Running head: M ENTORING EARLY ENGINEERING STUDENTS MENTORING EARLY ENGINEERING STUDENTS: FACULTY -STUDENT INTERACTION AS AN INDICATOR OF CLIMATE PERCEPTION By Colleen A. McDonough A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree o f Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Ð Doctor of Philosophy 2015Running head: M ENTORING EARLY ENGINEERING STUDENTS ABSTRACT MENTORING EARLY ENGINEERING STUDENTS: FACULTY -STUDENT INTERACTION AS AN INDICATOR OF CLIMATE PERCEPTION By Colleen A. McDonough Engineering education is facing a challenge reta ining qualified students due in part to perceptions of chilly climate ( Marra, Rodgers, Shen, & Bogue, 2012; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Climate perception in engineering programs can harm retention efforts, as it is a key influence in studentsÕ feelings of be longing in the discipline (Marra et al., 2012). Pejorative faculty interactions are a primary reason cited by students for chilly climate, which leads to high transfer rates and low satisfaction rates among early engineering students (Seymour & Hewitt, 19 97). The current study provides an in -depth examination of the experiences of early engineering students at a large, public research university that participated in a programmatic intervention to improve perception of climate through a formal, faculty -stud ent mentoring program. BanduraÕs (1986) Soc ial Cognitive Theory (SCT) serve s as the theoretical framework. The key component of SCT is triadic reciprocal causation, which explains human action in terms of three mutually influencing factors: environment, self, and behavior. Feelings, belie fs, and thoughts influence behavior, therefore a change in one factor influences change in the others, and consequently, the o utcome. The goal of the mentoring program was to positively influence studentsÕ perceptions of the engineering education environment through informal interactions moderated by the mentoring program. Faculty are critical socializing agents by virtue of their position as academic leaders who create and manipulate culture, and provide organizational meaning for students (Chen , Lattuca, & Hamilton , 2008; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005 ). This is especially pertinent in engineering education, where faculty often facilitate student engagement with both the major and the profession. Existing research implies that students who spent time informally with faculty had increased student satisfaction, greater academic achievement, and higher rates of persistence (Chen et al., 2008; Pascarella, 1980; Tinto, 1993 ). Early engineering students have lim ited opportunities to interact with engineering faculty, relegated to large classes filled with peers and out of class office hours. The research questions that guided the current study are: ¥!How do early engineering students perceive their interactions w ith engineering faculty? ¥!How do early engineering students perceive the climate of engineering as a result of having participated in a formal mentoring program? Participants were enrolled in an introductory engineering d esign course , had declared enginee ring as their major, and opted to participate in the mentoring program. The data were colle cted from semi -structured interviews with student participa nts who represented each of the engineering majors offered at the college. Results of the current study indicate that despite high grade point averages and significant extracurricular involvement, many study participants were intimidated by engineering faculty, shared fears of imposter syndrome, and sought out faculty connection in the humanities and social sciences. Participants did not associate engineering faculty interactions , behavior, or approachability with the college climate. However, p articipants in the current study welcomed engagement with engineering faculty, and for those students whose mentor s met their expectations, positive outcomes occurred. While the program provided students with mentors and gave students the overall impression that engineering faculty wanted to interact with them, it did not influence studentsÕ perceptions of the engine ering climate. Copyright by COLLEEN A. McDONOUGH 2015 v To my family, with love and gratitude . vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "The delicate balance of mentoring someone is not creating them in your own image, but giving them the o pportunity to creat e themselves ," - Steven Spielberg . Throughout my life, exceptional mentors have given me the opportunity to create myself, and for that I am eternally grateful. Having strong mentors and role models can make great challenges bearabl e and great accomplish ments that much more meaningful. I extend my sincere gratitude and humble appreciation to those who have helped me to complete my degree. To my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Marilyn Amey, I cannot thank you enough for your patience, encouragement a nd overall fabulousness. I *really* could not have done this without you , nor would I have wanted to . To my committee, Dr. Daina Briedis , Dr. John Dirkx, and Dr. Matt W awrzynski, thank you for your thoughtful feedback and critical questions that helped to inform my writing and strengthen my critical thinking skills . Thank you to the smart, thoughtful, talented engineering students who graciously gave their time and shared their stories for the sake of social science research. Cross -disciplinary studies are vital to the betterment of higher education, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to contribute to mine. At MSU I found mentors i n the unlikeliest of places. To my colleagues in the College of Engineering , thank you for your friendships , flexib ility, and funding . To Dr. Tom Wolff, for sharing your experiences as a student affairs professional, and for our many talks that helped me to grow as an administrator . To Dr. Amanda Idema (and Steve and Bug) I cannot thank you enough for your guidance and support, and for welcoming me into your office and your family. You put the ÒsuperÓ in supervisor! #besties4evr . Thank you to the MSU Society of Women Engineers for allowing me to direct your cruise ship, and to Judy Cordes for being a phenomenal vii advi sor role model and mentor . I also extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Jon Sticklen, Dr. Claudia Vergara, and the Center for Engineering Education Research for their gracious support . To the HALE community, for friendship s, running buddies, and Vietnam advent ures. Go Green! To m y parents , Barbara and Kevin McDonough, thank you for support ing my never -ending educational pursuits and for relentless ly urging me to finish Òmy paper.Ó I love you. To my grandmother s, Beverly McDonough & Sylvia Payne, your love an d encouragement made this possible. To my siblings, Bird, Patty, & Michael Ð while writing a dissertation isnÕt quite as impressive as that time that I built the Staples Center or when I single handedly launched a nationwide pizza chain , I appreciate your support . For this, I am the greater Manning. To C asey, Michael, Eva, Perry and the Lintern -Rogers -Kurtz ner-Marx f amily, your friendship, laughter, martinis , and reality checks were, and always will be greatly appreciated. To Jaime, Ashley, and Bill Scho enbrun for for your endless encouragement and fun adventures . To Kelly Cussen for reminding me of the bigger picture, and the importance of the story . To Ryan Adams, for being my biggest cheerleader, and for turning graduate school in to a seven year foo d trip. It was hard, and you did it well. (TWSS) . To Mike Rishell for introducing me to HALE, and more importantly, Dagwoods. You are a wonderful friend and mentor. To Mary Lou, THargrove, Kildea, Kristi, Bonnie, Irene, Patty, and my Michigan soccer fam ily, thank you for reminding me of the importance of taking breaks for LeoÕs, concerts, and tailgate s, all of which kept me quasi -sane , and to Linda Snouffer, for helping me get there in the first place. Thank you M egan Drangstveit, for asking me to be your friend on the first day of school , and for continuing to share your friendship , laughter and love everyday since . There is no one I would rather be friends with, and no one I would rather shar e such an exciting life with Ð except for maybe Reilly, Bo tey, and Cooper . viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 6 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 7 Goals and Contributions ............................................................................................................. 9 Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 11 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 12 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 13 Overview of the Dissertation .................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 16 Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Culture ....................................................................................................................................... 18 Culture in Higher Education ............................................................................................. 19 Professional and Academic Engineering Culture ............................................................. 21 Social Construction of Engineering as a Profession ................................................................. 24 Faculty -Student Interaction ....................................................................................................... 28 Mentoring .................................................................................................................................. 31 Mentoring Outcomes and Functions ................................................................................. 33 Mentoring Challenges ....................................................................................................... 36 Diversified Mentoring ....................................................................................................... 37 Mentorin g Conditions ....................................................................................................... 38 Social Cognitive Theory ........................................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 44 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 46 Data G athering Procedures ............................................................................................... 48 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 50 Validity ............................................................................................................................. 51 Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................................... 52 Participant Safeguards ...................................................................................................... 53 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 53 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 55 Environment .............................................................................................................................. 56 Choosing Michigan State University ................................................................................ 56 Experiences in Non -Engineering Courses ........................................................................ 60 Expe riences in Engineering Courses ................................................................................ 63 ix Behavior .................................................................................................................................... 67 Motivation for Engineering ............................................................................................... 68 Parental influence ......................................................................................................... 68 Aptit ude and preparation .............................................................................................. 70 Employment opportunities ........................................................................................... 71 Faculty Interaction ............................................................................................................ 73 Non -engineering faculty ............................................................................................... 73 Engineering faculty ...................................................................................................... 78 Self ............................................................................................................................................ 86 Association with the College of Engineering ................................................................... 87 StudentsÕ Assessments of Engineering ............................................................................. 92 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................. 96 Participant Motivation .............................................................................................................. 96 Program Results ...................................................................................................................... 100 Faculty -Student Interactions and Networking ................................................................ 100 Positive impact on perceptions ................................................................................... 100 Negative impact on perceptions ................................................................................. 103 No impact on perception s ........................................................................................... 103 Student -Student Interactions and Networking ................................................................ 105 Formal Support for Students ........................................................................................... 106 Major Selection and Commitment .................................................................................. 107 Program Results Summary ............................................................................................. 108 CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................... 109 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 110 Michigan State University Identity ................................................................................. 111 Engineering Identity ........................................................................................................ 112 Identity ........................................................................................................................ 112 Classes ........................................................................................................................ 114 Teaching ..................................................................................................................... 115 Non -Engineering Interactions and Perceptions .............................................................. 116 Classes ........................................................................................................................ 116 Student Perceptions of Faculty Interaction ..................................................................... 117 Intimidation ................................................................................................................ 119 Connector Facul ty Mentoring Program .................................................................................. 121 Program Foundation ........................................................................................................ 