course are negligible.
It is possible that one reason why no effects were
found was due to the lack of student concern for major
choice and understanding engineering as a career.
Students may have paid little attention to the orienta-
tion presentations because they were not concerned
greatly with the content and knew they would not be
graded on the material.
Implications were drawn for future research.
A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF AN
ENGINEERING ORIENTATION COURSE
ON HIGH ABILITY ENGINEERING FRESHMEN
By
Craig David Laubenthal
A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration
and Higher Education
1969
DEDICATED TO
My Wife, Sally,
for her continuous
support and encouragement.
11
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The investigator would like to acknowledge his
appreciation to Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald for her generous
guidance throughout the preparation of this thesis, and
for her support and teaching throughout the entire
doctoral program. Gratitude is also extended to
Drs. T. wayne Taylor, Walter Johnson, and Orden Smucker
for their efforts on the doctoral committee.
Deep appreciation is also extended to:
Dr. Lawrence W. VonTersch, Dean of the College of
Engineering; Dr. John D. Ryder, Professor of Electrical
Engineering; Dr. Richard Reid, Director of Computer
Science; Mr. Dennis Gassman and Mr. Floyd LeCureau,
instructors in Computer Science; and, the students invol-
ved in the study. The support and permission of these
individuals were essential to conducting this study.
A special thank you to my wife, Sally, for her
proficient and persistent efforts in the complete typing
of this thesis.
iii
CHAPTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE PROBLEMOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0...00......
Purpose of the Study ...............
Need for the Study .................
Research Hypotheses and Questions ..
Limitations of the Study ...........
Evaluation Criteria ................
Definition of Terms ................
overV1eW OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATIJRE OOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Freshman Engineering Courses .......
Studies of Attrition and the Need
for Orientation .........
Literature Related to
Orientation Needs .......
Discussion and Summary .............
III. THE EXPERIMNTAL DESIGN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Population and Sample ecocceeeceecee
Procedures .........................
Instrumentation ....................
Pre-teSting ccoccoeecceccceccoe
POSt-teSting OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Interview Schedules ................
Pre-interVIeW1n8 eeccececcececc
Post-interviewing .............
Statistical Hypotheses .............
Ana-157318 00..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Decision Rule .................
StatiStical MOdels 00.000000...
Summary 0000000000000...000000000000
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Data Relative to Hypotheses ........
Data Relative to Research Questions.
Data Pertaining to Instructor as a
Confounding Variable ..........
iv
Page
H.
WTQCDNHA
72
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER
Analysis of the Interviews .........
Pro-interVIOWS 00....0000......
POSt-intefliews 00.000.00.00...
summary 000.000.00.000...0.00.0.0...
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................
summary 0000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00116111810118 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
D180l1881°n 0.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQO
Implications for Future Research ....
BIBLIOGRAPHY O....00.0.00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
APPENDICES 00.......0...0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Page
71+
7»
77
82
en
en
89
91
94
97
TABLE
2.
5.
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of covariance analysis
of experimental and control groups
on knowledge of engineering...........
Comparison of knowledge of ._,.
engineering for experimental and
control groups OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Comparison of frequency of changes
in degree of identification from
pre-test to post-test for experi-
mental and control groups ............
Summary of covariance analysis of
experimental and control groups on
degree of shifts in identification
with engineering from pre-test to
DOSE-test 0..0...c.c..cc........0.c.00
Comparison of identification with
engineering for experimental and
contrOI groups OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Comparison of frequency of changes
in degree of desire for engineering,
from pre-test to post-test for
experimental and control groups......-
Summary of covariance analysis of
experimental and control groups on
degree of shifts in desire for
engineering from pre-test to post-
teat-cc..c...c.oe..00pc0..0o0.......c.
Comparison of desire for engineering
for experimental and control groups ..
Comparison of major changes from
pre-test to post—test for experi-
mental and control groups ............
vi
Page
51
52
5b
5“
56
58
58
59
61
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE
10.
11.
12.
13.
1a.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Page
Summary comparison of ranks
of engineering majors for
experimental and control groups....... 61
Summary of chi square compari-
sons on pre-test measurement of
attitudes toward required non-
engineering courses for experi-
mental and control groups ............ 63
Summary of chi square comparisons
on post-test measurement of
attitudes toward required non-
engineering courses for experimental
and control groups .................... 64
Comparison of pro-test and post-test
mean ratings of opinions regarding
required non-engineering courses for
combined study groups ................. 65
Summary of chi square comparisons .
of experimental and control groups
on definitions of engineering majors.. 67
Post-test data on experimental
group ratings of CPS 120 ............. 69-70
Data from post experimental group
ratings of each individual
orientation presentation .............. 71
Comparison of ranks of engineering
majors for experimental and control
groups 0000.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 120
Summary of chi square comparisons
of instructor and course ratings
for experimental and control groups... 121
vii
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE
19.
20.
21.
Page
Comparison of simple correlations
between the main effect variables
of knowledge of engineering,
identification with engineering,
and desire for engineering, and
instructional rating variables
for experimental and control groups..... 122
Summary of correlations for
experimental, control, and
combined study groups between
post-test variables and pro-test
covariates used in analysis of
covariance teats ooocccococo......ocoo.c 123
Summary of t tests for
homogeneity of regression line
sIOpes used in covariance analyses ..... 12h
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX Page
A The Questionnaires ................ 97
B The Interview Schedules ........... 116
C Supplementary Data ................ 120
ix
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Purpose of the Study
It is the purpose of this study to evaluate the
effects of a freshman engineering orientation course on
high ability first term engineering freshmen. The
findings of the study should aid in determining what,
if any, changes should be made in such a course, and
should provide the basis for further research recom-
mendations.
The problem is to evaluate the effects of a ten
week course in computer programming, at Michigan State
University, which includes an organized presentation of
orientation to engineering career fields. Students who
had the orientation course were studied and compared
with students in a similar course which did not include
orientation to engineering. The objective of the
examination is to determine the general effects of the
orientation, and whether or not the orientation increased
knowledge of engineering as a career, affected engineer-
ing major choices, and/or helped students to clarify
their desire for and identification with engineering as
a career. Evaluations are made of the orientation to
engineering aspects of the course, and the impact of
the course as a whole.
Need for the Study
There is a concern in engineering education that
engineering students begin their college studies with
an insufficient understanding of engineering as a
discipline or career. In addition, these students
evidence little understanding of their interests and
abilities as related to achieving an engineering educa-
tion or succeeding in the profession. (22)(23)(13)(3)
Mathematics and science courses in high school do very
little to promote this understanding although interest
and success in mathematics and science often is a con-
tributing factor in the student's decision to begin his
studies in an engineering school. (13)(16) Upon begin-
ning a college engineering program the student often
finds that his freshman and sophomore years do little
more than high school to improve his understanding of
his chosen career. (9) The basic problem has been that
until the student has grasped a sufficient amount of
basic science and mathematics, the engineering courses
are meaningless or beyond the student's ability to
comprehend.
The nature of the engineering curricula causes
the delay of the student from contact with both
engineering course work and faculty. This delay is
felt to be at least partially responsible for the
high attrition rate in engineering schools which is
particularly noticeable in the freshman and sophomore
years. (9) (23) Also accounting for this attrition
are several other factors, which include academic
competition, insufficient ability (particularly in
mathematics) insufficient motivation, poor previous
education, low interest, the difficult curricula, and
a wide range of other factors. This delayed entry
into the course work of the profession is not unique
to engineering but this fact does not obviate the
need to solve the problem.
Attrition from engineering is not recognized
as an entirely negative phenomenon. It often means the
student has found that his true interests and/or
abilities lie elsewhere. (11) A student's decision to
leave engineering may be irrational if he never really
has had the opportunity to understand the engineering
field. There is also the possibility that a lack of
understanding can lead to a lack of motivation or
interest, and therefore, a lack of success in pre-
engineering courses. (13)(b) It becomes difficult to
determine which of the factors of ability, motivation,
or understanding is at fault and in what prOportions.
It is also difficult to determine whether providing an
understanding of a career is sound guidance practice,
or"hard-self‘indoctrination.
Although attrition commands the most attention
because of its direct relationship to the shortage of
trained engineers, there is another concern in engineer-
ing education relative to the delayed understanding of
engineering careers. Engineering students must declare
a major in one of the engineering fields depending on
the offerings in any one respective school. The time of
this declaration ranges from the beginning of the fresh-
man year to the end of the sophomore year depending on
the particular institution. How this choice is made and
whether the choice is best for the individual concerns
engineering educators and students. (20) An inappropriate
choice can mean a dissatisfied engineer and a detraction
from the profession. A student unsure of his career
choice may find difficulty in pursuing his program to the
limits of his capabilities.
The problem of providing an early understanding of
engineering for the student remains unsolved, although a
variety of solutions have been tried with varying or
unknown degrees of success. These attempts have included
personal and group counseling, no credit and credit
courses, career literature, seminars, lectures, engineers
clubs, tours, visitations by practicing engineers, films,
college open houses, demonstrations, and, no doubt, many
other techniques. Although a combination of several
techniques may be needed, the freshman engineering
course has been given the greatest attention because of
its potential of holding a captive audience, its con-
tinuing nature, the provision for early contact with
the student as a regular part of his curriculum, and
limited reports of successes with such courses. (1h)(5)
Only a few of the many attempts at freshman engineering
orientation courses have been reported, and in most
cases evaluation has been scant, unsystematic, or
non-existent.
Research Hypotheses and Questions
The analysis of the effects of the engineering
orientation course will be guided by several research
hypotheses and research questions. The hypotheses
listed below are restated in testable form in
Chapter III.
I
Hypotheses
l.
The experimental group has a greater
knowledge of engineering as a career
than the control
The experimental
than the control
with engineering
The experimental
than the control
engineering as a
The experimental
group.
group is more affected
group in identification
as a career.
group is more affected
group in desire for
career.
group experiences more
major changes than the control group.
Control and experimental groups differ
in their views of required non-engineering
OOHI'SOS .
Control and experimental groups differ
in their definitions of each of the
engineering fields available for study.
Questions
1.
To what extent do experimental group
subjects feel that they have enjoyed
the orientation course?
Do experimental group subjects feel
that the orientation presentations
were worthwhile?
Do experimental group subjects feel
that the orientation presentations
were well integrated with the computer
science content of the course?
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations affect the
generalizability of the results of this study:
1.
The study is limited to 13h first term
freshmen engineering students at Michigan
State University (74 experimental and
60 control) who scored at the 60th
percentile or better on M.S.U. engineering
freshman norms of the College Qualification
Test total score, and who chose to take the
required computer course in their first term.
The study is limited to data gathered by
means of interviews and original question-
naires designed specifically for the study.
The experimental and control courses
were taught by two different instructors;
however, the orientation treatment was
administered by faculty not including
either instructor.
Students were not registered in control
and experimental courses randomly but
the individual student chose that course
that best fit his class schedule.
Students were not aware of any differences
between the two courses except the time
schedule difference.
The study is limited to the course
content of Computer Science 120 offered
Fall 1968 at Michigan State University.
The study is limited to an evaluation
of short term effects since the study
groups were tested immediately following
the completion of the courses.
Evaluation Criteria
This study is not based in theory but, rather is
a practical evaluation of an educational program.
Attention is given, therefore, to the criteria used to
judge the degree of success or failure.
One very essential criterion of this study is
knowledge gained by students of engineering as a
career. Those receiving the orientation should learn
more about the topic of the orientation than those who
receive no similar education. To measure this criterion
the student was asked to rate himself on the extent of
his knowledge of engineering as a career.
In studying career identification as a criterion
it is necessary to understand that a decreased identi-
fication with engineering may be just as important as an
increased identification. If the engineering orientation
is effective it will help students to better understand
the nature of engineering, and, therefore, orientation
effectiveness may not result in universal enthusiasm for
the profession. Providing such an understanding will
cause some students to identify more, and others less,
with engineering.which should result in more realistic
career choices.
Using identification as a criterion, orientation
effectiveness should result in the experimental group
10
having more frequent and more pronounced shifts in
degree of identification with engineering than the
control group between measurements of identification
at the start and completion of the course.
”Desire for engineering as a career” used
for a criterion represents the same situation as that
noted for the "identification" criterion. An increased
desire, on the whole, is not necessarily a positive
effect. It is necessary to determine, therefore, if
the experimental subjects experienced more frequent and
more pronounced fluctuations in desire.
If the idea is correct, as pointed out in the
Need for the Study section, that engineering students
enter college with little understanding of engineering
and its various branches, then major choices should be
affected by the orientation course. With major choice
as a criterion it is necessary to determine if there
are more major changes (within engineering and out)
among experimental subjects than among controls.