122 Program Content ............................................................................................................. 123 Identity Development ...................................................................................................... 125 Perceived Climate as a Result of Mentoring Program Participation .............................. 126 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 129 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 129 Formal Mentoring ........................................................................................................... 130 Support External to Engineering ..................................................................................... 130 Participant GPA and Mentoring Experiences ................................................................. 131 Gender ............................................................................................................................. 132 x Effects on Mentors .......................................................................................................... 133 Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 134 Alternatives to Mentoring ............................................................................................... 134 Suggestions for Mentoring Program ............................................................................... 136 Implications for Theory .......................................................................................................... 139 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 140 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 143 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 144 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 145 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 146 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Participant Charact eristics .................................................................................... 56 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction The current shortage of STEM workers in developed countries is a resul t of several issues, including the retirement of the baby boom generation of STEM professionals, the dwindling nu mber of qualified STEM educators, a reliance on non -native STEM employees, and a decreasing number of students earning STEM degrees (Burke, 2007). Adding to the overall shortage is the disturbing, continued underrepresentation of women and minorities in S TEM (Burke, 2007; Colbeck, Cabrera , & Terenzini, 2001; Fox, Sonnert , & Nikiforova, 2009, 2011; Johnson & Sheppard, 2004). Across engineering majors, departure rates for students can b e as high as 40% after one year and even higher for women and underrepre sented students (Ohland et al., 2008). STEM education around the world is failing to meet the demand of industry growth in areas of science and technology (Burke , 2007). Much is written about the ongoing challenges of attracting and retaining both quali fied students and workers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math ematics (STEM) (Lowell, Salzman, Bernstein, & Henderson, 2009). These challenges are particularly problematic because success in these fields is indicative of national p restige and ingenuity (Colbeck et al. , 2001; Gereffi, Wadhwa, Rissing, & Ong, 2008; Montgomery, 1994). U.S. policy makers are concerned by the inability of American higher education to graduate a sufficient number of scientists and engineers in order to uph old the economic and political prominence of the country (Colbeck et al. , 2001; Fox et al. , 2009, 2011; Gereffi et al. , 2008). STEM fields directly contribute Òto the standard of living and quality of life of a countryÕs citizensÓ (Burke, 2007, p. 3 ). As an increasing number of jobs in knowledge -based economies require STEM skills, the preparation and production of workers with these skills is becoming 2 increasingly important (Burke , 2007). While retention issues exist across STEM majors, the focus of the current study is a programmatic intervention to mitigate departure numbers and combat STEM shortages through a holistic approach to climate challenges specifically in engineering education. Despite dismal retention and attrition numbers, scientists and engineers tend to leave the structures in which they are educated and work unexamined (Sturm, 2006). A lack of environmental assessment in professional engineering and engineering education has led to continued departure of qualified employees and student s (Sturm , 2006). However, in recent years, the pressing need to produce more engineers has created the need for such self -examination. As the need for qualified engineers has grown, so too has funding for education research (Singer & Smith, 2013). In an attempt to explain the lack of women and the low retention rates for both men and women across engineering majors, numerous qualitative and quantitative studies have been conducted in both professional engineering and engineering disciplines in higher edu cation (Gale, 1994: Sagebiel & Dahmen, 2006). Various elucidations have been offered as to the absence of women and poor retention rates including differences in the early socialization of boys and girls, lack of proper guidance or career counseling in hi gh school, inadequate encouragement and support systems, and cultural and occupational roadblocks (Blickenstaff, 2005; Dryburgh, 1999). Perhaps the most widely cited factor for college student departure from engineering majors is the pervasiveness of a pe jorative environment in engineering education (Courter, Millar , & Lyons, 1998; Hill, Corbet t, & Rose, 2010; Lowell et al., 2009; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). While women leave engineering majors at higher rates than men, there is evidence of a prevailing cult ural norm that rewards adherence to an exclusionary dominant culture and contributes to an unwelcoming environment for all 3 students (Blickenstaff , 2005; Co urter et al. , 1998; Sagebiel & D ahmen , 2006; Vogt, Hocevar & Hagedorn, 2007). Although members of th e dominant (male) culture initially appear to benefit from their position of privilege, closer examination of retention challenges proved those benefits to be detrimental (Marra, Rodgers, Shen, & Bog ue, 2012; Seymour & Hewitt , 1997). In their seminal stud y of STEM retention, Seymour and Hewitt concluded that academically qualified students, both male and female, leave STEM fields for the same two reasons: one is the academic rigor of the curriculum, the other is the unwelcoming environment, or Òchilly clim ateÓ in engineering e ducation ( 1997). The majority of studies examining climate challenges in engineering education focus on programs directed at women and underrepresented minority students, as they depart at higher rates than their peers and appear to b e more affected by the unwelcoming enviro nment (Blickensaff, 2005; Hill et al., 2010; Marra, Rodgers, Shen, & Bogue, 2009; Ohland et al. , 2008). The primary approach to studying non -majority students in STEM positions "individual issues" against "institut ional issues." The question for researchers and those interested in strengthening STEM education then becomes whether it is necessary to target the ÒdeficientÓ underrepr esented students in STEM fields or to remedy the existing STEM education system that a ppears to be unable to meet the studentsÕ scholastic, emotional, and developmental needs (Ohland et al. , 2008). Approaches utilized by those studying individual retention issues versus institutional issues in higher education tend to vary si gnificantly by discipline (Fox et al. , 2011). In social science fields, educators often lean toward solutions targeting institutional challenges (Fox et al. , 2011), examining factors such as teaching methods and curriculum, and consider student feedback when making cha nges. Those considering retention problems from within the STEM 4 disciplines tend to favor individual solutions, leaving students on their own to overcome any of the various barriers to academic success in the collegiate environment (Fox et al. , 2011). Engineering educators assume that if students need help, it is the studentÕs deficiency that caused the need, and that students can properly gauge their levels of distress and access the correct forms of assistance to remedy the challenge. Research on self -appraisal and undergraduate students indicates that this approach is largely unsuccessful (Fox et al. , 2011). Realistic self -appraisal is a non -cognitive variable students develop that indicates ability to recognize and address deficiencies, particularly in academic areas (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985). Early stage undergraduates have often not fully developed this ability, which makes help -seeking particularly difficult. When student s are not cog nitively aware that they struggling, asking for academic assist ance is not a priority. Another common approach to engineering retention challenges is to offer special assistance to those students who are perceived to experience greater levels of discrimination and discontent due to an unwelcom ing educational climate (Marra et al. , 2009, 2012; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Vogt, Hocevar & Hagedorn, 2007). Efforts aimed at creating greater access for women and minority students in schools of engineering commonly take the form of ÒprogramsÓ or Òsets of activitiesÓ focusing o n improving the targeted group's experience in engineering education (Fox et al. , 2011). These interventions "usually consist of activities that are organized responses to perceived issues of, and perceived barriers to, the representation, participation o r performance of a targeted group" (Clewell & Ficklen, 1986, p. 95) . Organizations such as Women in Engineering (WIE), the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) are examples of directed interventions (Johnson & Sheppard, 2004), that focus on providing women and minorities in engineering opportunities for peer mentoring, 5 networking, community building, tutoring, and other social and professional development activities designed to mitigate the risks of departure from STEM majors (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Chubin, May, & Babco, 2005; Johnson , 1989; Johnson & Sheppard , 2004). Although their goals and intentions are positive, the underlying premise of group based interventions often targets conceptions of what is defi cient, or wrong with women and minority students, which serves to further separate them from the general population of engineering students (Jorgenson, 2002). By offering under -represented students special or additional assistance, referred to as Òspotlig hting,Ó it highlights, or shines a ÒspotlightÓ on perceived deficiencies and further widens the gap between the minority and the majority. Those who are successful and persist in the engineering environment are those who assimilate and do not question the cultural norms or the actions of the majority (Fox et al., 2011) . Motivated by fear of being viewed as Òother,Ó or different from the dominant culture, students attempt to fit in to the existing engineering culture, regardless of the potential damage to their academic endeav ors. For example, students who need additional assistance, or would like to take advantage of the services offered by special groups, often do not as they are apprehensive about being perceived as Òo therÓ or ÒoutsideÓ the majority, or incapable of managing the work on their own (Jorgenson , 2002). An obvious and vital resource offered to students is faculty ( Cotten & Wilson, 2006). All students have contact with and access to faculty in class, regardless of affinity group. Research indicates that faculty play a pivotal role in the student socialization process for undergraduate students both in and out of the classroom (Fuentes, Alvarado, Berdan , & DeAngelo, 2014). The positive academic and cognitive benefits associated with student faculty interaction are numerous and include increased confidence, improved learning skills, and first year persiste nce (Campbell & Campbell, 1997; Cotten & Wilson , 2006; Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini, Reason, & 6 Quaye, 2010; DeAngelo, 2009, 2010; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Given their presence, positional power, and ability to influence student experience, faculty are uniquely poised to influence studentsÕ perceptions of the educational climate (Cox et al. , 2010; Lampo rt, 1993). Problem Statement I argue that the lack of critical examination of educational structures in engineering education, as well as the avoidance and denial of student issues by both faculty and administrators, has paved the way for culture and clim ate challenges, resulting in less than adequate retention rates. Given the large number of students citing poor climate as the reason for departing from STEM majors, it is evident that the engineering education system, not one gender, or affinity group, n eeds closer examination. Moreover, prior targeted retention tactics, such as the aforementioned, have served to further alienate those already at risk of departing (McLoughlin, 2005). By involving faculty in focused student engagement strategies offered broadly to students regardless of gender or affinity group, the perception of chilly environment can be assuaged if students feel supported by and engage with their engineering faculty. In the curren t study, I examined the experiences of early engineering students at a large public research institution who participated in a programmatic intervention to improve perception of climate through faculty -student mentoring. Previous studies indicate that reducing faculty distance produces positive results for stud ents in terms of persistence, engagement , and development (Astin & Astin, 1993 ; Vogt, 2008). Academic integration and support are major predictors of degree completion, persistence , and overall per formance in college (Tinto, 1993 ). Moreover, faculty enga gement, of which mentoring is one form, can contribute to student engagement and to the betterment of the educational environments in which students operate 7 (Chen, Latt uca, & Hamilton, 2008; Fuentes et al., 2014). By connecting faculty and students early in the studentsÕ educational experience, relationships can build and grow over time, providing strong engineering role models and support people within the field for future engineers. Research Questions The Connector Faculty (CF) mentoring program was cre ated and implemented in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University to provide early engineering students with opportunities to interact casually with engineering faculty in non- classroom settings . As one component of a multi -faceted retentio n intervention funded by a National Science Foundation grant , the goal of the mentoring program was to improve studentsÕ perceptions of the engineering education environment through positive faculty interactions . The overall goal of the grant was to utili ze several intervention tactics, one of which was the Connector Faculty program, to improve retention rates within the College of Engineering. The fall 2009 CF student participants are the focus of the current research. A pproximately 400 s tudents opted to be paired with 78 faculty volunteers for the year long mentoring program. The current study examines the following research questions: ¥!How do early engineering students perceive their interactions with engineering faculty? ¥!How do early engineering stude nts perceive the climate of engineering as a result of having participated in a formal mentoring program? Theoretical Framework BanduraÕs social cognitive m odel (1986) serves as the theoretical framework for this dissertation. Social cognitive t heory (SCT ) will frame my research questions in order to limit the scope of the research, as well as provide an organizational structure for data analysis. SCT offers 8 a structure by which to measure the effect of a solution to environmental concerns in engineering education. Based primarily on Mill er and DollardÕs (1941) social learning theory, social cognitive theory explains human action in terms of three mutually influencing factors: environment, self, and behavior (Bandura, 1986; Vogt, 200 8). ÒWhat people thin k, believe, and feel effects how they behaveÓ (Bandura, 1986, p. 25). SCT operates on the premise that people do not simply mimic modeled behavior in response to the environment, nor do they operate as autonomous agents (Bandura, 1986). Instead, individu als influence self -generated action and motivation within a three -part system (Bandura , 1986). This system, which is the key component in SCT, is reciprocal causation, or determinism, which states that a change in one factor influences change in the other factors, and therefore, the outcome. In the current study, faculty -student interaction is used in attempt to influence studentsÕ environmental perceptions. Social cognitive theory provides a holistic view of the continuous interplay of the three compon ents. Each element of the process (i.e., personal or self, behavioral, and environmental) provides information that either negatively or positively reinforces the other elements, culminating in strategic interpersonal adaptation of thought, emotion, acti on, and context in an ongoing process hopefully toward goal attainment not goal abandonment . (Vogt, 2008, p. 28) The reciprocal nature of the functions is especially important because it enables SCT to be used for directing change at individuals, in terms of self and behavior, and in the environment. In his expansion of BanduraÕs work, Zimmerman (1989) discovered that of the three variables, environment had the most influence over student persistence and engagement. The mentoring 9 program that is the cont ext of this study provided students with the opportunity to engage with a faculty member in the studentÕs chosen major outside of the classroom. By connecting students and faculty in this manner, the goal of the program was to foster a sense of belonging and engagement early in the studentsÕ engineering education experience. Since negative climate perception is cited as a main reason for departure from engineering majors, the mentoring intervention was designed to create a positive, supportive climate thr ough engagement with faculty, who are largely responsible for the values and norms set in the educational environment, which could potentially result in higher retention rates (Chen et al. , 2008). Goals and Contributions The primary objective of the curre nt study was to gauge the influence of a faculty -mentoring program on how students perceived climate in a college of engineering. I was able to identify the influence of the program from the student participant perspective and understand the impact of fac ulty interaction on studentsÕ feelings of connectivity and belonging. The secondary goal was to make a unique contribution to engineering education research that provides qualitative data and a decision -making framework for institutions to consider when implementing similar programs. As previously stated, past attempts at improving the climate in engineering education focused on targeted groups who have historically struggled to remain in the discipline, not the overarching climate within the discipline. With more in -depth, empirical research demonstrating outcomes and impacts of a broad -serving mentoring program, engineering educators can justify implementing similar faculty -student engagement opportunities at more institutions. The current study offer s three significant contributions to the existing body of research on mentoring. The majority of studies conducted on mentoring relationships focus on informal 10 mentoring, or those mentoring relationships that occur outside of a formal program sponsored by a school or industry (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006). In such programs, prot”g”s seek out mentors on their own, based on common interests or experiences, or career trajectory. The current study examined a formal mentoring program that matche d early engineer ing students with faculty mentors based on common engineering fields of study . Secondly, there is still a need for empirical research on mentoring relationships investigating gender . It is necessary to understand the experiences of both male and female e ngineering students in order to create an environment that is conducive to educational and professional success for all students , especially when examining engineering education , as both male and female students leave engineering . The profession itself re mains heavily male dominant and the experience of female students continues to be less than positive despite costly, extensive measures to invoke culture change on the part of the academy and various gender -focused professional groups (Charles & Bradley, 2 002). Research conducted on the gendered nature of technology fields has demonstrated that by including the perspectives of both men and women, our understanding of occupational sex segreg ation will improve (Reskin, 1993 ). By highlighting the experiences of both genders within the current climate, we can begin to make changes that will improve the culture of engineering education for all students. Thirdly, this research will offer rich, thorough descriptions of individual studentsÕ experiences in a ment oring program. In her review of mentoring literature, Brainard (2003) stated, ÒMentoring has become the popular national Ôcure -allÕ for recruitment, retention, and advancement of people in underrepresented groups in science and engineering ÉÓ (p. 1). Whi le there is a plethora of research focused on mentoring programs across STEM disciplines at all educational levels, there is a significant lack of research on studentsÕ perceptions of the 11 effectiveness of such programs (George & Neale , 2006). The current study pr ovided an analysis of the influence of a formal mentoring program on student perception of climate, which may or may not be reflected by studentsÕ decisions to remain in engineering disciplines or to seek degrees in other non -engineering majors. P erceptions dictate important aspects of college life for students, from practical matters such as major choices and friend groups, to psychosocial issues such as self -efficacy. Rationale Engineering education is facing a challenge retaining qualified stud ents due in part to perceptions of chilly climate (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The perceived climate in engineering programs either supports or harms retention efforts, as it is a key influence in studentsÕ feelings of belonging in the discipline (Marra et a l., 2012). Pejorative faculty interactions are a primary reason cited for chilly climate, which leads to high transfer rates and low satisfaction rates among early enginee ring students (Seymour & Hewitt , 1997). Individual colleges of engineering are inte rested in why qualified students choose to leave the discipline for other majors (Marra et al., 2012) . The primary value of my research is to determine the impact of a faculty -mentoring program on climate perception by early engineering students. The cur rent study wa s designed to help educators better understand the faculty role in student engagement in the context of eng ineering education. It provided further insight as to the benefits and challenges associated with student faculty relationships outside of the classroom. The findings from this study offered engineering programs that are considering implementing a similar mentoring program student data to support the benefits of such a program. Mentoring can be viewed as time and labor intensive for fac ulty, who are often not rewarded for participating in such efforts. Regardless, e ngineering faculty need to be aware of the impact 12 their interaction, or lack thereof, has on studentsÕ perception of the climate, studentsÕ self -efficacy and studentsÕ desire to persist in the major (Vogt, 2008). An important facet of a successful mentoring program is that the mentor and the mentee both understand the climate issues at their particular institution, as well as the impact each of them have on that climate (Geor ge & Neale, 2006) . By gathering data fro m students in such a program, I was able to better assess the strengths and challenges associat ed with the current model. The results of the current study will allow future program facilitators to alter faculty tra ining to meet student and faculty needs. High quality training for faculty mentors can assist the faculty in their interactions with not only their assigned mentees, but with other students in their courses as well. Mentor training is particularly import ant in engineering education, as engineering faculty have not always been perceived in a positive, approachable way by students (Astin & Astin, 1993 ; Ohland et al. , 2008; Vogt, 2008). Participants Participants in the current study were students enrolled in the Introduction to Engineering Design course in the fall of 2012 who declared engineering as their primary major and opted to be matched with a faculty mentor in the Connector Faculty mentoring program . At the time of their participation in the mento ring p rogram, none of the students met the requirements for admission to t he College of Engineering. Students were in the process of completing six courses in engineering design, calculus, chemistry , and physics to gain admittance and pursue upper -level c ourses in their specific engineering majors. The data were collected from personal interviews from 20 student participants. 13 Definitions Mentoring has increasingly gained attention over the past 40 years due to increasing research in the fields of manag ement, developmental psychology , and higher education (Jacobi, 1991). Additionally, mentoring has emerged as a critical component of undergraduate education over the pa st several decades (Jacobi , 1991; Nora & Crisp, 2007). Despite this trend, variations in operational definitions of mentoring continue to appear in the literature (Jacobi , 1991; Merriam, 1983) . The lack of consensus as to exactly what defines mentoring creates difficulty for those attempting to measure its outcomes (Dougherty & Dreher, 2007; Jacobi , 1991; Nora & Crisp, 2007). Definitions of mentoring vary by the context or research study in which it occurs (Merriam , 1983). Additionally, it has been argued, Òvariation in operational definitions continues to plague mentoring research and h as most certainly devalued the concept for application in ÔhardÕ researchÓ (Jacobi, 1991, p. 508). Without a consensus definition, efforts to create a knowledge base focusing on mentoring relationships in educational settings have been disjoined at best (Healy & Welchert, 1990) . Those studying mentoring have responded to the definitional dilemma by acknowledging its existence and proceeding to conduct research on mentoring with an admittedly inadequate, non -comprehensive definition (Healy & Welchert , 1990). For the purpose of the current study, mentoring is defined as an on -going relationship or interpersonal exchange between a senior, more experienced colleague, the mentor, and a less -experienced, junior member of an organization or profession, the prot ”g” (Campbell & Campbell, 1997; Jacobi, 1991; Levinson , Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Ragins & Kram, 2007). The purpose of such a relationship is to enhance the prot”g”Õs experience and 14 opportunities for successful advancement by offering emotio nal support and guidance, professional advice, and disseminating information. Formal mentoring describes those mentoring relationships formed as a result of an organizational program that matches mentors with prot”g”s for a specific period of time (Bowen , 1986; Campbell & Campbell, 1997; Ragins, Cotton , & Miller, 2000) . In many instances, these relationships are facilitated and fostered by the supporting organization, with specific outcomes intended to meet the needs of the organization (Baugh & Fagenson -Eland, 2007). Often, the mentor and the prot”g” do not meet each other until after the mentoring program has matched them ( Ragins & Cotton , 1999). The matching process differentiates formal from informal mentoring in that it eliminates key components of informal mentoring: identification, role modeling and interpersonal comfort ( Ragins & Cotton , 1999). Estimates indicate that formal mentoring programs have been implemented in a third of all major companies in the corporate sector of the U.S., a trend th at has been emerging since the new millennium (Ragins et al., 2000) . The majority of research conducted on mentoring in education focuses on informal, or naturally occurring mentoring partnerships that occur without organized effort, and tend to be more intense in nature and last longer than formal mentoring partnerships (Blake -Beard, Bayne, Crosby & Muller, 2011; Ragins & Cotton , 1999). Informal m entoring describes those mentoring relationships that arise out of mutual identification by the mentor and t he prot”g” outside of a formal matching program (Kram, 1983). Typical ly, mentors select prot”g”s that they see as younger versions of themselves, as a way to leave their legacy for future generations (Erikson, 1963). The mentors benefit from a sense of g enerativity, as they usually are mid -career, reassessing their contributions to their field, and attempting to avoid stagnation as they move on to the next stage of their careers (Erikson , 1963; Kram , 1983; Ragins & Cotton , 1999). The 15 prot”g”s select ment ors that they view as role models, which helps them in early career stages dealing with development of professional identity ( Ragins & Cotton , 1999). Informal mentoring pairs select each other on the basis of a mutual attraction that helps foster the rela tionship and add to the intensity of the experience ( Ragins & Cotton , 1999). Overview of the Dissertation The second chapter of the dissertation provides an overview of the literature on climate in engineering education, the practice of mentoring, and th e impact of faculty engagement. Methods utilized in the current study are presented in Chapter Three. Chapters Four and Five focus on data analysis and the results of the current research. The last chapter addresses the interpretation of the findings, t heir implications, and discusses both limitations and direction for future study. 