Although it is difficult to achieve, and could
call for extensive subjective techniques, some
evaluation must be made regarding the effect of orien-
tation on student definitions of engineering. The
orientation experience should change these definitions
resulting in differences between experimental subjects
11
and control group members. It is true that 'different
definitions' are not synonymous with 'more accurate
definitions' but this study was not designed to study
the complexities of correct definitions of engineering.
An important issue for freshmen, in understanding
engineering, is the area of certain non-engineering
courses which are required before engineering courses
can be taken. Due to some lack of agreement in engi-
neering education regarding required courses, this area
is difficult to evaluate. The orientation experience
should, however, result in the experimental group
exhibiting different understandings of the reasons why
certain non—engineering courses are required when
compared to the control group. As noted above, in
reference to definitions of engineering, difference
and accuracy are not equated. In both cases student
responses to these criteria can aid in modifying the
orientation to produce those understandings considered
most accurate by engineering educators.
Additional criteria include satisfaction with
the orientation course and satisfaction with the
orientation presentations within the course. Although
satisfaction alone cannot serve as a complete criterion,
it is useful in combination with other criteria. A
12
definite lack of satisfaction, on the other hand, would
legitimately be suSpect.
Definition of Terms
For this study the following definitions and
descriptions apply:
1.
Engineering Orientation Course:
Computer Science 120 offered fall 1968
and containing an introduction to Fortran
programming language, technical problem
assignments to be programmed on a Control
Data 3600 computer, and six lecture and
film presentations distributed through-
out the ten week term covering six of the
engineering majors offered at Michigan
State. Orientation presentations are
each partially concerned with showing
students example problems of those
solved in each engineering field.
Control Course:
Computer Science 120 offered fall 1968
and containing all the elements of the
engineering orientation course including
solutions to identical engineering
13
problems, but without orientation
presentations.
High Ability Students:
First term fall 1968 engineering
freshmen scoring 150, 60th percentile,
or better on the total of the College
Qualification Test.
Knowledge of Engineering:
The extent of knowledge a student feels
he has of engineering as a career.
Identification with Engineering:
The extent to which a student can see
himself as one day becoming an engineer.
Desire for Engineering:
The extent to which a student feels
he desires to be an engineer.
Required Non-engineering Courses:
Courses required for graduation in
engineering but not unique requirements
for any one engineering major, including
math, chemistry, physics, English, and
computer science.
912.1222
This study is reported in five chapters arranged
to provide a systematic presentation. In Chapter I the
need and purpose of the study were provided along with
research hypotheses and related evaluation criteria.
Pertinent literature is reviewed in Chapter II, including
reports of engineering orientation courses, attrition
studies pointing to the need for engineering orienta-
tion, and other literature related to needs of students
for orientation. The experimental design and methodology
are described in Chapter III. This Chapter includes
information on the samples, statistical hypotheses, and
instrumentation. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the
results from questionnaires and interviews relative to
both hypotheses and research questions. Summary and
‘conclusions follow in Chapter V5with a discussion of
the results and suggestions for further research.
in
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
It is the purpose of this chapter to review the
literature that is both directly and tangentially
related to this study. The first section contains
a literature review and an interview pertaining to
freshman engineering orientation courses and related
freshman engineering courses. In this section the
present status and objectives of such courses are
examined, and course evaluations are reviewed. The
second section contains an examination of the literature
pointing the need for freshman engineering orientation
through an analysis of engineering attrition and
major change problems. The third section involves a
review of more general literature pertaining to
orientation needs of engineering students and students
in general, with some attention given to the content
and design of orientation experiences. In the last
section a discussion and summary are provided.
Freshman Engineering Courses
It is difficult to be sure how much is being
done across the country by engineering schools to provide
freshman engineering courses. Three different estimates
15
16
given by Ryder, Landis, and Beakley and Price (21)(1h)
(5) conflict as to the number of such courses. A search
of the literature to 19h0 yielded such small returns as
to make it appear that such courses have been relatively
rare. According to Ryder, attempts at such courses have
been,and still are,numerous, but the reporting has been
rare. (21)
Ryder estimates that two thirds of all engineering
schools presently have some form of freshman engineering
course.(21) He notes that these courses are of three
general types:
(a) Problem courses; students are given
engineering related problems to solve
through graphics, math, science, and
logical procedures.
(b) Descriptive courses; descriptions of
the engineering fields are provided
along with career opportunities in
engineering.
(c) Other courses; a large variety of
such courses is included here along
with combinations of the first two
types and subject matter course work
in engineering related fields such as
graphics, math, physics, and computer
science.
1?
Ryder explains that descriptive courses are the
least satisfying to students. Problem courses can be
more satisfying but it is difficult to find problems
that are both simple enough for freshmen and yet not so
simple as to be meaningless. Problems should be abstract
and continually updated. Ryder emphasizes that the ob-
jective of the freshman engineering course should be
definition, not selling.
Landis surveyed all accredited engineering schools
in the United States to determine the function of fresh-
man computer courses.(14) Thirty-four useable replies
were received from a questionnaire sent to all schools
listing freshman computer instruction on the initial
survey. The computer course survey revealed the
following:
Schools responding with Freshman Computer
Course (1967-1968)
Type of Course: Course devoted to digital
computation only ................. in
Computing as part of a
more comprehensive
freshman course .00....c.000000000 20
Solutions to Elementary Engineering Problems ...... 22
Self Evaluation of Course Success:
Highly Successful .................. 13
Partially Successful ............... in
Not Successful ..................... 1
(1“, Table I)
18
As Landis points out: "The reasons (for these
courses) appear to be two-fold. One was to retain (or
to reintroduce) engineering related course work into a
freshman year which over the last decade had become more
and more science and liberal arts oriented, and to pro-
vide a natural and integrated building block for sub-
sequent engineering and mathematics courses. The
second reason for favoring computing at the freshman
level has been the high student interest in computers
which, when properly developed, could serve to interest
more students in an engineering career." (14, 1)
Beakley and Price provide the most comprehensive
study of freshman engineering courses from their survey
of 17A engineering colleges with E.C.P.D. - accredited
curricula. Although only fifty—five percent of the
schools responded, this is the most comprehensive survey
reported. The following results are relevant to this
review:
2. One or more of the following freshman
engineering courses are required by 90%
of the respondents:
Drawing or Graphics (85% of respondents);
Engineering Orientation (50% of respondents);
Introduction to Design (22% of respondents);
Engineering Problems (18% of respondents);
Engineering Lectures (15% of respondents);
and Engineering Analysis (9% of respondents).
3. According to 83% of the respondents, there
was need for a course at the freshman level
whose primary objective is the motivation
19
of the student toward engineering as a
career profession. Most of the 83%
indicated that they were attempting to
satisfy this need by courses being
offered. Most of the 17% who replied
negatively did so with the explanation
that the type of students who enrolled
at their schools needed no motivation.
4. Eighty-four percent of reSpondents
favored introducing freshman engineering
students to principles of engineering
design.
8. Suggestions were requested for the most
desirable content of a required freshman
engineering course. Listed below are
the reSponses, in order of most desire-
ability:
The engineering method of problem solving
Introduction to computers and programming
Introduction to design
Sketching and drawing
Work of the engineer
History of engineering
Unit systems and dimensional analysis
Slide rule instruction
General problem solving
(5. 829)
Several reports are available on freshman
engineering courses that may serve to provide examples
of some ideas which have been or are being tried. The
courses described have not been well evaluated, as
indicated by the limited attention given to evaluation
in the reports.
New York University developed a fourteen week
freshman engineering course that emphasizes learning
by student participation.(20) The course is taught by
20
engineering faculty to small groups of students, and
consists of history of engineering, use of slide rule,
graphical methods of handling raw data, and a variety
of other problems and exercises exposing the students
to each of the engineering departments on campus. At
the end of the first offering of this course the
students were surveyed, and the following conclusions
were reported: (a) The majority felt they learned an
appreciable amount of new material, enjoyed the course,
improved their impressions of engineering, and felt the
work load was reasonable; (b) A significant minority
felt they gained identification as an engineer, felt
their performance in other courses improved, (on the
average) felt that each individual session helped to
introduce them to engineering, and choose a departmental
affiliation. The author, Rabins, points out in one of
the guidelines for developing a freshman engineering
course that, "career orientation must be continually
stressed to point out what engineers in a particular
discipline will be doing upon graduation." (20, 3h?)
Beakley and Price report on a freshman engineering
design course at Arizona State University which is
designed primarily to motivate freshmen. (h)(5) The
course objectives involve giving the student a clear idea
of the role of the engineer, the challenges of engineers
and the skills needed. Students work as members of an
21
engineering firm to generate design ideas, submit
preposals of approved ideas, and compete for the position
of Chief engineer. The company is engaged in the design
of a useful product. (A) "Responses (to a survey of
students who had completed the course) indicated that
72% felt that the project had a strengthening effect on
their choice of engineering as a career, 15% felt that it
had no effect, and 13$ felt that it had a weakening
effect." (5, 828) The authors conclude the following:
A design experience in the freshman year
appears to 1) generate interest and
increase committment to engineering as a
career; 2) forcefully present the challenges
of engineering and a picture of the pro-
fession's role in today's world; and 3)
emphasize the analytical skills and creative
abilities that an engineer must acquire." (4, 19?)
Earle reports on a course at Texas A.M. University
described as "An Introduction to Engineering Design Through
Graphics.” (8) The course involves presenting engineering
design, engineering orientation,and communication through
engineering graphics in the freshman year. Project design,
including graphics,is emphasized along with model building,
oral presentations, question and answer sessions, working
drawings, and contacts with visiting engineers. Earle
indicates that the course was developed because, "Student
opinion revealed that there was very little understanding
of the function of the engineer as a member of a team
concerned with social, legal, and business areas in
22
addition to traditional engineering problems. In many
cases, students could not give a valid definition of
engineering." (8, 1107) The majority of the students who
had taken the design course rated it as very helpful.
The Oakland University School of Engineering at
Rochester, Michigan has a freshman engineering course
involving design concept lectures and a design laboratory.
The principles from lecture are applied to realistic
engineering problems in the laboratory. The authors,
Gibson and Boddy, report that the course is an effort to
increase motivation and serve as an introduction to the
profession with the hope that engineering enrollments may
be increased through positive feedback to high schools,
and attrition rates from engineering may be decreased. (11)
The authors' evaluation comments indicate that students
agree with the goals of the course and its timing in the
freshman year. The success of the course is based on its
giving students the necessary information and experiences
to: confirm engineering as a major field of study; choose
a major within engineering; realize new engineering
careers; or, transfer to another field outside of engi=
neering.
The University of Michigan has develOped a problem
oriented freshman engineering course covering most of the
branches of engineering, and containing engineering
orientation lectures. According to Goetz, Katz, Lady,
23
and Bay, the following reasons led to the course
development:
For some years there has been a continuing
discussion at the University of Michigan
of the need for a freshman course in
engineering. The need for students to have
contact with faculty from the several
professional departments was evident. A
program consisting of mathematics, chemistry,
physics, English and graphics did not seem
to satisfy many students. Although a fraction
of the students may have known which discipline
they preferred to elect in their sophomore
year, many were unprepared for this decision.
(12. 1)
A survey of student opinion was used both to
evaluate the course, and as a basis for revising the
orientation material. The authors conclude that, "For
many students, it (the course) can provide some perspective
of engineering and initiate their understanding of some
basic concepts in engineering." (12, 11)
Studies of Attrition and the Need for Orientation
Although this section deals with engineering
attrition studies, it is not within the scope or purpose
of this review to cover completely the vast amount of
literature pertaining to attrition. It is the purpose
here to examine several relevant attrition studies that
specifically point to the need for freshman engineering
orientation.
Menand points out that, "In college, clearly a
24
good bit can be done to help the student orient himself
to engineering education. Either through a formal course
or through meetings and seminars with faculty, steps
should be taken to describe the various fields of
engineering and to relate engineering practice with
engineering education." (16, 35) Menand's thoughts are
in regard to his study of high attrition rates among
engineering students.
The Engineering Manpower Commission conducted a
longitudinal study of engineering student attrition over
the years 1952 to 1962. (9) Although little is printed
regarding the nature of the study or the number of
engineering schools reporting, the analysis and conclu-
sions are pertinent. The study points out that for most
engineering students there is no perspective or contact
with engineering, and no association with engineering
students or faculty. Regarding successful programs for
reducing attrition the study notes the following
characteristics:
(a) Better pre-selection, guidance, and
orientation of students.
(d) Programs designed to give the student
perspective, an association with
engineering, acquaintance with the
faculty, and generally to bring him
into the professional family. The
purpose is to give him a sense of
identity with and a pride in the fact
that he is an engineer. (9, 7)
In regard to specific recommendations, the
25
Commissiodb report states that a freshman engineering
problems course has been successful in some schools.