16 CHAPTER 2 This literature review will cover the main themes related to culture and climate in engineering education, the enculturation process, and the history and benefi ts of mentoring as an academic intervention. It offers an in -depth overview of background information necessary to establish a deeper contextual understanding of the relationship between faculty engagement and perception of institutional climate in engine ering education. The following questions guide the current study: ¥!How do early engineering students perceive their interactions with engineering faculty? ¥!How do early engineering students perceive the climate of engineering as a result of having participa ted in a formal mentoring program? I argue that the unique culture in engineering, both in the profession as well as the academic discipline, has laid the groundwork for a pejorative climate through exclusionary practices designed to keep the profession el ite and homogenous. While the focus of the current study is climate in engineering education, in order to fully grasp climate, it is necessary to understand the culture in which the climate exists, as well as the historical underpinnings from which it arose. Both culture and climate are critical aspects of organizational life that have been studied across disciplines as early as the 1930s. Culture and climate have been a point of contention for the past several decades, as researchers have disagreed, and continue to disagree, over the extent to which they are related (Denison, 1996). Some blur the lines between culture and climate; others place them at different points along a continuum, while others still use culture and climate interchangeably (Deni son , 1996). For the purpose of the current study, the terms will be defined and differentiated, as common definitions are necessary for clarity and continuity. 17 Climate Climate is an account of what people observe and report happening to them in an organiz ational context and is influenced by organizational culture ( James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988; Jones & James, 1979; Schneide r, Salvaggio, & Subirats , 2002). Focused on individual perceptions, climate is based on numerous current, micro -level, organizational p henomena. It involves observations of Òwhat the organization is like in terms of practices, policies, procedures, routines, and rewardsÓ (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003, p. 566). ÒClimate develops from the core of culture. Climate, or the what of the culture, can result from the espoused values and shared tacit assumptions, and reflects the surface organizational experience based on policies, practices, and proceduresÓ (Schein, 1996, p. 231). Research suggests that climate helps mold overall culture, and responds to cultural stresses, while offering a descriptive index of a particular environment. The focal point of climate is the situation and its link to the perceptions, feelings, and behavior of employees. ÒIt can be viewed as temporal, subjectiv e, and possibly subject to manipulation by authority figures Ó (Ostro ff et al. , 2003, p. 566). Genn and Harden (1986) describe climate as the ÒpersonalityÓ attributed to an educational environment. Pace (1963), in his pioneering work on the evolution of t he concept, stated that climate is the Òcrucial knowledgeÓ concerning the Òoverall atmosphere and characteristics É the kinds of things that are rewarded, encouraged, emphasized, and the style of life that is valued É and is most visibly expressed and felt Ó ( as cited in Genn & Harden, 1986, p. 112). Climate is shared within an organization, and multiple climates can exist within a given culture. Early studies of organizational climate focused on leadership as the primary influence on climate. Engineerin g faculty are the leadership examined in this dissertation. Faculty involvement in the educational environment is paramount to studentsÕ educational experiences , 18 shaping the academic climate and significantly influencing how students understand their expe riences (Chen et al. , 2008; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Student perception of faculty -student interaction plays a key role in studentsÕ perception of the educational environment, as faculty are critical socializing agents, helping students engage with the major and the profession both inside and outside of the classroom . One way that this engagement is fostered is through faculty -student mentoring. Mentors serve as role models and transfer agents of culture (Wilson & Elman, 1990). Facult y mentors, by virtue of their position on the faculty, are academic leaders who create and manipulate culture, and provide organizational meaning for students ( Fuent es et al. , 2014). Culture Culture has been defined in many ways in a variety of fields su ch as sociology, psychology and anthropology using multiple methods and epistemologies (Ostroff et al., 2003). Culture is based on continuing patterns of behavior that represent beliefs, values, and expectations among a set of people. It i s an ongoing, p roactive process of reality construction that offers a holistic, or macro, perspective of an organization or group (Morgan, 2006). Anthropologist Clifford Geertz stated simply that culture Òdenotes a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied i n symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which [people] communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about an d attitudes toward lifeÓ ( 1973, p. 98). Schein (1996) proposes a universal definition of cultu re that summarizes and integrates the many definitions and theories proposed across the disciplines. Culture is Ò a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learn[ed] as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well 19 enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problemsÓ (Schein, 1996, p. 230). The rules that guide the relationship between an environment or a profession and the people involved in it is the culture (Kunda, 2006). Culture is a process based on the interactions of individuals and is built slowly over time, c onstantly changing and emerging, and it maintains social systems through the control of individual behavior (Eitzen & Zinn, 2004; Kunda , 2006; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992) . When culture is internalized, members acquiesce to the social norms of that culture, and it controls their actions, decisions and behaviors. Member behavior s are both l imited and reinforced by the environment in which they exist, and culture instills a sense of normalcy or naturalness to the group (Eitzen & Zinn , 2004). Additionally, cultures tend to condemn the ways or norms of those outside of their group in order to stress the superiority of their culture (Eitzen & Zinn , 2004). Culture is a n organizat ional construct (Sparrow, 2001) pur posefully created as a means by which to distinguish observed phenomena within an organization into distinct, comprehensible categorie s ( Priem & Butler, 2001). Organizational constructs are not universal, but highly situation specific, contingent upon and sensitive to context and time (Studdaby, 2010). Similarly, the organizations themselves are socially constructed realities. They ar e as much in the minds of their members as they are in concrete structures, rules and relations (Morgan, 2006) . In the current study, the organization of focus is an engineering college at a large, public , research university. Culture in Higher Education Higher education maintains its own culture. Culture is an organizational system with distinct roles, structures, and environmental tensions (Ballantine, 1989). In their seminal report 20 on culture in highe r education, Kuh and Whitt (1988 ) define culture i n higher education as Òpersistent patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs and assumptions that shape the behavior of individuals and groups in a college or university and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events an d actions on and off the campusÓ (p. 7). University cultures are unique in that they can have similar missions, values , and curricula, yet dissimilar cultures based on the ways in which their identity is conveyed to and interpreted by both internal and ex ternal constituents (Tierney, 1988). Higher education institutions are subject to external forces, such as changes in the econo my, demographics, and politics, as well as to i nternal forces rooted in institutional history, and driven by the values and goal s of those in control (Tierney , 1988). Combined, internal and external pressures dictate the ways in which culture is expressed and shared. Studies on culture in higher education often examine the subject from two perspectives. Early studies on the topi c focused primarily on student culture separate from institutional culture at the uni versity level (Kuh & Whitt, 1988 ; Tierney, 1988). Significant institutionally focused research exists that highlights organizational influence on academic beliefs (Clark, 1970, 1972), symbolic management and academic culture (Dill, 1982), and cultural impact on decision -making (Tierney , 1988). As cultural studies evolved, becoming less descriptive and more comparative, focus shifted to examine subcultures within education al institutions (Martin & Siehl, 1983). A wide range of subcultures was explored, including those based on administrati on and leadership (Masland, 1985; Tierney , 1988; Birnbaum, 1988), curriculum (Masland, 1985), discipline (Light, 1974), faculty (Clark, 1963), and institution type (Clark, 1960). More evident at large, multipurpose universities, subcultures commonly exist within colleges and academic departments. As with institutional culture, subcultures have their own values and norms that 21 influence th eir members. They operate as distinct academic entities that experience and interpret the larger culture on their own, sharing values, communication, and socialization processes (K uh & Whitt , 1988). Student reactions to academic subcultures vary based on where they feel welcome and valued ( Marsh, Trytten, Reed -Rhoads, & Murphy, 2008). Professional and Academic Engineering Culture Subcultures in higher education commonly exist within academic disciplines. Engineering as a profession and as an academic f ield is considered to be more than a major, skill set, or occupation. ÒIt is embedded in a social system consisting of shared values and norms, a special vocabulary and humor, status and prestige ordering, and differentiation of members from non-members. In short, it is a cultureÓ (Kiesler, Sproull , & Eccles, 2002, p. 161). Engineering culture is defined as the socially set standard of behavior and interaction among engineers (Robinson & McIlwee, 1991). Dryburgh (1999) highlighted three vital aspects of the socialization process experienced by young engineers as they progress from college to the workplace: adapting to the professional culture, internalizing the professional identity and demonstrating solidarity with other engineers. Fundamental to prese rving and perpetuating engineering culture, these experiences are significant facets of engineering education. Socialization in engineering is built on a solid foundation of prominent cultural assumptions (Dryburgh, 1999) . Dryburgh argues that engineeri ng students are molded by the ideology of prof essional engineering, which is a way of thinking like those who apply scientific principles (Struass, 1988). The socialization process, coupled with this ideology and a strong professional identity, makes engi neering culture as relevant to students in the early stages of their undergraduate degrees as it is to professional engineers already in industry (Dryburgh , 1999). Through this process, engineering students learn to adapt to the existing culture and repli cate the 22 behavior and norms of the leadership to perpetuate that culture. The interactions between the engineering students and faculty, or industry management, are a necessary part of the process of cultural construction. Through these interactions stud ents learn first hand what it means to be an engineer and how to assume that identity. Faculty, many of whom are professional engineers, teach their students not only the academic requirements, but also the norms and behaviors associated with the professi on (Tonso, 1996). Engineering education is a facet of engineering culture that serves to produce and protect the larger existing culture. It is not simply a system of courses and academic rituals aimed at training future engineers, but a process of encul turation (Tonso, 1996) . Students are taught the meanings, beliefs, and practices of a well -established system of a centuries old profession through participation in customs and traditions. Participants in the current study share a common culture as stude nts in an introductory engineering design course. In this course, they are taught the norms, values, and acceptable behaviors of the College of Engineering by a core group of engineering faculty (T . Hinds, personal communication, May 26, 2015). GoffmanÕs (1967) concept of impression management has been used to describe the way in which culture is ritualistically engrained in a group. People act in ways that create an impression so that others believe that a set of values is being observed (Goffman , 1967; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992). An essential role of culture in society is to enforce a shared understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. Culture dictates rules, morality, and ultimately, individual behavior through a system of rewards implemented a nd enforced by those in control of the profession (Eitzen & Zinn, 2004) . It influences the behavior of the management in industry and engineering faculty in higher education in numerous ways. Those currently in control of the culture of engineering Òpass onÓ or teach their socially constructed culture to the next generation 23 of engineers, ensuring that their interests are protected and that the culture remains in the hands of people like them. Much of the research produced about engineering culture focuse s on the gendered nature of the profession and the many barriers put into place to ensure the exclusion of women and the protection of engineering as a male domain (Dryburgh, 1999; Robinson & McIlwee, 1991; Tonso, 1996) . One of the main criticisms of engi neering education today is that the culture continues to perpetuate this exclusionary practice despite large scale interventions, recruiting tactics aimed at attracting women and minority students to engineering, and countless studies highlighting challeng es for women pursuing engineering degrees (Dryburgh , 1999; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992; Powell, Bagilhole, Dainty, & Neale , 2004; Robinson & McIlwee , 1991). Numerous studies conducted over the past several decades highlight the challenges associated with cu lture and climate in engineering education (Dryburgh, 1999; Ro binson & McIlwee, 1991; Ohland et al. , 2008; Vogt, 2008). StudentsÕ initial encounters with engineering culture are not always positive, yet are a key component to retention in engineering disc iplines, and therefore, to the growth of the profession (Tonso, 1996) . This disconnect accounts for a diminished number of students entering engineering majors and therefore, the engineering profession due to the perception of a chilly climate o r a frigid culture, which impact s both male and female students. Engineering education has been described as Òa socially constructed profession,Ó where Òthe male student engineers engage in the process of masculinizing the subject area, and therefore marginalizing women studentsÓ (Tonso, 1996) . HackerÕs (1981, 1983) research is noted as the seminal work related to the ÒpeculiaritiesÓ of engineering culture ( Robinson & McIlwee, 1991). HackerÕs study revealed a set of shared cultural beliefs among both the 24 students and faculty in two engineering departments at an East Coast engineering school (1981, 1983). Her work, while focused on the gendered nature of the culture, revealed that the culture of engineering is a Òprofessional ideologyÓ that emphasizes key facets o f the profession. They include: Òthe importance of technology over personal relationships, of formal abstract knowledge (particularly complicated math) over inexact humanistic knowledge, and ultimately of male over femaleÓ (Robinson & McIlwee, 1991, p. 404). These characteristics can frequently be observed in the engineering classroom setting or in computer or project labs in engineering departments. Students can be seen interacting at ease with technology and machinery, yet most view group work as a bu rden or an unpleasant step on the way to a course grade. Interpersonal relationships, whether with peers or faculty can be challenging for engineering students who tend not place value on social interaction. These attributes help to differentiate enginee ring from other professions and construct an environment that is uniquely created and supported by those who work within it. Social C onstruction of Engineering as a Profession The rapid growth of engineering societies in the U.S. in the early twentieth ce ntury occurred as a result of the expanding field of academic engineering and the rising demand for skilled draftsmen a nd other entry level technically skilled workers (Frehill, 2004). Early engineering societies laid the groundwork for professionalism an d socialization in engineering culture. The societies were a way to bring engineers together across the different specialties in the original organization. They became the link between academic engineers and engineers in industry (Frehill , 2004). The So ciety for the Promotion of Engineering Education (SPEE) worked to require academic training for engineers and allowed professional engineers to design the training considered acceptable to qualify one to become an engineer (Frehill , 2004). 