"This usually reaches the pinnacle of interest when it
involves instruction in computer programming...in the
solution of engineering problems." (9, 10)
Augustine conducted an extensive study of
freshman and sophomore engineering attrition at three
midwestern universities. (1)(2)(3) He found that both
students remaining in engineering and those who had
transferred out agreed, "that more engineering courses
should be offered earlier in their programs - during the
freshman and sophomore years to stimulate and maintain
their original interest." (1, 13) Among Augustine's
recommendations resulting from his study are the
following:
5. Engineering schools should recognize
the unique needs of their freshman
students and provide specific programs
to meet these needs...
O0.0.000000000000000000000000000000000000...
7. Engineering educators should be alert
to the possibilities of reinforcing
the commitment freshmen and sophomores
have made to the program. Earlier
introduction of academic work taught
by engineering professors, greater
flexibility in course scheduling,
efforts to reveal future possibilities
of an engineering career, and activities
which help the individual student identify
with the engineering school and other
engineering students all deserve serious
consideration....
(3, 114-115)
26
Greenfield studied attrition among 112 first
semester engineering freshmen at the University of
Wisconsin. "When they entered the College of Engineering,
only 53$ of the total group, and only one-third of the
students who transferred or were dropped at the end of
the semester knew the kind of work they would be doing
as engineers." (13, 1006) The need for an understanding
of engineering is evident as Greenfield notes that high
school students have "only very hazy notions about their
future course of action and wander into an engineering
program as the course of least resistance." (13, 1109)
Wiehe studied h25 engineering dropouts at the
University of Missouri to determine why the students
originally chose engineering, why they dropped out, and
various relationships with dropping out. (23) He concludes
that drop-outs would like mOre exposure to engineering
problems and experiments earlier in their training.
'Literature Related to Orientation Needs
As pointed out by both Fitzgerald (10) and
McCann (15) it is well to organize orientation activities
around natural college units in order that orientation
can reflect a recognition of the unique needs of specific
programs. This is relevant to the freshman engineering
27
course as a means of providing recognition of the
unique needs of the engineering program.
Caple points out the necessity of providing some
motivation for the student "to ask what it is he wants,
why he wants it, and how he is going to get it,...' (6,25)
In this same vein Chervenik states that, “More informa-
tion about which kinds of work activity may lead to the
desired goals should be communicated to the student."
(7,178) Both Caple and Chervenik would agree that the
orientation or guidance activity should be designed to
inform rather than sell or convince the student.
Pierson points to the effect of lack of information
about academic and career areas on major changes.
Four hundred and three Michigan State
University seniors who were scheduled to
graduate in majors other than those which
they had selected upon entering the
University were studied for the purpose
of finding why they changed their majors
and how they felt about having changed.
Their responses to the questionnaire
indicated that the primary reasons for
changing were lack of information about
(1) the extent of the curricular
opportunities in the University, (2)
the content of the courses in their
original major, and (3) the requirements
and opportunities in vocations related
to their original choices. (19, #61)
It should be pointed out that these conclusions of
Pierson's study depended on the students' recall of
several years regarding their reasons for changing, and
therefore, may not represent an accurate account.
28
Nadler studied personality factors among 432
science and technology freshmen at Case Institute and
Northwestern University to determine the effects of
compatible and incompatible major choices.(18) He
divided the students into "practical men” and
"theoretical men" on the basis of personality. According
to Nadler, "Practical men who chose engineering curricula,
or theoretical men who chose science curricula were con-
sidered to have made compatible choices.“ (18, 226)
The author points out that in the freshman year all the
practical men faced an incompatible program. Even though
the major choices of the engineers may have been correct,
by Nadler's classification, the freshman year contained
only theoretical courses such as math, chemistry, and
physics. This "incompatible” experience could lead to
decreased motivation and incorrect major changes by
freshman engineers if no practical course work or orienta-
tion as to the practical future of the major is provided.
Meriam perscribes that the freshman engineer should
receive both orientation to engineering and contact with
the physical reality in engineering. (1?) Wallace and
Case similarly point out the importance for general
guidance and orientation courses related to the field of
engineering in the freshman year. (22)
Discussion and Summary
This review of the literature since 1940 covered
the prevalence and nature of freshman engineering and
engineering orientation courses, examples of such
courses,including studies as to their effects,
engineering attrition studies that point to the need
for such courses, and other literature, showing the need
for such courses for reasons other than attrition
problems. No study was found describing a controlled
experimental, quasi experimental, or thorough descrip-
tive evaluation.
Several authors point to many attempts at pro-
viding freshman engineering, computer, and engineering
orientation courses by engineering schools, although
reports conflict as to the frequency and types of such
courses. An estimate of the total number of engineering
schools offering some type of engineering course in the
freshman year would range from one half to two-thirds.
The principal objectives of such courses are:
to motivate and sustain the interest of the freshman
engineers; to provide an understanding or orientation
to engineering and its various fields; to provide
contact between the freshman and the engineering school,
faculty, and students for the purpose of developing an
identification with engineering; to provide a background
29
30
for later courses; and, to decrease attrition where
vocationally appropriate, and facilitate engineering
major choice. A contradiction exists in the literature
between the objective of reducing attrition from
engineering as a primary objective and the objective
of helping freshmen determine whether engineering is
their correct choice.
The various writers point to a basic dilemma in
engineering education that has resulted in the concern
for special engineering courses in the freshman year.
The entering student has never studied engineering in
high school and, as a freshman and sophomore in college,
does not contact the regular engineering course work.
This separation from the student's chosen major is
thought to contribute to high attrition rates,
difficulties in choosing an engineering major, low
academic motivation, and lasting dissatisfaction.
CHAPTER III
THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
It is the purpose of this chapter to detail the
methodology and analysis techniques of this study.
Attention is given to the study sample, procedures,
instrumentation, interview schedules, statistical
hypotheses, statistical analysis, and a summary.
Population and Sample
The sample consists of 92.95 percent (132 students)
of the population being studied. The population consists
of 1&2 first term 1968 engineering freshmen at Michigan
State University who scored 150 or higher on the total
of the College Qualification Test (CQT-T) and who chose
to take Computer Science 120 (CPS 120) in their first
term. It might be argued that the population consists
of a much larger group with characteristics similar to
the population defined above; but, according to statisti-
cal sampling theory, the population must be limited
because the CPS 120 group was not randomly selected.
A word should be said regarding limiting this
study to first term freshmen with a CQT-T of 150 or
higher. The College of Engineering enrolls only high
31
32
ability first term freshmen in CPS 120 because it is
felt that these students can adjust best to the extra
study burden of the computer course. All freshmen are
required to complete CPS 120 but lower ability students
(those below a CQT-T of 150) are believed to do better
after a term or two of college experience. First term
freshmen are selected for this study because of the
great similarity of their academic programs and their
uniform lack of exposure to college. To obtain the
purest measures of the effects of the course it is,
therefore, most logical to study first term freshmen.
The College of Engineering adheres to the policy of
not forcing all of its high ability freshmen to take
CPS 120 in their first term. The study group consists,
therefore, of only those high ability freshmen who chose
to take CPS 120, rather than the entire group that was
eligible on the basis of CQT-T.
The Experimental Group (those taking CPS 120 with
orientation) consists of seventy-two students with a
CQT-T mean of 168.31 and a standard deviation of 11.62.
The Control Group (those taking CPS 120 with no orienta-
tion) consists of sixty students with a CQT-T mean of
171.95 and a standard deviation of 10.97. Although
subjects self selected themselves into the two sections
of CPS 120 with no knowledge of the differences between
33
the sections, the means of the two groups on CQT-T
were found significantly different using a t test with
an alpha level of .05. The difference between the means
is only 3.64 points which, although statistically
significant, is not felt to be practically significant
for purposes of this research.
Procedures
1. Permission to conduct this study was obtained
in the summer of 1968 from the Dean of Engineering
and the Director of Computer Science. Contacts
were made with the two instructors of CPS 120 to
obtain their support and to plan the study.
It was not possible to obtain the same
instructor for both sections due to scheduling
difficulties. Although the instructor difference
between the two study groups may have had a
confounding effect on the results, it should be
noted that neither instructor provided orienta-
tion in his section of CPS 120, and that orienta-
tion presentations were given by faculty from the
various departments. Statistical tests are in-
cluded in Chapter IV to estimate the confounding
effects of the instructor variable.
2.
4.
5.
34
A pre-test questionnaire was administered to both
sections of CPS 120 at the second class meeting
of the term. (Completion time: twenty minutes)
After the pre-test had been administered sixteen
students picked at random from each group were
interviewed to obtain additional information and
to study the validity of the questionnaire.
A post-test questionnaire was administered at
the last class meeting of the term.
(a) Post-tests for both groups contained
all the questions from the pre-test
plus additional questions focused
on the course.
(b) The post-test for the experimental
group contained all the questions
given the control group plus
additional questions focused on the
orientation presentations. (Average
completion time: thirty minutes)
During the week before the post-tests were
administered sixteen students picked at random
from each group were interviewed to obtain
additional information about the students'
attitudes towards CPS 120 and to validate the
post-tests. Unlike the timing of the pre-inter—
views, the post-interviews were scheduled before
35
the post-tests in order to control students into
their interviews before the term break interrupted
the school year.
Instrumentation
Three questionnaires were designed specifically
for this study consisting of a pre-test instrument
used with both the experimental and the control group,
a post-test instrument used with the control group,
and a post-test for the experimental group. All
questionnaires were administered on a pilot basis,
before adopting them for the study, to a small group
of students to be sure the items were understandable.
Although no conventional tests of reliability or
validity were conducted, the information from inter-
views, pilot testing, and experience with engineering
freshmen would give support to the contention that
the instruments were reliable and valid for purposes
of this study.
Pro-testing
The purpose of the pre-test was to elicit
student attitudes and understandings regarding
engineering and required non engineering courses in
order to determine the sameness of the two study groups
36
on essential variables before the treatment was
administered. The first three items were designed to
assess knowledge of, identification with, and desire for
engineering as a career. The fourth item required the
student to rate the general occupational opportunities
of the seven engineering fields at M.S.U., while the
fifth item asked the student's present choice of
engineering major.
The sixth item was designed to elicit, in
capsule form, the student's definitions of the engineer-
ing careers corresponding to the seven engineering
majors at M.S.U. Using seven general categories of
engineering work (including administration, design,
construction, consulting and sales, manufacturing and
operations, research and development, and teaching)
the student was asked to indicate for each major the
category of work in which he felt each type of
engineer was most involved.
The last item called for the student to rate
the truth of six statements regarding non-engineering
courses including mathematics, chemistry, physics,
computer science, and English. The six statements
covered the broad range of ideas that students have
regarding why they are required to take certain courses.
37
Post-testing
The purposes of the post-tests were to measure
changes that may have occurred and to elicit evaluations
of the CPS 120 courses. The seven pre-test items were
repeated in the post-tests to measure differences
between the study groups which could be accounted for
by the fact that orientation was given to only the
experimental group.
Items eight through nineteen were designed to
elicit student evaluations of the CPS 120 course and
instructor. Items twenty through twenty-three
appeared in only the experimental group post-test and
were designed to elicit evaluations of the orientation
presentations.
Interview Schedules
Interviews were conducted on a pre and post basis,
and consisted of broadly structured questions. The
interviews were designed to elicit information relative
to the study and additional information of concern to
the College of Engineering which is outside the purposes
of the study.
38
Pre-interviewing
The pre-interview schedule was identical for
both experimental and control groups and consisted of
five general questions. The first question was con-
cerned with the student's career interest in engineer-
ing including how it developed, when the choice was
made to study engineering, and how firm this decision
is now. This question was designed to explore further
the engineering career choice and validate the question-
naire items concerned with this topic.
Question two explored activities and experiences
which led to the student's present understanding of
engineering, how deficient the student felt his under—
standing was, and what, if any, plans he had to further
his understanding. The purposes of this question were
exploration and validation.
The third question asked the student what the
College of Engineering could do for him. This infor-
mation was desired to aid Engineering Student Affairs
program development. Question four was also designed
to aid program development; but it was also designed
to determine the importance to the student of under-
standing and choosing an engineering career relative
to other concerns he might have.
39
The last question surveyed the student's
activities and interests while in high school. It
was the purpose of this question to better understand
the subjects, and thereby better understand the results
of this study.
Post-interviewing
The post-interviews involved two different
schedules. The experimental group received all the
questions given the control with additional questions
designed to probe student attitudes regarding the
orientation experience. Both post-interview schedules
also contained all the pre-interview questions.
The first question following the pre-interview
questions asked the student what, if anything, he had
gained from his courses since the start of the term
relative to understanding engineering. An attempt was
made to probe the effects of CPS 120 on understanding,
identification, and desire for engineering. Information
from this question could be used to further validate
the post-questionnaires as well as to better understand
the phenomena being studied.
Questions two, three, and four asked for
evaluations of the CPS 120 course, instructor, and
4O
problem assignments. The purposes of these questions
were better understanding of the study results and
validation.
Question five was given to only the experimental
group interviewees as it was particularly concerned
with the orientation aspects of CPS 120. The comments
to this question also served validation purposes.
Statistical Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups in knowledge of engineering as a
career 0
Alternate Hypothesis: The experimental
group has significantly more knowledge of
engineering as a career than the control.
Hypothesis 2
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant
differences from pre-test to post-test
between experimental and control groups on:
41
a) frequency of changes in
identification with engineering
as a career; and,
b) degree of changes in
identification with engineering
as a career 0
Alternate Hypothesis: The experimental group is
significantly greater than the control group on
pre-test to post-test shifts in:
a) frequency of changes in
identification with engineering
as a career; and,
b) degree of changes in
identification with engineering
as a career.
Hypothesisj
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant
differences from pre-test to post-test between
experimental and control groups on:
a) frequency of changes in desire
for engineering as a career; and,
b) degree of changes in desire for
engineering as a career.
42
Alternate Hypothesis: The experimental group
is significantly greater than the control
group on pre-test to post—test shifts in:
a) frequency of changes in
desire for engineering as a
career; and,
b) degree of changes in desire
for engineering as a career.
Hypothesis 4
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups in the number of major changes.
Alternate Hypothesis: There are significantly
more major changes in the experimental group
than the control group.
Hypothesis 5
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups regarding attitudes about required
non-engineering courses.
Alternate Hypothesis: Experimental and
control groups are significantly different
regarding attitudes about required non—
engineering courses.
43
Hypothesis 6
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups regarding definitions of the
engineering fields available for study at
M.S.U.
HHternate Hypothesis: Experimental and
control groups are significantly different
regarding definitions of the engineering
fields available for study at M.S.U.
W
The analysis of the data includes both descriptive
statistics and statistical tests of the hypotheses.
Descriptive statistics are presented in tables with
explanations to make the results as meaningful as
possible for the reader and to provide information
regarding the research questions that is not statisti-
cally testable. With the advice of the research consul-
tants in the College of Education and the Computer
Laboratory at M.S.U., statistical models were adopted
for this study that were the most powerful and appropriate
for the data involved.
44
Decision Rule
For all tests of significance the following
decision rule applies: Reject the null
hypothesis (Ho); if the value of t, chi
square, or F is equal to or exceeds the
critical value for the appropriate degrees
of freedom at an alpha level of .05.
Statistical Models
The statistical models used in the analysis
of the data and the assumptions underlying
their use are presented below with a dis-
cussion regarding the accuracy of these
assumptions for the data.
QHHpSguare - Assumptypgg: Chi Square
is used to analyze categorical or
nominal scale data. The use of this
test assumes adequate sample size,
independance of observations, and an
approximately normal population dis-
tribution.
45
Product Moment Correlation: Assumptions
As used in this study, no assumptions
are necessary in describing the extent
of linear relationship in sets of paired-
score data. The correlation is used in
this study to examine the possibility
and extent of instructor as a confounding
variable. Evaluations of the CPS 120
instructors and courses are correlated
with the variables of knowledge,
identification, and desire. If these
variables correlate significantly with
the instructor and course variables
there is reason to suspect confounding.
Analysis of Covariance ANCOVA : Assum tions
The use of ANCOVA assumes normal population
distribution, equal population variances
(homoscedasticity), independance of
observations, parallel treatment group
regression.lines,and a linear relationship
between the dependant variable and the
covariable. This analysis is used to
equate the experimental and control
groups using the pre-test as the covariate.
This procedure is valid to use when study
46
groups have not had subjects randomly
assigned as is the case in this study.
The results of such a use of ANCOVA
are correlational and cannot be
interpreted as causal.
Hiscussion of Assumptions:
It is not completely proven that the
assumptions for chi square and ANCOVA
are met for the data in this study.
It is, however, the opinion of the
College of Education research consult-
ants that the most essential assumptions
appear to be sufficiently valid. The
size of the sample and the choice of
appropriate statistical models also
gave support to accepting the assumptions.
Summary
A sample of 132 first term freshman engineering
students are studied through use of questionnaires and
interviews to determine the effects of an engineering
orientation course. A group of seventy-two students
received orientation to engineering as part of an intro-
ductory computer programming course while another group
47
of sixty students took a similar programming course
containing no orientation. All subjects scored 150 or
better on the College Qualification Test. Reasons were
discussed for studying high ability freshmen.
A pre-test was administered at the beginning of
the course to determine study group equality and
comparison data. Post-tests were administered at the
completion of the course to determine changes and group
differences on the variables. Interviews were conducted
with sixteen students chosen randomly from each group
both at the start and completion of the course to
validate the questionnaires and obtain additional
information.
The objective of the questionnaires and inter-
views is to determine the effect of engineering
orientation on knowledge of engineering, desire for
engineering, major choices, definitions of engineering
specialties, and attitudes toward required non-engineer-
ing courses. Seven hypotheses and three general research
questions were presented relative to the results of the
study.
Analysis of the data was discussed, and it was
indicated that the most powerful and appropriate
statistical models are to be used. The .05 alpha level
is used to determine the significance of differences
48
between groups. Specific statistical models include
chi square, product moment correlation, and analysis
of covariance. Assumptions relative to these statisti-
cal models were discussed with support for the belief
that these assumptions were adequately met.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results are reported in this chapter in four
sections. The first section contains results of the
data pertaining to each of the hypotheses which are
restated in a form specific to the questionnaire
instruments used. The second section contains results
relative to the research questions stated in Chapter I.
The third section presents a discussion of the data
analysis examining the effects of having different
instructors teaching the two study courses. The final
section contains the results of the interviews. Follow-
ing these four sections is a summary to assist the
reader in an overall understanding of the results.
Before analyzing the results of the data, the
pre-test similarity of the two study groups should be
noted. Of the fifty-six pre-test variables studied,
the experimental and control groups were found to be
significantly different, using chi square at the .05
level, on only two variables as noted in Table 11.
This lends support to the assumption of equality of
study groups in the experimental design.
’49
Data Relative to Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Hgglgfiypothesyg: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups in knowledge of engineering as a
career as measured by subject self-ratings
of the extent of understanding.
Alternate Hypothesis: The experimental
group has significantly more knowledge of
engineering as a career than the control
group.
Table 1 presents the results of an analysis of
covariance on the data for knowledge of engineering.
The P value is not statistically significant at the
.05 level making it impossible to reject the null
hypothesis.
Table 2 presents descriptive data relative to
the first hypothesis. Both study groups increased from
pre-test to post-test in knowledge of engineering as a
career. Neither group of subjects rated themselves
much over 'moderate understanding' on the post-test.
Hypothesis 2
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant
50
51
TABLE 1. Summary of covariance analysis of
experimental and control groups on
knowledge of engineering
1 l ‘ I
Adjusted Sums Adjusted Mean
Effect of Squares df Squares F
treatment 1.184 1 1.184 2.97*
error 51.386 129 .398
* Not significant at .05 level
Note: Pre-test used as covariate
Adjusted Means
Experimental 3.278
Control 3.084
52
TABLE 2: Comparison of knowledge of engineering
for experimental (E) and control (C) groups
Item 1 Pre-test Post-test
Knowledge E C E 0
Almost No 11 1 2 0
Understanding 15.28 1.67 2.78 00.00
Small 15 11 9 10
Understanding 20.83 18.33 12.50 .16.67
Moderate 28 30 33 30
Understanding 38.89 50.00 45.83 50.00
Fairly Good 18 17 28 20
Understanding 25.00 28.33 38.89 33.33
Thorough
Understanding 0 1 0 0
00.00 1.67 00.00 00.00
2.74 3.10 3.21 3.17
1.01 0.77 0.77 0.69
Note:
In each cell, percentages are shown below
corresponding frequencies.
53
differences from pre-test to post-test
between experimental and control groups on:
a) frequency of changes in identification
with engineering as a career as
measured by subject self-ratings of
the extent to which they can see
themselves as one day becoming
an engineer; and,
b) degree of changes in identification
with engineering as a career as
measured by subject self-ratings of
the extent to which they can presently
see themselves as one day becoming an
engineer.
Alternate Hypothesis: The experimental group
is significantly greater than the control group
on pre-test to post-test shifts in:
a) frequency of changes in identification
with engineering as a career; and,
b) degree of changes in identification
with engineering as a career.
According to the chi square analysis presented in
Table 3 it is not possible to reject null hypothesis a)
at the .05 level. It is also not possible to reject null
54
TABLE 3. Comparison of frequency of changes in
degree of identification with engineering
from pre-test to post-test
Item 2 ‘ Identification with Engin.
Increase Same Decrease
7 40 25
Experimental 2-
9.72 55.56 34.72 I -1-647*
Control 10 33 17 df=2
16.67 55.00 28.33
* Not significant at .05 level
Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below
corresponding frequencies.
TABLE 4. Summary of covariance analysis of experimental
and control groups on degree of shifts in
identification with engineering from pre-test
to post-test
Adjusted Sums Adjusted Mean
Eff°°t of Squares df Squares F
treatment 1.271 1 1.271 2.16*
error 76.028 129 0.589
* Not significant at .05 level
Note: Pre-test used as covariate
Adjusted Means
3.335
3.532
Experimental
Control
55
hypothesis b) at the .05 level as shown by the analysis
of covariance in Table 4. Both study groups tend to
have more frequent shifts from pre to post in the
direction of decreased identification. The overall
results as presented in Table 5 show both groups have
few responses at the low end of the identification
scale on both pre and post tests.
Hypothesis 3
Null Hypothesis: There are no significant
differences from pre—test to post-test between
experimental and control groups on:
a) frequency of changes in subject
self-ratings of the extent of
desire to become an engineer; and,
b) degree of changes in subject
self-ratings of the extent of
desire to become an engineer.
Alternate Hypothesis: The experimental group
is significantly greater than the control group
on pre-test to post-test shifts in:
a) frequency of changes in desire for
engineering as a career; and,
b) degree of changes in desire for
56
TABLE 5. Comparison of identification with
engineering for experimental (E) and
control (C) groups
corresponding frequencies.
Item 2 Pre-test Post-test
Identification
E C E C
Almost No 1 O 5 1
Conception 1.39 0 6.94 1.67
Small 5 5 7 5
Conception 6.94 8.33 9.72 8-33
Moderate 23 1h 27 22
C t
oncep ion 31.94 23.33 37,50 36.67
Fairly 32 35 26 2“
Certain nu.uu 58.33 36.11 40-00
Completely 11 6 7 8
Sure 15.28 10.00 9.72 13-33
x 3.65 3.70 3.32 3.55
0.87 0.77 1.02 0-89
Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below
5?
engineering as a career.
It is not possible to reject null hypothesis
a) at the .05 level regarding frequency of changes as
shown by the chi square analysis in Table 6. Also,
the results for degree of changes are not significant
at the .05 level as shown by the analysis of covariance
in Table 7. It is, therefore, not possible to reject
null hypothesis b). As was the case for identification,
desire for engineering decreased slightly from pre-test
to post-test for both study groups. In both measure-
ments very few subjects from either study group responded
in the 'small' or 'no' desire categories.
Hypothesis 4
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups in the number of engineering major
changes from pre-test to post-test.
Alternate Hypothesis: There are significantly
more engineering major changes from pre-test
to post-test in the experimental group than
the control group.
The chi square analysis in Table 9 shows few
major changes in both study groups and no significant
58
TABLE 6. Comparison of frequency of changes in degree
of desire for engineering from pre-test to
post-test for experimental and control groups
Desire for Engineering
Item 3
Increase Same Decrease
14 41 17
Ex erimental
p 19.uu 56.94 23.61 12= 00““"*
Control 10 33 17 df=2
* Not significant at .05 level
Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below
corresponding frequencies.
TABLE 7. Summary of covariance analysis of experimental
and control groups on degree of shifts in
desire for engineering from pre-test to post-test
Adjusted Sums Adjusted
Effect of Squares df Mean Squares F
treatment 0.002 1 0.002 0.004%
r- I.
error 64.288 129 0.498
* Not significant at .05 level
Note: Pre-test used as covariate
Adjusted Means
Experimental 3.511
Control 3.503
59
TABLE 8. Comparison of desire for engineering
- for experimental (E) and control (C)
Item 3 Pre-test Post-test
Desire E C E C
Almost No 1 0 3 0
Desire 1,39 0 4.17 0
Small 1 1 3 5
Desire 1.39 1.67 4.17 8.33
Moderately 30 23 28 24
Desired 01.67 38.33 38.89 40.00
Greatly 35 31 3 25
Desired 48.61 51.67 44.44 41.67
Desired 5 5 6 6
Exclusive 6.94 8.33 8.33 10.00
i 3.58 3.67 3.49 3.53
s 0.71 0.66 0.87 0.79
Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below
corresponding frequencies.