25 The necessity of formal academic training coupled with the significance of practical industrial experience is one way that middle class, W hite men controlled access to the engineering profession (Frehill, 2004). They promoted the profession in trade publications such as Engineering News as a field that required rigorous academic preparation, likened engineers to military officers, and stated that Òonly the best menÓ became engineers. The publication ran a series o f articles in the late 1800s -early 1900s devoted to high lighting the heroic, masculine aspects of engineering, one of the Òmost important professions in the worldÓ and that manhood could be achieved by surviving and successfully completing an engineering degree (Frehill , 2004). Women were explicitly excluded f rom pursuing engineering degrees through limited admissions policies and opportunities to gain practical experience in the field (Frehill , 2004). Cultural practices that discourage women from pursuing engineering degrees persist strongly , and while p rogress has been made in increasing the numbers of women majoring in engineering, it has been slow and costly. The masculine culture of the profession seeped into the educational culture, creating an environment, which is perceived by many to be geared toward a male audience (Powell et al., 2004) . Male students are likely to be less affected by uninteresting course content, sub -standard teaching, highly competitive classmates and introductory courses intended to weed out all but the best s tudents (Sagebiel & D ahmen, 2006 ; Vogt, Hocevar, & Hagedorn, 2007). The image associated with engineering is that of a tough, dirty, heavy job that is unsuitable for women (Powell et al ., 2004). These representations, coupled with poor classroom experiences and a culture adh ering to exclusionary norms, help reinforce and reproduce gender segregation in the workforce, thereby keeping women at a disadvantage (Powell et al. , 2004). 26 Within a culture, there are relations of power that operate to enforce, guide and set values, n orms , and discourse styles (McIlwee & Robinson, 1992) . This is true for both engineering education and professional engineering. Differential power among students and faculty, and workers and managers creates an orderly set of practices to allow work to be conducted in an efficient manner, with a clear sense of direction and control (Robinson & McIlwee , 1991). In their research on the status and education of women for the WomenÕs Education Equity Act Program, Sandler and Hall (1982) stressed the importan ce of female scholars having mentors within the system to encourage, guide, support, and advocate for the m in the culture of the academy: Academics, like other professionals, operate primarily through colleague systems. Standards for professional behavior and criteria for evaluating teaching, research, and publications are largely determined by unwritten rules, handed down from one generation of scholars to the next, and communicated informally from one colleague to another ÉThose who are already establish ed tend to act as gatekeepers. Admission to and advancement through a colleague system is easier when newcomers have the support of an already established member of the system, and thus are presumed to fit the systemÕs shared norms and standards in order for newcomers to succeed, merit alone is rarely enough, they must also be socialized into the profession . (p. 2) Socialization is the process of learning a culture through Òinformation acquisition about various aspects of organizational life, such as pe rformance standards, important people in the organization, organizational goals and values, and jargonÓ (L ankau & Scandura, 2007, p. 96 ). Mentoring relationships help ensure longevity of cultures in part by the roles mentors play as socializing agents, a source of cultural information in the socialization process (Allen, McManus, 27 & Russell, 1999). Socializing agents preserve and protect their groups from outsiders by setting standards attainable only by those who fit qualifications that they deem appropri ate for membership. In the case of engineering education, those who do not perform to the academic standards set by accredited institutions do not get admitted to engineering degree programs. In the engineering industry, companies require potential applic ants to have a minimum grade point average in college coursework to be considered for internshi p and employment opportunities. By setting and carefully monitoring acceptance standards, leadership is able to protect and control the culture through selectiv e admittance. Another subtle way that engineering culture is maintained is through the preservation of a chilly climate (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The perpetuation of an exclusionary climate ensures that those who are most affected by climate challenges, namely minority students and women, will depart from the field on their own accord, casualties of an unfriendly environment. A study of the influence of social reproduction on gender representation in engineering education conducted by Marsh, Trytten, R eed-Rhodes, and Murphy (2008) used cultural reproduction theory (Levinson, Foley, & Holland, 1996) to explain the underrepresentation of women in engineering. They argue that the lack of women does not stem from the inherent nature of the discipline, or g enetic predisposition, but from socio -historical -cultural causes (Marsh et al. , 2008). Since cultural views are replicated through individuals and institutions, it can also be modified. The causes that have excluded women from full participation in engin eering culture can be identified, addressed , and diminished systematically by those creating the culture Ð faculty members, institutions, and the departments within them (Marsh et al. , 2008). Faculty continuously share academic content with their students , but many may not be aware that 28 they also determine cultural norms that can profoundly affect students and the climate in which they learn. Although specific to engineering, Marsh et al.Õs (2008) research is supported by Bean and KuhÕs (1984) earlier as sessment of informal faculty contact and student academic success and PascarellaÕs (1980) finding of the roles faculty play in socializing students. In colleges and universities, so by extension in colleges of engineering, Òstudent behaviors, attitudes, a nd educational outcomes are influenced not only by the institutionÕs structural factors (e.g., organizational size, living arrangements, administrative policies, academic curriculum), but also through interactions with the important agents of socialization (peers, faculty, administrationÓ (Pascarella, 1980, p. 546). Through the socialization processes often via interactions with faculty, students learn the code of ethics, appropriate theories and beliefs, values, norms, skills, and knowledge needed to acqu ire membership and be successful in the group (Bean & Kuh , 1984; Pascarella , 1980). Recognizing the ways in which those values and norms operate and how they are transmitted is imperative to understanding the culture, successfully navigating it, and poten tially, changing it. Faculty -Student Interaction Extensive research on faculty -student interaction demonstrates the pivotal role faculty play in student socialization (Astin, 1977, 1985, 1993; Bean & Kuh, 1984; Chen et al. , 2008; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lamport , 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976, 1979; Tinto, 1993; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Faculty influence the educational culture experienced by students with regard to both specific components of undergraduate education and the colle ge experience in its ent irety (Chen et al. , 2008). The work of Astin and Astin (1993 ) indicates that student -faculty interactions generally result in positive outcomes for students in 29 terms of involvement, retention , and development. Additional research implies increased student satisfaction, greater academic achievement, and higher rates of persistence among students who spent tim e informally with faculty (Chen et al. , 2008; Pascarella, 1980; Tinto, 1993 ). As faculty exhibit increasingly significant in terest in studentsÕ socialization through participation in the informal activities in the studentsÕ social environment, they are more likely to play an influential role in the studentsÕ adaptation to the institutional culture (Lamport, 1993). ÒAvailable r esearch has generally overlooked the potentially important ÔhumanizingÕ and ÔpersonalizingÕ effect that nonacademic interaction might have on studentsÕ perceived integration into the campus social and academic communityÓ (Cox & Orehovec, 2007, p. 345). Pr evious research suggests that informal interaction with faculty may even outweigh the impact of general student culture in some cases (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Hibel, 1978). Informal contexts are generally out of class, allowing for friendly exchanges ove r subject matter not bound by course content (Chen et al. , 2008; Lamport , 1993), and conversations that can be expanded to include non-academic topics that help promote studentsÕ personal and professional growth. Expanding conversations to non -academic t opics is particularly important for engineering students whose course work is often technical in nature, and not always conducive to the types of identity shaping discussions that can occur in humanities or social science classrooms. Technical fields prov ide students with fewer opportunities to discuss topics in formal academic settings conducive to student socialization outside the area of engineering. Additionally, the teaching methods used by faculty in engineering courses do not always encourage inter active, faculty -student engagement (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Rugarcia, Felder, Woods, & Stice, 2000 ). Traditionally, and most commonly, engineering faculty use the lecture format in the classroom 30 setting, with the faculty member delivering content, and t he students listening and taking notes (Felder & Silverman , 1988; Mayo, 2007; Rugarcia et al ., 2000; Wulf, 1998). Typically, incoming students are optimistic about the quality and frequenc y of their faculty interactions; however, the quality and frequenc y of contact that students actually have with faculty can vary depending on institution type and the studentÕs class year (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001 ; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976 ). Students at small, residential, liberal arts colleges are more l ikely to experience informal faculty contact than their counterparts at large, research universities because the setting is more conducive to interaction (Bean & Kuh, 1984; Chickering & Reisser, 1993 ). At research -focused institutions, the majority of fac ulty attention is likely to be directed at graduate students who assist the faculty with their work, and in rare cases, highly talented upper level undergraduates who successfully earn attention through assertiveness and high GPAs (Chickering & Reisser , 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976). Many students enter engineering majors without a clear notion of what the profession entails, or the many ways that it impacts society. By interacting with engineering faculty, many of whom have worked in industry, stud ents gain a sense of the scope and importance of the engineering profession. This assists with retention efforts and stren gthens culture, as students who realize the relevancy of their college degree are more likely to remain in their degree programs (Lev itz & Noel, 1989; Ohland et al. , 2008). Contact with engineering faculty early in studentsÕ academic endeavors enables the faculty to begin socializing students into both the academic culture and the professional culture. Student socialization in the ac ademic setting contributes to what Chickering and Reisser (1993) refers to as establishing identity. One of the seven vectors of college student development, faculty can play a significant role in studentsÕ identity formation. Ò Identity is also 31 commonly understood to be socially constructed; that is, one's sense of self and beliefs about one's own social group as well others are constructed through interactions with the broader social context in which dominant values dictate norms and expectationsÓ ( Torre s, Jones, & Renn, 2009, p. 577). For traditional aged college students, discovery of self -purpose and the pursuit of identity can be taxing (Lamport, 1993). Faculty interaction is one way to help students establish a sense of direction and foster self -knowledge, providing a stronger foundation f or systematic role development (Lamport , 1993). Faculty -student mentoring at a critical time in the studentÕs development process offers students the opportunity to interact with faculty who can share the values a nd expectations associated with engineering culture. Exposure to those setting the cultural norms for the group can help students determine whether or not engineering is the appropriate academic path or occupational identity to choose. Mentoring The pra ctice of mentoring is a relatively recent addition to the realm of education and corporate training, despite having roots dating back thousands of years to ancient Greek mythology. In HomerÕs Odyssey , Mentor was the wise and trusted overseer enlisted by Odysseus to guard his household while he fought in the Trojan War. Included in MentorÕs duties were teaching and protecting OdysseusÕ s son, Telemachus (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Klasen & Clutterbuck, 2001; Merriam, 1983; Ragins & Kram , 2007). The knowledgeable and caring Mentor looked after and guided young Telemachus on his lengthy journey in search of his father; in one instance even saving him from death (Merriam, 1983). Their classic mentoring relationship has come to transcend time, culture and gender (Rag ins & Kram, 2007) . It has become the basis for mentoring relationships throughout history, including Socrates and Plato, Freud an d Jung, and Sartre and de Beauvoir (Merriam, 1983). ÒFrom the legacy of famous 32 mentoring relationships comes the sense of men toring as a powerful emotional interaction between an older and younger person, a relationship in which the older member is trusted, loving, and experienced in the guidance of the younger. The mentor helps shape the growth and development of the prot”g”Ó (Merriam , 1983). Early literature reviews highlight three main contexts in which mentoring occurs : the business world, mentoring and adult development, and mentoring in academia (Merriam, 1983) . Modern scholarship on mentoring emerged from the corporate sector, specifically from the field of management, in the mid -1970s. Kanter published Men and Women of the Corporation in 1977, followed shortly by RocheÕs (1979) article, Much ado about mentors, in Harvard Business Review. Both works focused on the pre sence of mentors in the careers and lives of successful business leaders. Developmental psychology provided additional insight, specifically in the area of adult development. Levinson et al. (1978), based their operational definition of mentoring on psyc hosocial development, and the moral and emotional support provided to an individual by another individual. In Seasons of a ManÕs Life , Levinson et al. lauded the significance of mentoring describing it as one of the most complicated , and developmentally critical that a ma n can have in early adulthood (Levinson et al. , 1978). LevinsonÕs work, despite focusing on the experiences of 40 adult men, is considered to have initiated the study of mentoring (Johnson, Koch, Fallow, & Huwe, 2000) . In higher educatio n, the works of Astin (1977 , 1993) and Pascarella, Terenzini , and Hibel (1978) highlight the effect of student -faculty interaction on student development and educational experiences. One of the earliest reports of mentoring in higher education involves fa culty helping new engineering students at the University of Michigan (Maverick, 1926) . 