60
difference between the groups. It is, therefore, not
possible to reject the null hypothesis at the .05 level.
The summary data in Table 10 presents the rank
ordering of engineering majors. (For more complete
information refer to Table 17 in Appendix C). The
study groups are fairly similar in their ranking of
the various engineering fields on the pre-test, but
this similarity approaches complete agreement on the
post-test with slight disagreements appearing in the
ranks of only two of the seven majors.
Hypothesis 5
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups regarding attitudes about required
non-engineering courses as measured by
subject ratings of the truth of each of six
statements related to why such courses might
be required.
Alternate Hyppthesis: Experimental and
control groups are significantly different
regarding attitudes about required none
engineering courses.
61
TABLE 9. Comparison of major changes from pre-test
to post-test for experimental and control
groups
Item 5 Major Choice
Changed Same
Experimental 9 63 2
12050 87050 X = ()0‘4‘61"I
10 50
Control
16.67 83.33
* Not significant at .05 level
Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below
corresponding frequencies.
TABLE 10. Summary comparison of ranks of
engineering majors for experimental (E)
and control (C) groups
Item 4 Ranks
, Pre Post
Majors E C E C
Agricultural 7 7 7 ‘ 7
Civil 6 5 5 5
Electrical 2 1 1 1
Mechanical 4 3 4 3
Metallurgy 5 6 6 6
Chemical 1 2 2 2
Eng. Science 3 4 3 4
62
Of the thirty chi squares computed on the pre-test
(Table 11) only two were significant at the .05 level.
This pre-test similarity of the groups supports the
experimental design. The post-test chi squares
revealed only two significant at the .05 level making
it necessary to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
(Table 12)
Table 13 presents the pre and post means for
each opinion statement on each course for the combined
study groups. Although there was no significant
difference between the groups, the overall trend for
combined subjects is worth noting. With only three
exceptions, the following statements gained in truth
from pre-test to post-test as reasons why non-engineer-
ing courses might be required:
a) Mental exercise to develop thought processes
b) Part of an education; no particular
application
c) An academic filter to remove all unqualified
d) Something engineers might find useful,
but not usually a necessity.
The only statement that decreased in the truth
ratings from pre-test to post-test was: 'A necessary tool
in my future field of work'. Opinion was divided on 'A
prerequisite to later courses', with a high percentage
of subjects failing to respond or responding with "no
opinion".
63
.neaaowcpce coconuen ones he use cacao
pecnnsm on ones: monso.omosu ad a men» need one aooeeau we assumed
can .nwm mes cans» causes «no nos. smeSpdd .mesHsb chosen
«so wade:OAmoauoe roach stone one acoooau no ocwmou .Hace some sH .oepoz
H0>0H no. as uncoaudsmam e
: a s a : ucmusoo Mensa
oHu.H “no.“ amm.n o~:.~ smn.~ on eaamdsdeuenm 4
hpanmoocz a madman: non
e e. e e s can. ~88: 32 news:
onm.w man a Nan.a mno.a mun.a cnoosawsu wadspesom
: a a a a as
. . . . . 60dhdfldfi D Hdd obbflom
mow n tuna m me: n mam N mmo N on Masada cdseeeod :4
e e e e . e 8333.84
0 0 0 O 0 Rafi—Odgg oz
1. e e n a to:
ho 6H.«h 0H5»:h ht
smu.n nwa.m cod.“ amo.a une.n ma Hoes hwemeeoez 4
ecumccoum
e e e e a passage aoagoa
euaa.aa mao.m ono.m oaa.H mma.w o» cmdcucwu House:
nnddwfifl oodoaom mounhzm .3020 Bad! 5 EOOH
Heusaaoo
masoam Houusoc use Housemanonwo
non monasoo madnoosawscuso: eondsuoh caste» moespdppc no
acoseusmcea neoplasm no anomausaaoc chosen «so no unclean .HH flqm cusses Hme
waHonoamOHhoo IOHon axons one sooocuu no moohwoo .HHoo some cH .mouoz
Ho>oH no. as usmeHqumHm e
64
: s a a n moonsoo wound
a a n e n thmmcooz m hHHcSmD no:
nme.n oeH.e 0mmo.m oo~.m Hom.m asp Hence: ecHa pstz
mucoussm wanpcaom
: a a a a d
. . . . . chuHHms so HH< oboaom
mmm : «no n NmH H nww H mm: H on neaHHm eHaoeco< s4
e a e a e coHpseHHaa<
amHsothsm oz
mmm.w :mm.u mum.H 033.: mom.m “SOHumosdm cm no uhdm
n N sue:
a a a no eHon smooch a:
Hne.m Nom.m emn.H oNH.m eeoa.o cH Hooe aueeeoeoz <
. monoceonm
3 3 a a 3 pswdosa QOHOPOG
unn.m mam.H nun.a nNm.n Hao.m op omHouch Hence:
smHstu eoschm mchhnm .scso and: u acpH
Hopsaaoo
museum Hahvsoo one HopsoaHucawo you mcmhsoo
wcchoccholsos ochHsdoh canto» mooapprm Mo masseusmmoa
umcplpmon so msomHHmaaoo sudden Hso mo hhmaasm .NH flqm .2
campus umsxoaom
.n
can» umnkoaom
Ham
Hm esha hue> .H
.momsoaoch csoHsHao on: assessmGOAmoh essence no RoH e
cm.H
*mH.m mn.~ mm.H 5H.m umom menusoo Hosea
emw.n smn.~ mm.H wo.H mm.H .ohm op opHmHsueacam <
hmolN Hhom gem 200N 0 Gwen “mom hHAQOOOGZ d hHHgQD 906m
. use Hagen: esHm usmH:
we.~ oo.n an.m mm.~ mm.n cum enoonHmnu wanuosom
L
e~.n ne.n eHm.~ oo.~ ma.~ seem
eoHuHHmsusD HHc chosen
mn.n sum.n No.n ma.~ mm.~ cam on nopHHh cHsoeeo< s4
o~.~ Hn.n Ho.n a~.n ea.n seem coHpaeHHne<
ncHsoHpnem oz
a... ee.n ee.n em.n Ne.n one .eeHseeeee e. e. s..e
. . . . . mo mac:
Hm m em H mm H as H «H H a m ao eHon ensues as
nn.~ N:.H on.H so.H no.H chm sH Hooa auscmocoz d
mm.~ mm.H mo.~ e~.~ HA.H seem eoeeoeeum
. uswsosa QOH0>0n
o~.~ m~.~ HH.~ Hn.m wu.H cum on onHoaowu House:
:eHHmsm oesoHo 00H0hsm muumHacsol and: a aouH
housaso&
IHw
..nnsoum heaps veanaoo
you moonsoo wcHuccussolsos ochHsdch wsHehewcu msoHsHao
mo mmsHpca secs useuuumoa.oss umOHIOHQ no somHamaaoo .mH Manda
66
Hypothesis 6
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control
groups regarding definitions of the engineering
fields available for study as measured by
subjects indicating where, in seven categories
of engineering work, engineers from each
field are most greatly involved.
Alternate Hypothesis: Experimental and
control groups are significantly different
regarding definitions of the engineering
fields available for study.
Table 14 presents a summary of the chi squares
computed for hypothesis 6. The only field defined
significantly different by the two study groups is
Electrical Engineering. This being the case, it is
not possible to reject the null hypothesis at the .05
level.
Data Relative to Research Questions
The three general research questions dealt with
student evaluations of the orientation course. The
67
TABLE 14. Summary of chi
comparisons of
control groups
of engineering
square
experimental and
on definitions
majors
Majors (Item 6) Pre Post
11. ,
7 6
Mechanical 3'955 1-432
6 5
6.097 11.119*
Electrical 4 5
3.801 2.910
Chemical 6 5
4.665 2.805
Metallurgy 6 5
Agricultural
7 7
Engineering 5.211 6.345
Sciences
7 7
All Majors 11'955 9-088
7 5
* Significant at .05 level
Notes: In each cell, degrees of freedom
are shown below corresponding chi
square values.
Although each chi
square table was 2x8, the degrees
of freedom are less than 7 in those
cases where no subject chose one or
more response categories.
68
questions were:
1. To what extent do experimental group
subjects feel they have enjoyed the
orientation course?
2. Do experimental group subjects feel
that the orientation presentations
were worthwhile?
3. Do experimental group subjects feel
that the orientation presentations
were well integrated with the computer
science content of the course?
Tables 15 and 16 present the data relative to
course evaluation. Generally the subjects enjoyed the
orientation course, giving it a mean rating of 3.68 on
a five point scale. The orientation presentations were
seen as worthwhile with a mean rating of 3.28. The
students felt the orientation presentations were fairly
well integrated with the computer course content as
indicated by a mean rating of 3.17.
The highest ratings went to: "How much do you
feel you have profited from this course?" (3.90); ”How
would you rate the overall value of the problem assign-
ments for teaching you computer programming?" (3.94);
and, ”To what extent did these special presentations help
you to understand what the work of engineers involves?"
(3.74)
Subjects’ratings of how helpful each of the six
individual presentations were for understanding the work
Items
14
19
20
21
22
Key for TABLE 15
Questions
To what extent have you enjoyed CPS 120?
How would you rate the overall value of
the problem assignments for teaching you
computer programming?
How much do you feel you have profited
from this course?
How would you rate the worth of the
orientation presentations?
To what extent do you feel the
orientation presentations were well
integrated, or seemed a natural part
of the regular computer course content?
To what extent did these special
presentations help you to understand
what the work of engineers involves?
69
70
.moHososdcam wsHesoameanoo BOch axons one mcwcpsconoa .HHco Some sH .opoz
mm.o HH.H mo.H 0H.H Ho.H mN.H m
ea.m AH.m mm.m oa.n em.n we.m mm
o o o H H H emsoamcm oz
mm.H 5H.: 5H.: mm.: mm.N me.m H chpcmcz
H m m n m m
ma.m ma.a~ NN.N~ eo.a so.a mm.m m
a om 6H m n a
oo.m~ aH.m~ AH.m~ Hn.mH me.mH em.~m m
mH Hm Hm MH HH 0H
mo.H: oo.mm mm.om Hm.mn mm.ma em.mm :
on mH mm mm on AH
m~.m~ mm.mH mm.mH Hm.mn mm.mm Hm.mm
6H OH OH mm mm .mm m eerHeom
macpH HopscaHuoaNm pmom msHpcm
omH mmo Ho wwchmh macaw Hcpzcaanawc 20 same unoplvmom .nH wands
71
.mnensca apHSomm OHMHocam op oopmHoa on oHsoc
seHns mwsHpca wsHSmHHnsa oHobc on use .pscbcHoH no: mH :OHpmaaomsH
mHsp cmsmocn cam: an oonHpsovH How one mGOHpmpscmoaa GOHpcpncHno
.onososuon wsHosoamouaoo Boaon stoma one mcwcpsconoa .HHoo some CH «mopoz
oo.H oo.H :m.o dw.o 35.0 uw.o m
mo.N mm.N mm.H mn.N an.N mo.N _ . NW
:H N N o o o emsoamom oz
mm.mH oo.ON Hn.m NH.: :m.m mm.m : HsuaHom
m :H a m m a 902
ao.mH oo.om Ha.mH ee.ee mm.mn oo.mN m a .
. . s c
e .. s s s e... s ermerm
oH.ne em.mm eH.ae ee.Hm om.Hm ae.He .
, N HscaHom
mN MN mm MN mm on pmnxoaom
ne.HH eH.eH ne.Hm ee.eH Hm.e ea.em H HeeeHem
mH NH NN :H 0 ON hac>
m m o o m < 7 chcm
wsOHpmpscmonm sOHpcpsoHno wsHpmm
sOHpcpscmcna GOHpmusoHno HmdeHbHosH
some no mwsHpcn macaw HcpseaHHcawo pmoa mean even .QH wands
72
of engineers ranged from a low of 2.53 to a high of
1.96 on an inverted four point scale. These ratings
are somewhat in conflict with the results of the
general rating given for all the orientation presenta-
tions. The value of the presentations for helping one
understand the work of engineers is less when each
presentation is rated individually.
Data Pertainipg to Instructor as a Confoundipg Variable
Although not part of the regular analysis of the
data, attention was given to determining the extent to
which having different instructors for the two study
groups affected the outcomes of the study. Table 18
in Appendix C shows that, of the twelve instructor and
course rating questions, the experimental and control
groups differ significantly in four chi square analyses
at the .05 level. To further determine the effects of
having different instructors, simple correlations were
computed between instructor ratings and knowledge,
identification, and desire; between course ratings and
knowledge, identification and desire; and, between a
composite of course and instructor ratings and knowledge,
identification, and desire. (See Table 19, Appendix C)
The object was to determine if there was a relationship
73
between extraneous variables affected by instructor and
the main variables of interest in this study. The
correlations exhibit very little relationship with no
significant differences between respective experimental
and control group correlations at the .05 level. This
data lends support to the contention that instructor is
not a significant confounding variable, but this is not
a firm conclusion.
Analysis of the Interviews
This analysis contains a summary of the inter-
views, grouped according to pre and post, and in the
same order as the general questions described in
Chapter III under Interview Schedules. It is not the
purpose here to give numerical frequencies of various
comments; rather, it is the purpose to provide the
reader with major trends from the interviews.
Pro-Interviews
The comments in this section are selected from
both experimental and control groups because no major
differences appear between the groups in the pre-inter-
views. This fact lends support to the contention that
the study groups were sufficiently similar. Also
included in this section are the comments from the post-
interviews. Some of this pre-interview information will
be reported later under the section entitled Post-Inter-
views. This is done because student responses to
certain questions could have been affected by having
completed one term of college academic work and CPS 120.
74
75
The subjects recalled their initial interests in
engineering occurred predominately toward the later
years of high school, although the responses ranged
from "always had this interest" to "haven't develOped
this interest yet". The actual decision to study
engineering in college usually occurs late in high
school. The causes of first developing an interest in
engineering were often the same as the causes or catalysts
indicated for deciding to study engineering. Career
choice was affected by: positive experiences with
mathematics and science courses, relatives and friends
who are engineers, and teacher and counselor advice.
Students almost unanimously felt their choice of
engineering was firm although the particular field of
specialization may not have been decided upon.
A great variety of activities and experiences
were noted with regard to how students developed an
understanding of engineering. These include: talking
with relatives and friends who are engineers; touring
factories and engineering schools; college and engineer-
ing society seminars and summer institutes; career
literature and career days; and, practical experience
with automobiles and computers. Students generally felt
their understanding of engineering was inadequate, but
76
plans to improve this understanding ranged from "no
plans” to a wide range of detailed plans, including:
college courses, talking to engineers, reading, and
summer jobs.
Providing an understanding of the various
engineering fields available was a minor service the
College of Engineering could provide. Students were
most hopeful that the College would provide a good
engineering education, a good liberal education, and
help with surviving academically.
The major concerns of these new freshmen
surround the area of grades and academic success.
Social and psychological adjustment were of next
importance with career choice being of least concern.
The extra-curricular activities and interests
of these students prior to college covered a broad
spectrum from "practically nothing" to "total involve-
ment". The most relevant finding was that these
students were rarely involved with science or engineer-
ing clubs and science projects. Tinkering, experiment-
ing,-and inventing were also infrequently mentioned. Most
frequently mentioned activities were: sports, clubs,
student government, honors programs and societies, church
and community activities, academic institutes and seminars,
and music.
77
Post-interviews
Major results of the post-interviews are
reported for the control group first, followed by
those for the experimental group. Information of a
specific nature relative to instructor evaluation is
not presented as it is not appropriate to publish.
It should be noted that this information has been
supplied to the instructors for their review.
Post Interviews: Control Group
Control subjects, when asked how firm their
decision was to major in engineering, evidenced some
decrease from pre-interviews in their confidence with
engineering as a major choice. This decreased
confidence is not uniform as some students showed the
same firmness as appeared in pre-interviews, while
others were less sure engineering was an attainable
goal even though it was still highly desirable.
Overall, control subjects were less firm in their
choice of engineering as a major.
Generally, control subjects felt that they had
done little or nothing during their first term of
college to develop a better understanding of engineering.
Control subjects had more plans to develOp this under-
78
standing and about the same amount of dissatisfaction
with their understanding as appeared in pre-interviews.
Responses to the question regarding what the
student would like the College to do for him were quite
similar to pre-interview comments to this question.
Students did offer a few more specific comments, such
as ”better text material" and "laboratory research“.
The major concerns of the control subjects did
not appear much different from the pre-interviews.
The attention was again focused on grades with career
choice as very secondary.
Control subjects felt that they gained little or
nothing during their first term from courses regarding
an understanding of engineering. What they did gain
usually was based on successes and failures in their
courses which provided them with an indication of their
chances of succeeding in the engineering curriculum.
Specifically, the CPS 120 course was seen as having no
effect on understanding of engineering except in a few
cases where the experience with CPS 120 either encouraged
or discouraged majoring in Computer Science.
In evaluating the CPS 120 instructor and course,
the control subjects offered a variety of suggestions
for improvement. They felt the technical problem
assignments were an effective and necessary method of
79
teaching computer programming, but these assignments
provided very little understanding of engineering.
Post Inverviews: Experimental Group
Experimental subjects expressed feelings very
similar to those of the controls on firmness of their
decision to major in engineering. Less confidence in
engineering as a major choice was expressed along with
unsureness that engineering was an attainable goal.
In regard to what the students had done during
the term to develOp an understanding of engineering,
two-thirds of the experimental subjects mentioned the
CPS 120 course. They also indicated greater satisfac-
tion with their understanding of engineering than was
indicated by control subjects. With this satisfaction
came fewer plans than control group subjects had
expressed for further developing their understanding
of engineering.
The major concerns of the experimental subjects
were with grades and academic success. This finding
is identical with that for the controls as also is
the finding that career choice is either very secondary
as a concern or non-existent. This represents no
difference from the pre-interviews.
80
Experimental subjects felt they gained a better
understanding of engineering during their first term
from CPS 120, but little or nothing from any other
course. Contrary to the control subjects' opinions,
the experimentals felt CPS 120 not only had relevance
for choosing a Computer Science major but was also
helpful in defining other engineering fields.
Evaluations of the CPS 120 course were very
similar to those given by control subjects with
specific suggestions offered. Instructor evaluations
were different from those of control subjects. Although
both study groups indicated an overall satisfaction with
the instructors, there was clearly a difference in degree
of satisfaction. The technical problem assignments were
seen as only a little more helpful for understanding
engineering than as seen by controls.
In evaluating the orientation presentations the
experimental subjects generally thought most of the
presentations were good and worthwhile. Suggestions
were offered for modifying some or all of the presents-
tions since several students noted that sometimes the
technical content was too advanced and dull. One student
pointed out that the presentations were particularly
interesting to those concerned about major choice, but
those not concerned knew they would not be graded on the
material, and therefore, ignored it. Several students
81
expressed a desire that the presentations explain
engineering more comprehensively and in more depth.
These same students also recognized the difficulty of
this task in the short times provided with the structure
of the class.
All experimental interviewees felt the
presentations helped their understanding of engineering,
but all qualified the degree of help as "moderate" and
”fair”.
The CPS 120 course, as a whole, was seen as more
helpful than the presentations for understanding
engineering. Students did not see the orientation
presentations as affecting their choice of majors or
changes within or outside of engineering.
Summary
The data were analyzed with chi square and
analysis of covariance tests using a .05 confidence
level. Tables were provided containing the results
of the statistical tests and descriptive data. The
data for all hypotheses failed to reject the null.
Data relative to the research questions revealed
that students generally enjoyed the orientation course,
found the orientation presentations worthwhile, and
found the orientation presentations well integrated
with the computer science content of the course. There
was some conflict between ratings of the general value
of the orientation presentations for defining the work
of engineers and ratings given to each individual pre-
sentation. When rated separately, the presentations
received lower ratings. Students rated the amount they
profited from the orientation course, and the value of
the problem assignments for teaching computer program-
ming very highly.
Analyses of the data to determine whether
having different instructors for the two study groups
affected the main effect variables showed little
confounding present. Although the total effect of
having different instructors cannot be completely
evaluated, the data support the contention of no signifi-
cant instructor effects.
82
83
Analyses of the pre-test data and the interviews
showed the study groups to be equated. Further
analysis of interview results relative to specific
questionnaire items provided evidence of the validity
of the questionnaire instruments.
Pre and post interviews for both study groups
were summarized. Further discussion of the interviews,
including relating them to the data will follow in
Chapter V.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter contains a major summary of the study
followed by a list of pertinent conclusions. A
discussion is provided to integrate and interpret the
findings. The final section contains implications for
future research.
Summary
There is a concern in engineering education
that engineering students begin their college studies
with an insufficient understanding of engineering as a
career and discipline. Many methods have been employed
to orient students to engineering, including,in particu-
lar, freshman engineering courses. Little evaluation
of such courses has been conducted.
It was the purpose of this study to evaluate the
effects of a ten week course in computer programming
containing orientation to engineering fields on high
ability, first-term engineering freshmen at Michigan
State University. Students receiving the orientation
(experimental group) were compared with a similar group
of students taking a computer course with no orienta-
tion (control group).
84
85
The following hypotheses were stated.
1. The experimental group has greater
knowledge of engineering than the
control group.
2. The experimental group is more affected
than the control group in identification
with engineering as a career.
3. The experimental group is more affected
than the control group in desire for
engineering as a career.
4. The experimental group experiences more
major changes than the control group.
5. Control and experimental groups differ
in their views of required non-engineering
courses.
6. Control and experimental groups differ
in their definitions of each of the
engineering fields available for study.
Relevant literature was reviewed in three
related areas, including: freshman engineering courses;
studies of attrition and the need for orientation; and,
literature related to orientation needs. It was noted
that although reports are incomplete and somewhat
conflicting, approximately one-half to two-thirds of all
accredited engineering schools offer some type of
engineering course in the freshman year. The primary
purposes of such courses are motivation, understanding,
and contact with students and faculty. There seems to
be a conflict in that, although understanding and
guidance are stressed, the "hard sell" is frequently
86
practiced. Various writers point out that, due to
the nature of engineering curricula, students have
little contact with engineering until the junior year.
This delayed contact is often felt to be responsible
for high attrition, low motivation, difficulties in
choosing majors, and lasting dissatisfaction in the
profession.
The study involved a sample of 132 first term
engineering freshmen at Michigan State University who
scored 150 or higher on the total of the College
Qualification Test. Seventy two students (experimental
group) took a computer programming course containing
lecture and film presentations on six areas of
engineering. The control group had 60 students taking
a similar course with no presentations on the nature of
fields of engineering. Questionnaires and interviews
were used at the beginning and end of the courses to
gather descriptive data and test the hypotheses. An
attempt was made to apply the most powerful and
appropriate statistical models. The level of confidence
was set at .05 for all tests.
The results of the study showed no support for any
of the six hypotheses. It was found that experimental
group subjects were, in general, favorably inclined
towards the orientation course. There was some
8?
conflict between ratings of the overall value of the
orientation presentations and ratings of the value of
each individual presentation. When rating the presenta-
tions individually the subjects found them less helpful
for understanding engineering than when rating the
presentations as a group.
Although there was some concern that having
different instructors for the two study courses might
confuse an interpretation of the results, the correlation
analyses showed little support for such a concern. It
was noted however, that having different instructors
may yet be a confounding variable.
Interviews revealed that subjects were not
actively concerned about major choice or understanding
engineering. Grades and academic success were the
over-riding concerns. Experimental subjects indicated
a greater satisfaction with the understanding they had
gained of engineering than that indicated by control
group subjects. Experimental subjects gave favorable
evaluations of the orientation presentations but
indicated the experience had little affected major
choice plans. Subjects in the orientation course
expressed an understanding for why more could not be
covered in the short presentations, but there was general
agreement that more was needed.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1.
Students receiving the engineering
orientation gained no more knowledge of
engineering as a career than those who
received no orientation.
Identification with engineering as a career
was not significantly affected by the
orientation course.
Desire for engineering as a career was not
significantly affected by the orientation
course.
The orientation course did not significantly
affect major changes.
Attitudes regarding the rationale for
certain non-engineering courses were not
significantly affected by the orientation
course.
Insignificant effects were reflected from
the orientation course on definitions of
each of the engineering fields available
for study.
The orientation presentations as a whole
were seen as helpful for understanding the
88
89
work of engineers, but, when rated individ-
ually, were seen as only of moderate value.
8. The orientation presentations were seen as
well integrated with the computer science
content of the course.
9. The orientation course was seen as a fairly
profitable and enjoyable experience.
10. Students were little concerned with major
choice and understanding engineering as a
career, and were predominately concerned
with grades and academic success.
11. Students who completed the orientation
course showed greater satisfaction in the
interviews with their knowledge of engineering
as a career than students who had completed
the control course.
Discussion
Although the results of this study relative to
the hypotheses were not positive, one point is particularu
ly important to note relative to previous studies. As
noted in Chapter II, reported attempts to evaluate
freshman engineering courses use satisfaction scales
predominately to measure success. The results of this
study show that satisfaction may be insufficient as a
90
criterion. Students in this study were generally
satisfied with the orientation course, but little
effect of the course was detected by changes in the
students' understandings, attitudes, opinions, and
actions. Perhaps satisfaction is a necessary criterion,
but it does not appear sufficient as the single evalua-
tive criterion.