33 Today, mentoring is a commonly used strategy for student engagement (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Fagenson, 1989) . Mentoring is a highly effective, practical method o f learning that augments formal classroom training (Klasen & Clutterbuck, 2001). While not appropriate for addressing all types of learning and development, under the correct conditions, mentoring is one of the most powerful and effective forms of knowled ge transmission (Klasen & Clutterbuck , 2001). Considered Òan act of generativity,Ó mentoring is a means of passing along professional legacy and culture, and imperative to the development of specific disciplines (Healy & Welchert, 1990; Johnson & Rid ley, 2008; Merriam, 1983). Generativity is particularly noteworthy in fields such as engineering, where strong ties exist between the engineering profession and engineering education (Merriam , 1983). Mentoring Outcomes and Functions The outcomes of mentoring relationships have been widely studied in terms of long and short -term benefits to the mentor and the prot”g”, as well as the organizations supporting the relationships (Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Fagenson, 1989; Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kra m, 1985; Lankau & Scan dura, 2007), creating a strong case for the implementation of mentoring programs in both the corporate sector and higher education. Early research indicated two categories of functions performed by mentors to assist their prot”g”s: one related to career outcomes, the other psychosocial development (Chao, 1997; Kram, 1985). The extent of the mentorÕs ability to provide career directed mentoring is dependent on his or her position and influence with the organization (Kram , 1985). Career functions included assisting prot”g”s with a variety of behaviors designed to facilitate job advancement such as task learning and increased familiarity with organizational culture. Additional benefits to the prot”g” included providing protection and offering greater expos ure 34 within the company (Chao , 1997; Ragins & Kram, 2007). Students planning in advance for their careers may be more enthusiastic about participating in mentoring relationships and better prepared to effectively utilize the mentor than will Ònon -careerÓ p lanners (Noe, 1988) . Career planning and placement are important aspects of engineering culture, as engineering degrees prepare and train students to directly enter industry jobs. Provision of psychosocial direction by a mentor is largely dependent on the psychological attachments in the relationship between the mentor and the prot”g”, as well as their emotional bond (Kram, 1988). Psychosocial development functions involve acceptance, camaraderie, counseling, and confirmation, and are intended to influenc e the prot”g”Õs self -image and aptitude (Chao, 1997) . Prot”g”s cited increased confidence, empathy and support, assistance with confronting issues, affirmation, and help prioritizing as key benefits to their mentoring relationships (Whittaker & Cartwright , 2000). Some have argued the existence of a scale, or a continuum of helping relationships based on intimacy or intensity , in which mentoring is considered to be the most intense attachment, role modeling the least (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Jacobi, 1991; Kr am, 1988 ). Role -modeling is defined by Gibson as Òa cognitive construction based on the attributes of people in social roles an individual perceives to be similar to him or herself to some extent and desires to increase perceived similarity by emulating those attributesÓ (2004, p. 135). An important aspect of role modeling is that it assists prot”g”s in reducing uncertainty and teaches appropriate behavior (Hall & Chandler, 2007). Early in oneÕs career, role modeling can be key to learning the ropes of an organization (Kram, 1985) . Similar to mentoring, role modeling has been inconsistently used and poorly defined in the existing theoretical literature, resulting in a lack of substantive research focu sed on the subject (Gibson , 2004). Regardless, role modeling is 35 still of particular significance to the engineering community. The scarcity of female role models is consistently cited as a possible explanation for the lack of women and minority students in engineering (Felder, Felder, Mauney, Hamrin, & Die tz, 1995). Female role models in fields where female leadership is commonly absent are important to provide s tereotype -disconfirming evidence and provides a comparison for oneself to a similar, outstanding person of the same gender (Marx & Roman, 2002). Research based on the outcomes of mentoring and the experiences of prot”g”s has been conducted extensively, whereas studies focusing on the benefits and drawbacks to mentors are relatively recent additions to the field (Baugh & Fagenson -Eland, 2007; Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008; Ellinger, 2002). Early studies report that mentors identified benefits such as communication and analytic skills, and a greater sense of community and connectivity, along with personal satisfaction from helping others ( Eby et al. , 2008; Whittaker & Cartwright, 2000). While the c urrent study does not address rewards for faculty mentors , extant literature points to similar benefits for faculty mentors in higher education, including greater job satisfaction, administrative s upport, and improved interpersonal skills (Luna & Cullen, 1995). Organizations supporting formal mentoring programs commonly site increased senior staff motivation, improved recruitment efforts, boosted productivity, improved organizational communication and enhancement of services offered by the organization as the benefits they receive from supporting such efforts (Hansford, Ehrich, & Tennant, 2004). In higher education, mentoring can enhance organizational culture at the departmental level, the colleg e level and the institutional level (Luna & Cullen, 1995). Mentoring can facilitate an environment of respect by providing a means through which faculty can connect with undergraduate students in an informal setting, giving faculty a chance to learn about their studentsÕ interests, behaviors, and career 36 aspirations. The cultural socialization that results from mentoring helps to create a stronger commitment to both the institution, and the field (Baugh & Fagenson -Eland, 200 7). Mentoring Challenges Defini ng mentoring has been a historically confusing and contentious debate. Despite lacking an exacting definition of mentoring, KramÕs 1983 Academy of Management Journal article is often identified as the seminal contemporary work on mentoring. KramÕs articl e is the most frequently cited article on the subject, and has been only slightly altered or directly quoted in hundreds of studies (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007) . It has been argued that this early, Òrelatively impreciseÓ conceptualization of mentoring was acc eptable for initial discussions and studies on the topic, but is unacceptable for contemporary research some three decades later (Bozeman & Feeney , 2007). Definitional challenges are the main hurdle faced by mentoring researchers in higher education. Wri ghtsman (1981) suggested that mentoring could become a Òshort term fadÓ due in part to the widespread variation in definition as well as the false sense of consensus between researchers studying the phenomenon. As a result, the concept of mentoring is not valued in ÒhardÓ research (Jacobi, 1991) . Definitions differ depending on the discipline producing the research, making them reflective of that discipline and specific to it (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Equally problematic is the lack of theory necessary to in form researchers about studentsÕ perceptions of their experiences with mentors and the roles and functions provided within mentoring relationships (Crisp & Cruz , 2009; Jacobi , 1991; Merriam, 1983) . Using in -depth interviews to collect data from participan ts in a formal mentoring program, the current study aims to fill a void in the existing literature regarding the experiences of students in such a program. 37 In order for mentoring relationships in higher education to be successful, the prot”g” must recogni ze the value in informal interactions with faculty. In formal mentoring programs, such as the one in the current study, the student must Òopt -inÓ to the program by signing up at the beginning of the semester. In informal mentoring relationships, the prot ”g” might not immediately be aware that he or she is in a mentoring partnership, as they occur organically and without third party intervention. Diversified Mentoring While the primary focus of the current study is formal, Òone on oneÓ mentoring, it is important to note that alternative forms of mentoring exist in the literature and in practice. Alternative mentoring includes, but is not limited to, peer mentoring, group mentoring, and Òdiversified mentoring,Ó which clusters members of different genders, sexual orientations, and/or ethnic and racial groups together for mentoring activities (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007; Ragins, 1997). Diversified mentoring pairs are mentors and prot”g”s who differ from the majority, which includes those in power in their organi zation (Ragins , 1997). In engineering education, women are not included in the male majority, and are therefore, considered a diversified mentoring pair. Women in non -traditional fields, such as engineering, frequently experience isolation and exclusion from informal interaction with faculty and colleagues (Sandler & Hall , 1982; Vogt et al., 2007). A harmful result of social exclusion is the inability to connect with an informal mentor, as there are limited opportunities to meet outside of professional settings (Vogt et al. , 2007). An additional challenge is that there are many fewer women in leadership positions to serve as mentors , yet the evidence is clear of the benefits for women in engineering and other non-traditional fields who participate in me ntoring relationships ( Baugh & Fagenson -Eland, 38 2007; Ragins, Cotton , & Miller, 2000). Among the personal and professional challenges addressed in these partnerships are: expert advising to successfully navigate a non -linear trajectory of coursework, an in fluential mentor to recommend access to labs, equipment, and funding for research, personal encouragement to succeed in a male dominant environment, and helping gain access to elite research groups comprised of top scholars who recruit and train their own student prot”g”s (Sandler & Hall , 1982). As previously stated, a benefit to the current research is that the mentoring program under study is open to all students enrolled in an introductory engineering design course. All students, not just those in tra ditionally underrepresented groups, are invited to sign up to be formally paired with a faculty mentor. Length of mentoring relationships, both formal and informal, has been shown to vary and can be as short as one meeting or as long as a decade (Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Jacobi, 1991 ; Levinson et al., 1978 ). Mentoring programs in higher education focusing on students in their first year of college, similar to the current study, tend to last for one academic year (Jacobi , 1991). Social Cognitive Theory indicat es that even limited contact with a role model can produce an efficacious boost that can alleviate self -doubt and promote a sense of connectivity between student s and their academic environment (Bandura, 1986). Mentoring Conditions MerriamÕs (1983) revi ew of the literature on mentors and prot”g”s highlights the need for further study on mentoring as an intervention strategy, as clarification and better assessment will help to determine its effects. Although benefits of successful mentoring partnerships are numerous, not all mentoring relationships result in positive outcomes (Hansford et al. , 2004; Hegstad, 1999; Long, 1997; Scandura, 1998; Scandura & Williams, 2001) . Irrespective of the 39 intention of the mentor, unsuccessful mentoring can occur if certa in conditions are not met, causing harm to both parties (Jacobi, 1991; Long , 1997). Negative mentoring has been defined as Òspecific incidents that occur between mentors and prot”g”s, mentorsÕ characteristic manner of interacting with prot”g”s, or mentors Õ characteristics that limit their ability to effectively provide guidance to prot”g”sÓ (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000 , p. 3). Among the most important caveats for success in formal mentoring programs is a supportive organizational structure (Hegs tad, 1999) . An organizational culture whose top level management supports mentoring initiatives is more likely to find employees willing to participate as mentors than those without organizational backing (Hegstad , 1999; Kram, 1988) . Timing within an org anization is a key component of leadership support since downsizing, restructuring, and growth may be examples of organizational change that impact mentoring efforts (Young & Perrew” , 2000). Such changes regardless of organization type tend to influence employeesÕ feelings about both the organization and the individualsÕ perceptions about job security and career advancement (Young & Perrew” , 2000). In higher education, as departmental budgets shrink and enrollments increase, faculty are expected to teach more classes per semester, produce more research, and secure more grants with which to fund their research , leaving very l ittle time for student engagement project s, such as mentoring (Hansford et al. , 