The interviews revealed one possible reason for
the lack of specific effects of the orientation course.
The students expressed very little interest in gaining
a better understanding of engineering, or in choosing a
specific engineering major. In most cases the students
had already decided on engineering, and upon specific
fields within engineering. This lack of relevant
concern could contribute to little attention being
given to the orientation, especially when it is con-
sidered that grades were not based on a knowledge of
the substance of the orientation presentations.
The interview results confirm the findings of the
questionnaires. The only apparent difference between
interview and questionnaire results involved ratings
related to knowledge of engineering. The questionnaire
results showed no significant difference between
experimental and control groups on the post-test in
student self-ratings of the extent of knowledge of
91
engineering as a career. The post interview asked the
students to rate their satisfaction with their knowledge
of engineering as a career. From this 'satisfaction'
point of view the experimental group was significantly
greater than the control. This discrepancy in responses
could be an indication that the orientation course did
positively serve to significantly affect students'
feelings about their understanding of engineering even
though this understanding was considered by them to be
incomplete by relative standards.
Hmplications fp;_Future Research
Within the design of this study only short-term
effects were analyzed. Undoubtedly it would be best
to conduct a longitudinal study encompassing the time
period commencing when a student completes the course,
and extending until he graduates. Actually, to
warrant such an ambitious study it would be advisable
to plan the orientation course for more extensive
contact with, and involvement of the students.
It would also be advisable to study the effects
of an engineering orientation course given the
students at various times during the freshman and
sophomore years. Perhaps students are most affected by
such a course during the time period when they are also
92
most keenly interested in understanding engineering
and clarifying major choices. The first term of
college may very well be the term of least impact
since students are pre-occupied with unfamiliar
academic demands. In order to contact each student
at that time when he is most greatly concerned about
the nature of his future career, it may be necessary to
conduct a continuous orientation course in the first
year or two of college.
This study was limited to high ability students.
Future studies should be aimed at other ability levels
as well. In addition to studying students selected
out from the total on the basis of ability, it might
also be worthwhile to look at the effects of an
engineering orientation course on students of varying
personalities and psychological needs. It may be that
certain types of students have more need for such a
course and will profit more than others. If some means
could be developed to identify these students, Special
attention could be given them in the form of a course
or other alternate programs.
The course involved in this study represents
only one of the many types of programs for the
orientation of engineering students. Other types of
orientation courses should be more carefully evaluated
93
to determine the best methods for informing the
engineering student, early in his college program,
about his relatively ill-defined career pattern
opportunities.
SELECTED
BI BLI OGRAPHY
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Augustine, Roger D. "Factors Influencing Changes
in Career Plans of Freshman and Sophomore
Engineering Students." Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Personnel and
Guidance Association, Washington, D.C.,
April 4, 1966.
. "Persistence and Attrition of
Engineering Students: A Study of Freshman
and Sophomore Engineering Students at Three
Midwestern Universities." Shortened version
of unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1966.
. "Persistence and Change In Major
of Academically Proficient Engineering
Students at Three Midwestern Universities.“
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1966.
Beakley, G.C., and Price, T.W. "Motivating
Engineering Freshmen Through an Authentic
Design Experience." IEEE Transactions on
Education, E-9 (December, 1966), 195-7.
. "Creative Design: One Method of
Motivating Engineering Freshmen.”
Engineering Education, 58 (March, 1968),
826-9.
Caple, Richard B. ”A Rationale for the
Orientation Course." Journal of Collegg
Personnel, 6 (October, 1964), 42-6.
Chervenik, Emily. "The Question of College
Majors." Vocational Guidance Quarterly,
13. (Spring. 1965). 176:8.
Earle, James H. "An Introduction to Engineering
Design Through Graphics." E ineeri
Education, 58 (June, 1968), 1I07-9.
94
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
95
Engineering Manpower Commission. Report of a
Committee of the Commission. Engineering
Student Attrition. New York, N.Y.:
Engineers Joint Council, 1963.
Fitzgerald, Laurine E., and Busch, Shirley A.
"Orientation Programs: Foundation and
Framework." College and University, 38
(Spring. 19635. 270-5-
Gibson, John E., and Boddy, David E. "A Course
in the Principles of Engineering for
Freshmen." IEEE Transactions on Education,
E-11 (June, 1968), 108-12.
Goetz, Robert 0.: Katz, Donald L.; Lady, Edward 8.;
and Ray, Dale C. Engineering Concents and
Pers ective. New York: John Wiley an Sons,
Inc., 1965.
Greenfield, Lois B. "Attrition Among First
Semester Engineering Freshmen.” Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XLII (June, 1964),
1005-10 0
Landis, Fred. “The Role of the Freshman
Engineering Course." Report under cover
letter sent to College of Engineering at
Michigan State University, New York
University, 1968.
McCann, Carolyn J. ”Trends in Orienting College
Students." Journal of the National Association
of Women Deans and Counselors, 31 (Winter, 1967)
85" 90 e
Menand, Howard, Jr. ”Cause and Effect of High
Attrition Rates Among Engineering Students."
231252. 39 (Spring. 1959). 33-5.
Meriam, J.L. "Stimulation for Study in
Engineering." Engineering Education, 44
(January, 1954), 297-302.
96
18. Nadler, Eugene B., and Krulee, Gilbert K.
"Personality Factors Among Science and
Technology Freshmen.” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 52 (October, 1961), 223-31.
19. Pierson, Rowland R. "Changes of Majors by
University Students.” Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 40 (January, 1962),
458-61.
20. Rabins, Michael J. "Teaching Engineering to
Freshmen — A Favorable EIperience at NYU.”
Engineering Education, 56 (May, 1966),
3&5“? e
21. Ryder, John D., Professor of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University.
Personal Interview, January, 1969.
(Typewritten notes).
22. Wallace, W.P., and Case, R.W. ”Anatomy of
Engineering - From an Engineering
Freshman's Point of View.” Mechanical
Engineering, 75 (January, 1933), 19-20.
23. Wiehe, Theodore E. "A Follow-up of Engineering
Drop-outs, University of Missouri, 1947-1952."
Summary report of Ed.D. dissertation. 222
University of Missouri Bulletin, 57 (January,
1956).
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
The Questionnaires
Pre-test Instructions and Questionnaire
Experimental and Control Groups
Dear Engineering Student:
Attached to this letter is a questionnaire which
the College of Engineering would like you to complete
during this class today. The total questionnaire will
take less than 15 minutes for you to complete, but the
time you take will be a positive contribution to our
understanding and serving you better.
Please read the directions for each individual
item, and be sure to complete all items. Be as honest
and frank in your reSponses as possible. There are no
correct answers as we are interested only in your
attitudes and understandings.
Your questionnaire should contain three pages.
If your questionnaire is incomplete or you have any
questions, please raise your hand and Mr. Laubenthal
will assist you.
Be assured that your responses will be kept
confidential. We ask for your name only to enable
us to conveniently match this questionnaire with the
Personal Data Form you filled out in Summer Orientation
and a second questionnaire we will ask you to complete
at the end of this term. No individual will ever be
identified with his responses, and all questionnaires
will be destroyed after data has been grouped by
categories.
Thank you for your assistance.
Engineering Student Affairs
97
1.
Date
Please Print
(1 - 6)
STUDENT NUMBER NAME
Last First Initial
I am presently enrolled in the College of:
1. Engineering 2. Other
(7) The extent of my knowledge of engineering as a career
could be described as: (Check one)
. Almost no understanding
. Small understanding
. Moderate understanding
. Fairly good understanding
5. Thorough understanding
(8) The extent to which I presently see myse1f as one any
(9)
(10-17)
becoming an engineer could be described as:
1. I have almost no conception of this.
2. I have a small conception of this.
3. I am moderately able to conceive of this.
4. I am fairly certain of this.
5. I am almost completely sure of this.
The extent to which I presently desire to become an
engineer could be described as:
1. Almost no particular desire
2. A small desire
3. Moderately desired
4. Greatly desired
5. Desired exclusive of any other career
Bank the following engineering fields according to how
you perceive the general occupational Opportunities,
including advancement, Job satisfaction, salary, etc.
a ranking of 1, and continue ranking each successive
(10) Agricultural (13) Mechanical
(11) Civil (14) Metallurgy
(12) Electrical (15) Chemical
(16) Engineering Sciences
(17) My tentative choice of major in Engineering is
now. (Check one)
1. Agricultural Engineering 6. Metallurgy
2. Chemical Engineering 7. Engineering Sciences:
3. Civil Engineering includes Computer
4. Electrical Engineering Science, Systems
5. Mechanical Engineering Science, and
Materials Science
(Please turn to page 2)
(18-25) Check the appropriate boxes below which indicate
where you feel the engineers listed at the left
are most greatly involved. Check only one box
per engineering category.
Research a
Sales
' DeveIOpment
‘flManufacturing 8
:4Teaching
T‘Administrative
w .
. Construction
1" Consulting &
' Operation
5" Design
9°About Equal PrOportions
(18)
Civil
(19)
Mechanical
(20)
Electrical
(21)
Chemical
(22)
Metallurgy
(23)
Agricultural
(24)‘
Engineering
_ Sciences
(25)
All Engineering 1
7.
-3-
(26-55) An engineering student takes many non-engineering
courses before he begins the courses of his particular
major. Listed below are some of these courses along
with a list of possible reasons for taking them. Using
the key below, please rate each reason according to how
true you feel it is for taking each course.
. Very true
. Somewhat true
. Somewhat untrue
. Very untrue
. No opinion
\J‘4F'UNH
Computer English
Math Chemistry Physics Science (ATL)
(26-31) (32-37) (38-43) (44-49) (SO-55)
Mental Exercise to 4
Develop Thought L
Processes
A Necessary Tool in
My Future Field of
Work
Part of an Education;
No Particular
Application 1 *
An Academic Filter to
Remove All Unqualified
Something Engineers
Might Find Useful but
not Usually a Necessity
A Prerequisite to
Later Courses 4
(56-67)
R- (56)
9- (57)
1’). (58)
11° (59)
12. (60)
15' (63)
-4-
For the following items please place a check on the
one blank that represents your best answer.
To what extent have you enjoyed CPS 120?
Very Much Not At All
5 '4 3 2 1
Were course objectives defined at the beginning of the
term?'
Clearly Defined Not Mentioned
5 B 3 2 1
How well do you feel course objectives were met?
Very Well Not Met At All
5 ’4 3 2 1
How would you rate the work load in this course?
Very Reasonable Excessive
5 4 3 2 ’l’ Demands
How would you rate the way you have thus far been
graded in this course?
Very Fair Very Unfair
—5' *4 3 2 1
How would you rate the content of exams given in this
course?
Very Fair I Very Unfair
5 —4 3 2 I
How would you rate the overall value of the problem
assignments for teaching you computer programming?
Very Effective Not Effective
5 ’4 3 2 1
How well did lectures and reading assignments prepare
you for problem assignments?
Very Well Not At All
5 4 3 2 1
How Open do you feel your instructor was to in-class
questions and discussion?
Very Open Not Open
37" *E ‘3'" ‘2‘" ‘T"
17. (65)
18. (66)
19- (67)
-5-
How welcome did you feel to see your instructor outside
of class for assistance?
Very Welcome Not Welcome
5’ 4 3 ’2’ “I
How clear or understandable were the lectures by the
computer science instructor?
Very Clear Very Unclear
3 T 3 2 1
How much do you feel you have profitted from this
course?
Very Much Not At All
‘5 4 3 2 1
(Please go on to next page)
I All}. e'. ( a):
I. I
I I.
.II’. [1 I.
(I... All.
(68-70)
20. (68)
21. (69)
22. (7o)
23- (71-76)
-6—
In the CPS 120 class this term several professors
made special presentations relating to some of the
engineering fields available for study at Michigan
State. Indicate below your general impression of the
worth of these presentations to you. Do not rate
the problem assignments associated with each presen-
tation, but only the presentations themselves.
Very Worth While Not Worth
5 —4' _3 2 I While
To what extent do you feel the Special presentations
in this course were well integrated, or seemed a
natural part of the regular computer course content?
Well Integrated Not
5 4 3 2 I Integrated
To what extent did these special presentations help
you to understand what the work of engineers involves?
Very Much Not At All
5 4 3 2 1
Usin8 the key below please rate each of the Special
presentations given in CPS 120 this term. Do not rate
the problem assignments associated with each presentation,
but only the presentations themselves. The ratings
in the key pertain to the amount each presentation
helped you to better understand the work of engineers.
Use the appropriate number to rate each presentation.