2004). Without a supportive organizational culture, mentors may feel overwhelmed by the additional responsibility that good mentoring requires, and view their mentorship duties negatively (Jacobi, 1991) . Additionally, the role of the mentor should be valued and respected by the institution, and in the case of higher education, The mentorÕs academic department (Johnson, 1989). The group of potential mentors ideally represents gender, racial and ethnic 40 diversity, and a range of individual characteristics (Johnson , 1989), which is especially challenging in ST EM fields, where role modeling is particularly important and diversity among leaders scarce. Mentors should also be familiar with the college and the campus environment, have good interpersonal skills, motivation to assist students, and be willing to comm it to a specified period of time (Johnson , 1989). Given the increasing number of adjunct faculty, this could be challenging for larger colleges or institutions. ÒIntrusive, proactive strategies must be used to reach freshmen with these services before th ey have an opportunity to experience feelings of failure, disappointment, and confusionÓ (Levitz, Noel, & Richter, 1999, p. 39). The exclusionary nature of the engineering education culture does not lend itself to intrusive, proactive strategies designed to keep students in the discipline, but rather employs educational tactics designed to weed out those students that are not deemed socially acceptable or academically prepared by arbitrary cultura l norms (Courter et al., 1998; Vogt et al. , 2007). Faculty mentors should also be aware of the developmental stage that prot”g”s are currently experiencing, as timing in relation to the stage of the prot”g”Õs career or education can also be a challenge for mentoring relationships (Cosgrove, 1986). Developmental stages of undergraduates are not typically taught to faculty outside of certain degrees, and highly unlikely to be covered in STEM coursework. In their structured analysis of over 300 research -based papers on mentoring across three di sciplines, Hansford , Ehrich, and Tennant (2004), determined that faculty mentors required training prior to meeting with their prot”g”s to ensure support for and understanding of the goals and expecta tions of the mentoring program (Hansford et al. , 2004). In the case of the c urrent study, faculty mentors are not always familiar with the challenges and concerns of early engineering students, as the majority of their student interactions are with upper -class undergraduates or graduate students. One of the main concerns 41 cited by students who reported dissatisfaction with a faculty mentor is that the mentor was disconnected, critical, untrusting, and inflexib le (Hansford et al. , 2004). Both the mentors and the prot”g”s benefit when faculty mentors un derstand current student issue s and recognize that their students share their common academic interest. Recognition of common interest can facilitate mutual respect between faculty and students, thereby creating a more inclusive, warmer academic environment. Social Cognitive Theory As stated in Chapter One, the theoretical framewor k used in the current study is social cognitive t heory (SCT) (Bandura, 1986) . This theory is appropriate for two reasons. The main research question focuses not on mentoring, per se, but on studentsÕ perc eptions of the climate based on their interactions with faculty in a mentoring program. The emphasis of th e current study is on environmental perception and its impact on studentsÕ behavior in response to a targeted intervention. The second reason is tha t despite the increasing popularity of mentoring programs across the fields of business, psychology, and education, researchers have yet to identify a theoretically valid model to guide mentoring research (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Similar to the lack of a com mon definition of mentoring, the lack of a common theoretical framework with which to direct the study of mentoring has hindered development of its academic merit (Crisp & Cruz , 2009). SCT provides a framework for examining the reciprocal relationships between environment, self, and behavior because mentoring touches upon each of the three aspects (Bandura , 1986). Components of SCT are multidimensional and subjective (Graves, 2003). Improvement in one of the components of SCT could improve the other two. Changes in behavioral patterns can impact a studentÕs self -efficacy, as well as the studentÕs environment. For example, a student decides to forego a party with her friends to meet up with a study group; 42 it is likely she will do well on the exam, increa sing her belief in her abilities to complete the course successfully. Additionally, she could form new friendships with members of the study group who appear to be more committed to academic pursuits, thereby changing her social environment to one that mi rrors her level of academic commitment. Using SCT as a framework for the current study allows for a deeper understanding of faculty -student interaction as it relates to studentsÕ perception s of climate. Research conducted from a social cognitive perspec tive identifies the objective features of the three parts of the theo ry, setting, behavior, and self based on the learnerÕs understanding of the c limate (Vogt et al., 2007). Social Cognitive Theory depicts behavior as the reciprocal relationship between t he person (self) and the personÕs environment, which provides a framework that incorporates the individualÕs perception of self, and perception of the environment (Graves , 2003). In the current study, the implementation of a fac ulty -student mentoring prog ram wa s intended to positively influence studentsÕ perceptions of their environment, thereby encouraging their behavior Ð remain in the college and continue to pursue degrees in engineering. The mentoring experience paired early engineering students with faculty mentors who provide d guidance and encouragement and serve d as successful engineering role models for student participants . Ideally, the students will identify with the faculty, all of whom have successfully completed engineering degrees themselve s, and begin to model their behavior. The more closely the students identify with their faculty mentors, the greater the impact of the guidance and encouragement, a nd the more it will positively affect studentsÕ self -efficacy (Bandura , 1986). The extent to which an individual is motivated to take action in oneÕs environment is largely determined by oneÕs self -efficacy beliefs. Self -efficacy is the core of SCT , defined by 43 Bandura (1986) as, ÒpeopleÕs judgments of their capabilities to organize and execut e courses of action required to attain designated types of performancesÓ (p. 391). OneÕs self -efficacy can increase for multiple reasons, including self -perception of a successful endeavor, perception of strong coping skills, and social or verbal persuasi on or encouragement ( Bandura, 1993 ). The most effective form of emotional encouragement comes from a trusted, credible source that is an expert in the field (Bandura , 1993). In higher education, faculty play this role for their students, and can have a g reat deal of influence ove r self -efficacy levels (Colbeck et al., 2001). Students who have supportive, affirming faculty mentors, and exposure to positive role models are more likely to engage with their environment (Colbeck et al. , 2001). In the current study, faculty -student interaction through informal mentoring is offered to students in a technical field at a large research university, where frequent, substantive, informal contact with faculty members is often lacking (Bandura, 1993). Conversely, se lf-efficacy can be detrimental to goal attainment. When students perceive themselves as having failed, their self -efficacy suffers, and they expect future failures in similar endeavors (Bandura , 1993). Failures in turn heighten anxiety, contributing to feelings of incompetence, and encouraging students to give up, or change to a different major with a more welcom ing environment (Zimmerman, 1989 ). Such possible consequences are important to consider when selecting faculty mentors for such programs. Matching students who do not perceive themselves to be fully capable of success in an engineering major with a non -affirming, uninspiring faculty mentor could lead to a more pejorative perception of the climate and a lower retention rate. 44 CHAPTER 3 Methods In this chapter, I re -state the research questions, then describe the overall approach and rational for the current study. I define and explain the rational e behind my unit of analysis, site selection, and sampling strategies. Finally, I outline the data analysis procedures, trustworthiness, and methodological limitations. The chapter concludes with ethical considerations and my role as a researcher. Mentoring itself is not a novel intervention in higher education ; it has been used to engage students and supplement classroom learning for decades. The current study examines the use of mentoring within the context of engineering education to ascertain what affect, if any, faculty contact has on early engineering students and their perception of climate. T he research question and sub -questions that guide the study are: ¥!How do early engineering students perceive their interactions with engineering faculty? ¥!How do early engineering students perceive the climate of engineering as a result of having participat ed in a formal mentoring program? I chose to conduct a qualitative study as it provided in -depth descriptions about faculty -student interactions from well -grounded, authentic student perspectives (Merriam , 2014; Miles & Huberman, 1994) . As noted by Straus s and Corbin (1990), qualitative research is defined as, Òany kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantificationÓ (p. 17). When conducting qualitative research, Òthe researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysisÓ ( Merriam , 2014, p. 15). Qualitative data allow for the researcher to Òpreserve chronological flow, see precisely which events led to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanationsÓ (Miles & Huber man, 1994, p. 1). 45 I utilized the case study method to examine student experiences as participants in a specific faculty -mentoring program, the Connector Faculty mentoring program, in order to understand the larger phenomenon of negative climate perceptio n that can often lead to leaving behavior by students (Creswell & Clark , 2007; Marra et al., 2012; Rossman & Rallis, 2011; Sandler & Hall, 1982; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). ÒCase studies seek to understand a larger phenomenon through intensive examination of one specific instanceÓ (Rossman & Rallis, 2011, p. 104). While climate is unique to each institution, research has shown that engineering education is not a welcoming env ironment (Seymour & Hewitt , 1997). Programs designed to mitigate student departure by targeting small populations of at risk students are largely unsuccessful. At the site of the current study, faculty mentors were offered to all students in an introductory course as a potential retention tactic. By highlighting the experiences of stud ents in the Connector Faculty mentoring program, I hoped to gain further insight about undergraduate studentsÕ experiences with faculty mentoring as a specific response to climate challenges, as faculty are key arbiters of culture and climate in educationa l settings (Fuentes et al. , 2014). By using the words of the student participants, I was able to relay their experiences with concrete, vivid descriptions, instead of tables of numbers or vague percentages ( Merriam , 2014). The goal of the current study is to understand these experiences as told by the student participants in their own voices within a particular context (Merriam, 2014) . The case study method is appropriate for the current research for multiple reasons. I focused on a specific group of students that was created as a response to a specific issue (Creswell & Clark , 2007; Yin, 1993). The issue in question, pejorative climate perception leading to potential student departure from the major, is complex and multi -layered. This is ideal for a case study, whose strength is complexity, detail, and Òuse of multiple sources to obtain multiple perspectivesÓ (Rossman & 46 Rallis, 2011, p. 105), especially when a specific intervention has been introduced such as the CF program . Secondly, this case opera tes within a bounded system in terms of both time and place (Asmussen & Creswell, 1995; Creswell & Clark , 2007; Merriam , 2014). The mentoring program begins each fall semester and finishes in the spring. The program is located in the College of Engineeri ng at Michigan State University, a large, public research university in the Midwest. The contextual conditions play a significant role in the need for the program being studied; therefore, they will be examined as well (Yin , 1993). Thirdly, I use multipl e data sources to create an in -depth depiction of the program and its student participants, as well as their perception of the educational environment (Creswell & Clark , 2007; Yin , 1993). Sampling I employed purposeful sampling str ategies for the current study because this allowed for selecting information -rich cases (Patton, 199 0) from which I hoped to learn a lot about student perceptions of climate in engineering. The current research was site specific and was also a purposeful, constr ained choice; it was defined by and linked to a specific place (Rossman & Rallis, 2011) , and a specific mentoring initiative . I selected this particular mentoring program for two reasons. First, this program was unique. Based on extensive online research, I determined that this was the only program of its kind focused on faculty mentoring of first year engineering students that is not specific to a targeted group such as women or students of color , and house d at a large, public research university. This program was ope n to all students who want ed to interact with faculty in an informal setting. The second reason for selecting this specific program was convenience ( Merriam , 2014). I had open access to the program participants, so entry was possible ( Rossman & Rallis , 2011). Building relationships with participants while very important in this kind of research was not difficult, as I had spent five 47 years prior to data collection working in various capacities in the college in which the program was housed. I had an inti mate knowledge of the student population and the educational environment , even if not all of the students who chose to participate in this study knew me . The unit of analysis for the current study i s individual student participants within the mentoring pro gram. The majority of participants were first year students who were making sufficient progress toward admission to the College of Engineering and were all enrolled in the introduction to engineering design course in the fall semester . This is an optimal time to offer such an intervention, as Ò[t]here is evidence that when freshmen and faculty become acquainted and interact, they form a foundation upon which future contacts can be establishedÓ (Kramer & Spencer, 1989, p. 98). Since I sought to understan d and learn more about the experiences of the students in the mentoring program, I chose students participating in the program as my sample (Merriam, 2014) . In the current study, student participants signed up to be matched with faculty mentors in a program that provided very flexible guidelines and training for the mentors. The majority of the student participants had never met their faculty mentors prior to signing up. The matches were made according to discipline, and in some cases gender. Faculty we re expected to e -mail their student mentees a few weeks after the semester began to initiate contact, and to meet with them in person two to three times throughout the semester. Additionally, e -mail outreach was encouraged during midterms and finals as a means of support during busy, stressful periods for students, as a show of support by their mentors. Interactions were to be informal and not necessarily academic in nature. Lunches, coffee breaks, and visits during faculty office hours were suggested ac tivi ties. The program was expected to cultivate faculty -student interaction, and in turn facilitate feelings of comfort in and connection to the engineering community. 