KEY
1. Very Helpful
2. Somewhat Helpful
3. Slightly Helpful
4. Not Helpful
Presentations Related Problems Ratings
(71) Agricultural Prob. #2 Rainfall Amounts
Engineering
(72) Metallurgy Prob. #3 Lattice Parameter
(73) Chemical Eng. Prob. #4 Neutron Activation
(74)
_____175)
____(76)
Mechanical Eng. Prob. #5 Air-Water Rocket
Civil Engineering None
Analysis
Systems Science Prob. #6 Systems Process Control
In the Space provided below please indicate any and all experiences
you may have had before taking CPS 120 with computers and/or
computer programming. Please define as carefully as possible the
nature of these experiences and the amount of time involved
(Examples: a ten week course in Fortran at XYZ Junior College;
built a a computer designed to do such and such; a two week
institute at M.S.U.)
If you have had no such previous experience, write "none" in
the Space provided.
Post-test Instructions and Questionnaire
Control Group
Dear Engineering Student:
Earlier this quarter you completed a questionnaire
similar to the attached form. To complete this study
we need your reactions again. Do not try to remember
your responses to the earlier questionnaire because it
is important that you make your answers an honest and
accurate account of how you feel and what you know‘ngn.
Please read the directions for each individual
item and be sure to complete all items. There are no
correct answers as we are interested only in your
attitudes and understandings.
Your questionnaire should contain six pages. If
your questionnaire is incomplete or you have any
questions, please raise your hand and Mr. Laubenthal
will assist you.
Be assured, as before, that your responses will
be kept confidential. No individual will be identified
with his responses and all questionnaires will be
destroyed after data has been grouped by categories.
Please feel welcome to inquire about the nature
and outcome of this study from Mr. Laubenthal in Room
116 Engineering Building.
Thank you for your assistance.
Engineering Student Affairs
109
Date
Please Print
(1 - 6)
STUDENT NUMBER NAME
Last First Initial
I am presently enrolled in the College of:
1. Engineering 2. Other
(7) The extent of my knowledge of engineering as a career
could be described as: (Check one)
. Almost no understanding
. Small understanding
. Moderate understanding
. Fairly good understanding
5. Thorough understanding
(8) The extent to which I presently see myself as one day
(9)
(10-17)
becoming an engineer could be described as:
1. I have almost no conception of this.
2. I have a small conception of this.
3. I am moderately able to conceive of this.
4. I am fairly certain of this.
5. I am almost completely sure of this.
The extent to which I presently desire to become an
engineer could be described as:
1. Almost no particular desire
2. A small desire
3. Moderately desired
. Greatly desired .
5. Desired exclusive of any other career
Rank the following engineering fields according to how
you perceive the general occupational Opportunities,
including advancement, job satisfaction, salary, etc.
Give the engineering field offering the greatest Opportunity
a ranking of 1, and continue ranking each successive
field with a higher number.
(10) Agricultural (13) Mechanical
(11) Civil (14) Metallurgy
(12) Electrical (15) Chemical
(16) Engineering Sciences
(17) My tentative choice of major in Engineering is
now. (Check one)
1. Agricultural Engineering 6. Metallurgy
2. Chemical Engineering 7. Engineering Sciences:
3. Civil Engineering includes Computer
4. Electrical Engineering Science, Systems
5. Mechanical Engineering Science, and
Materials Science
(Please turn to page 2)
(18—25) Check the appropriate boxes below which indicate
where you feel the engineers listed at the left
are most greatly involved. Check only one box
per engineering category.
Research a
Sales
mManufacturing &
T’Administrative
‘ Operation
Ev Design
§”Construction
:‘Consulting a.
‘ Development
:4Teaching
PAbout Equal Proportions
(18)
Civil
(19)
Mechanical
(20)
Electrical
(21)
Chemical
(22)
Metallurgy
(23)
Agricultural
(24)'
Engineering
_ Sciences
(25)
nil Engineering ,
7.
-3-
(26-55) An engineering student takes many non-engineering
courses before he begins the courses of his particular
major. Listed below are some of these courses along
with a list of possible reasons for taking them. Using
the key below, please rate each reason according to how
true you feel it is for taking each course.
Very true
Somewhat true
Somewhat untrue
Very untrue
No opinion
MPUNH
Computer English
Math Chemistry Physics Science (ATL)
(26-31) (32-37) (38-43) (44-49) (SO-55)
Mental Exercise to (
Develop Thought (
Processes
A Necessary ToOl in
My Future Field of
Work
Part of an Education;
No Particular
Application
An Academic Filter to 1
Remove All Unqualified
Something Engineers
Might Find Useful but
not Usually a Necessity
A Prerequisite to )
Later Courses A
(56-67)
R- __(56)
9- _(57)
1c. ___(58)
11° ___(59)
12. (60)
13. __(61)
1)., _(62)
15° ____(63)
16. ___(64)
—4—
For the following items please place a check on the
one blank that represents your best answer.
To what extent have you enjoyed CPS 120?
Very Much Not At All
5 “4 3 2 1
Were course objectives defined at the beginning of the
term?'
Clearly Defined Not Mentioned
5 4 3 2 1
How well do you feel course objectives were met?
Very Well Not Met At All
172 1
How would you rate the work load in this course?
Very Reasonable Excessive
5 4 3 2 I Demands
How would you rate the way you have thus far been
graded in this course?
Very Fair Very Unfair
‘3 4 3 2 1
How would you rate the content of exams given in this
course?
Very Fair ' Very Unfair
5 '4 3 2 l
How would you rate the overall value of the problem
assignments for teaching you computer programming?
Very Effective Not Effective
5 4 3’ 2 1
How well did lectures and reading assignments prepare
you for problem assignments?
Very Well Not At All
5 4 3 2 1
How Open do you feel your instructor was to in-class
questions and discussion?
Very Open Not Open
TT'TT'T—
17. (65)
18. (66)
-5-
How welcome did you feel to see your instructor outside
of class for assistance?
Very Welcome Not Welcome
5 4T7 1
How clear or understandable were the lectures by the
computer science instructor?
Very Clear Very Unclear
4 3 2 ‘1
How much do you feel you have profitted from this
course?
Very Much Not At All
5 4 3 2 1
(Please go on to next page)
In the Space provided below please indicate any and all experiences
you may have had before taking CPS 120 with computers and/or
computer programming. Please define as carefully as possible the
nature of these experiences and the amount of time involved
(Examples: a ten week course in Fortran at XYZ Junior College;
built a a computer designed to do such and such: a two week
institute at M.S.U.)
If you have had no such previous experience, write "none“ in
the Space provided.
APPENDIX B
The Interview Schedules
Interview Instructions
I will be asking you a few questions regarding
college and your choice of major.
The information that you and other students
provide will aid us in serving all of our
students better.
To be of greatest value, you should try to
answer as frankly and openly as possible.
The remarks you make will be held in strictest
confidence, and only a summary of the comments
of all those interviewed will be kept. No names
will ever be associated with opinions or
attitudes expressed.
This interview should not last more than 30
minutes.
Do you have any questions?
116
1.
3.
Post-interview Schedule
Control and Experimental Groupg
Row and when did you first begin to develOp an
interest in engineering as a future career?
a) How and when did you actually decide
to go to an engineering college?
b) How complete or set is your decision
to study engineering now as you are
completing your first term?
What have you done and what experiences have you
had leading to an understanding of what engineering
is? (Cover both pre college and college)
a) What, if anything, do you plan to do
in the future to increase this
understanding?
b) How much do you feel you still need
to know about engineering?
What do you want most that this college do for
you?
What are your biggest concerns now at this point
in your college career?
a) Relative importance of major choice -
b) Relative importance of academic matters -
Please survey the activities and interests you
had during high school outside your regular
course work. (Be sure the following are covered:
science or engineering clubs or projects,
tinkering and inventing, special or advanced
courses or other educational programs.) Also
survey activities and interests since coming
to college.
118
Post-interview Schedule (cont'd.)
6.
*10.
What, if anything, have you gained from your
courses this term relative to understanding
engineering and choosing an engineering major?
(Cover CPS 120 including possible effects on
desire and identification.)
What is your evaluation of the CPS 120
instructor?
What is your evaluation of the CPS 120 course?
What is your evaluation of the problem
assignments?
a) Did they help you understand the
various fields of engineering?
b) Did they help you learn computer
programming?
What is your evaluation of the presentations
given by guest professors in CPS 120 this term?
a) What do you think these presentations
were intended to do?
b) Did they help you understand the
various fields of engineering?
c) Did they or the CPS 120 course
material effect your choice of major,
and how?
* General question.#10 asked of only the experimental
group.
119
APPENDIX C
Supplementary Data
120
Jew: and!— E i needn'-
env meabaeoen acne. can and: case- n smacks» « e.:o deasnioo one! chain .090-
Heron no. a. 05.33»: ones... 2. o-
—na.a do.“ an.« a
, o
3L2; 9:. «Eu 3e nae 5.» M
finONH.|lIJ V00.“ do.“ fiNmoc. ”.0“
u.« .u A «o.« 0
NH 0 c NH .3“ NH A NH a
. 3s 8s an.» m
oo.~ nn.a 1 mo.« e
we . .I u A
o no... 3.. no.~ we “.3 «a.» M o
no.3 ad.“ :5.“ _ou.s
,l, A , 5
NM NM NM NM
WHON 30H ”GOO .
$6 $2 an.» m
.e O 0 ohm" 03. e e
a m emu .leno .Hepe: .aooau awn $4
( a lean
swans: undueeaamsn
museum .0. defiance use
Any Hanselahoawe non enamel wa«uoos«mse no cause no noeaadnioo
.ba flqmdfi
121
TABLE 18. Summary of chi square comparisons of
instructor and course ratings for
experimental and control groups
Post-test Items
Items 8 - 11
8 9 10 11
x2 3.699 14.191* 6.413 0.837
df 4 4 u a
X - Y** .45 .68 033 -005
Items 12 - 15
12 13 14 15
x2 1.083 16.905* 6.785 12.334*
df 4 4 4 4
x —'§¥* 0 .72 .41 .20
Items 16 - 19
16 17 18 19
x2 2.738 5.686 13.311* 9.196
df ‘4 4 4 4
E " 3...". 030 .4? e68 058
* Significant at .05 level
** '2 - Y'is the difference between sample means.
This value is only relevant where statistical
significance was found.
on a five point scale.
Note:
Means were calculated
Experimental and control groups are not
identified to avoid publishing instructor
ratings.
122
TABLE 19. Comparison of simple correlations between
the main effect variables of knowledge
of engineering, identification with
engineering, and desire for engineering,
and instructional rating variables for
experimental and control groups.
Instructional Experimental Control
Standard
Ratings (X) r Z r Z Scores
Correlated With Knowledge of Engineering (Y1)
Score 1 .012 00100 ‘0128 -0130? 078
Score 2 -0127 “.1307 -0072 -0070]. -034
Score 3 “0050 "00500 ‘0116 -01206 039
Correlated With Identification With Engineering (Y2)
Score 1 .318 .3316 .152 .1511 1.00
Score 2 .132 .1307 .070 .0701 .34
Score 3 .260 .2661 .130 .1307 .75
Correlated With Desire For Engineering (Y3)
Score 1 .270 .2769 .147 .1511 .70
Score 2 -.026 -.O3OO .053 .0500 -.44
Score 3 .158 .1614 .119 .1206 _.23
No standard score significant at .05 level
Notes: This analysis used a Fisher's r to Z
transformation to determine if the two
samples came from the same population or
two different pOpulations with equal correlations.
Score 1 4 Course rating items 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19.
Score 2 - Instructor ratings items 12, 13, 16, 17, 18.
Score 3 - Composite of Score 1 and Score 2.
123
TABLE 20. Summary of correlations for experimental (E),
control (C), and combined study groups (EC)
between post-test variables and pre-test
covariates used in Analysis of Covariance tests
Simple Correlation Coefficients
Pre-Item 1 Pre Item 2 Pre Item 3
Post Item 1 .55
(E)Post Item 2 .65
Post Item 3 .54
Post Item 1 .47
(C) Post Item 2 .54
Post Item 3 ~54
Post Item 1 .50
(EC) Post Item 2 .61
Post Item 3 ~54
Notes: Each coefficient provides an indication of the
extent of linear relationship between the main
variable and the covariates. A linear relation-
ship is necessary for Analysis of Covariance.
124
TABLE 21. Summary of t tests for homogeneity
of regression line slopes used in
covariance analyses
Regression Degrees
Coefficients Freedom t
Exp. 2.070 70 -.0936
Item 1 Cont. 1.853 58
Exp. .563 70
Item 2 Cont. 1.208 58 .1814
Exp. .111 70
Item 3 Cont. 1.121 58 .1989
None significant at
Notes:
.05 level
Analysis of Covariance assumes parallel
regression lines. This test for homogeneity
of regression line SlOpeS supports the
assumption as each student t calculated
indicates that sample lepes are estimates
of a common slope.
6
m))()))))
I)(I))))(()()))ii(((