48 The program operated on the academic calendar. Each fall semester, students were giv en the opportunity to participate, upon which time they were assigned to a faculty mentor for the current academic year. For the year studied in this dissertation 397 students opted in, out of a possible 785 enrolled in the course. Of the 397 participant s, 82 were women, or roughly 22%. If my intent were to proportionately include women in the sample, there would have been four respondents, which was not likely to create sample saturation . Instead, I provided the opportunity to participate in the curren t study to all 397 students , and hoped for gender parity among the respondents . In total, I conducted 20 interviews between 45 and 80 minutes in length. While there are no set rules for determining the number of participants in qualitative studies, it is recommended that participants be interviewed until saturation or redundancy is reache d (Lincoln & Gruba, 1985; Merriam , 2014). Data Gathering P rocedures I obtained lists of past mentoring program participants from the director of the education research ce nter at the college housing the mentoring program. Using contact information from the lists, I sent a mass e -mail soliciting interview participants for the current study. I accepted the first 9 male and 11 female respondents to participate in the current study in attempt to reach saturation. Prior to conducting interviews, I obtained approval from the MSU human subjects research protection office. The primary data collection method for the present study is in -depth, individual interviews. One on one in terviews allowed for information sharing from the participants that was unable to be gathered from observation or other data collection techniques ( Merriam , 2014). The interviews were conducted in private offices in the engineering building at times of th e participantsÕ choosing . The engineering building was an ideal site as it is a convenient, 49 comfortable location for engineering students. I could not be a direct observer of the mentoring meetings for several reasons: the mentoring program activities to ok place in the past, students might not have been authentic with the presence of an observer, and most importantly, the purpose of the study is to gather information from the studentsÕ perspectives. StudentsÕ perceptions of their experiences cannot be ob served ( Merriam , 2014). Individual interviews are appropriate for the current study because I had direct access to the participants and recognize the significance of informal communication, both verbal and non -verbal cues, available only through in person interaction (Creswell & Clark , 2007; Glesne, 2006; Merriam , 2014). I developed the interview questions based on the literature, the three components of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1986) and my own experiences working with students as an advis or in the College of Engineering. Each of the questions targets a combination of environment, self, and behavior. The questions were designed to encourage participants to talk about themselves, and their feeling, opinions, and experiences with the Colleg e of Engineering, while touching upon relevant components of SCT. The interviews were semi -structured to allow for a freer flowing, less constrained conversation. Semi -structured interviews are ideal for covering themes in a broad, flexible manner (Alves son & Skıldberg , 2000). This format allowed me to capture any additional information offered by participants and not be limited by my own biases. The questions were based on student perception of the engineering environment and their experiences with the ir faulty mentor. Interviews were scheduled for sixty minutes with each participant, but I allowed for two hours during scheduling as not to limit the conversations. Before beginning my data collection, I conducted two pilot interviews to test the value , clarity and question -topic fit of my interview questions and protocol (Glesne, 2006). By piloting the interview protocol, I was able to refine research instruments, assess discrepancies and 50 interviewer bias, and collect additional background information (Creswell & Clark , 2007). The pilot interviews were conducted in the physical space used for the actual interviews in order to test acoustics and digital recorders, and to ensure that the space was distraction -free (Creswell & Clark , 2007). In order to identify pilot participants I e -mailed the 397 program participants and selected the first two students who responded to my request. Based on the pilot study participantsÕ responses, I did not need to adjust the interview questions. Pilot participants responses closely aligned with my research questions, so I included them in my study (Yin, 2003). Data Analysis Data analysis is the continuous act of making sense of the data and relating individual experiences to other individual experiences to disc over p atterns (Stake, 1995). Analysis involves identifying key factors in the research and the relationships between them ( Merriam, 2014 ). Description, analysis, and interpretation are the steps necessary to transform data from an organized set of themes into meaningful information (Glesne, 2006). To begin the analysis process, I transcribed the interviews soon after each was conducted and included the handwritten observations I took during the interviews. The interview questions were loosely based on the the oretical framework, and informed by the literature. Transcribing helped to familiarize me with the data and gave me a sense of the general themes contained within it (Creswell & Clark , 2007). I did not rely on numeric representation of the data, but inst ead looked for the meaning associated with participant statements. I performed ongoing data analysis and made note of comments related to environment, behavior, and self. During subsequent review s of the data, I identified 128 codes that lead to answers to my research questions (Merriam , 2014). After transcribing the interview s, I de-identified each participant to protect his or her anonymity. I 51 removed any identifying characteristics from the transcripts that could link the data to a specific person and used pseudonyms for participants as well as named faculty members and courses . Validity In the current study, I took measures to ensure optimal research validity (Stake, 1995; Strauss & Corbin , 1990). Validity is the process by which qualitative rese archers demonstrate the credibility of their studie s (Creswell & Miller, 2000). It encompasses continuous, conscious questioning of what is being observed, and why (Glesne, 2006). Validity also involves how the phenom ena are interpreted, and how research ers know that their observation s are correct (Glesne , 2006). I employed several verification procedures including peer review and debriefing, multiple sources of data, and clarification of my own bia s as a researcher (Creswell & Clark , 2007; Creswell & Mi ller, 2000; Glesne , 2006). The qualitative paradigm assumes that perception is reality for study participants, which helps to account for accuracy of participantsÕ experiences (Creswell & Miller, 2000). In attempting to make sense of the participantsÕ un derstanding of their experi ences in the mentoring program and how these experiences shaped their perspectives about climate and faculty interaction as a result, my goal as a researcher was to preserve their voices and describe their realities with the leas t amount of subjectivity possible (Creswell , 2003). To ensure that their voices and realities were accurately represented, I offered the participants a chance to conduct member checks, or validate their responses ; doing so helps minimize misinterpretation and researcher bias (Maxwell, 2005; Merriam, 2014 ). Feedback from participants indicated that transcriptions and notes were correct and that no changes were needed. Additionally, I used peer review and debriefing from persons unfamiliar with the study and with engineering as a field of study to gain external input on my observations and findings. 52 Debriefing provided a chance to share data and garner advice from colleagues not connected with the project and their insights provided an objective opportunity for me to consider my researcher bias or other inconsistencies (Creswell, 2003 ). Based on their comments, my thoughts were challenged and perceptions clarified. Role of the Researcher As the researcher in an interactive qualitative study, I am a researc h tool (Rossman & Rallis, 2011). Reflecting critically on my role as the resea rcher for the current study, I am cognizant of my identity as a social scientist, a woman, and as someone older than the study participants. I am not an engineer, nor do I have formal educational training in a STEM field. As a woman in an engineering education environment, I am a minority. As a graduate student working with traditional undergraduates, I am also not in their age demographic and am more likely to be viewed as an administrator or authority figure instead of a peer with whom they could openly share their thoughts without repercussion . Critical to the trustworthiness of the study is a continued awareness of my own biases and predispositions (Glesne, 2006). Since there is no way to eliminate biases in qualitative research, as the researcher is the principal means of data collection and analysis, I frequently reflected on my position in relation to the students I interviewed, and the influence my own educational expe riences had on how I told their stories ( Merriam, 2014 ). The identities of researchers shape their interpretation of participantsÕ experiences. (Rossman & Rallis , 2011). Having spent several years working on this particular faculty -mentoring program, I have achieved what Creswell (2003 ) and Lincoln and Gruba (1985) describe as Òprolonged engagementÓ and Òpersistent observation.Ó I developed familiarity with the culture of the engineering college, as well as a sense of trust in my instincts and observati ons 53 in regard to faculty -student interactions and student experiences (Glesne , 2006). Fetterman (1998) states, Òworking with people day in and day out, for long periods of time, is what gives ethnographic research its validation and vitalityÓ (p. 46). Wh ile the current study is not ethnographic, my time with engineering students has enabled me to observe the climate and student responses to it in a unique way. I built student trust and learned about their experiences in engineering from within the colleg e, which lends credibility to my research in that I am better able to identify misinformation and determine what is relevant to the current research questions (Creswell , 2003). Familiarity with this particular culture and climate, at the data collection s ite, also allowed for more cr edible research (Glesne , 2006). Participant Safeguards Prior to each interview, I provided participants with a consent form to sign ensuring their understanding of the research. The form informed participants that their partic ipation was completely voluntary, they were free to leave the study at any time, and that there was minimal risk involved (Glesne, 2006). The consent form also included my contact information, and written assurance that participant identities would be pro tected through the use of pseudonyms. Limitations Methodologically, this qualitative study is not intended to represent the experiences of climate perceptions of engineering students generally in higher education today. By studying this particular case, I intended to gain valuable knowledge about the studentsÕ experiences in the educational climate of this specific setting and in this specific mentoring program through the studentsÕ rich descriptions and the narrative provided by the researcher ( Merriam, 2014). A case study provides in -depth understanding of an experience of a particular group in a specific time 54 and place, so it is not intended to be generalizable but can still provide lessons learned for other similar settings (Merriam , 2014; Stake, 199 5). My presence, as an outsider to the engineering culture, is also a limitation of the current study. As a social scientist conducting qualitative research in engineering, a field that heavily favors quantitative research conducted by STEM field researc hers, I will not have the cultural familiarity or acceptance that a researcher with an engineering degree would be granted. The exclusive nature of the field and the profession prevents a non -engineer from truly connecting with the subjects over the clima te, the difficulty of the academic work, or the stresses related to it. My own sensitivity to being an outsider to the engineering culture is an aspect of my role as researcher about which I am keenly aware ( Merriam, 2014 ). An additional limitation is t he time lapse between when the students participated in the program and their ability to reflect back on it nearly a year later. Their memories of interactions with faculty at a much later time might not be as precise as they would have been immediately following the end of the program. 55 CHAPTER 4 In this chapter, I present the findings of the current study based on the perceptions and experiences of early engineering students who participated in a formal faculty -student mentoring program. Chapter 4 incl udes the participantsÕ insights regarding how they came to attend MSU, their experiences in the classroom, as well as their interactions with faculty. Overarching themes that emerged include distinct differences between studentsÕ interactions with enginee ring and non-engineering faculty, parental influence on major choice, and feelings of prestige and superiority through their affiliation with the College of Engineering. Using BanduraÕs (1986) social cognitive t heory (SCT) as a framework, responses are or ganized according to the three parts of the theory: environment, behavior, and self. Participants shared their experiences in in -depth interviews, responding to semi -structured, open -ended questions designed to answer the following research questions: ¥!How do early engineering students perceive their interactions with engineering faculty? ¥!How do early engineering students perceive the climate of engineering as a result of having participated in a formal mentoring program? All but one participant were sophomores; all were enrolled in an engineering major, and all opted to participate in a faculty -student mentoring program during their first year in the College of Engineering at MSU. 56 Table 1 Participant Characteristics Note: Average GPA = 3.4/4.0 Environment As stated in Chapter 1, Zimmerman (1989), in his expansion of BanduraÕs work, discovered that of the three variables of triadic reciprocal causation, e nvironment had the most influence over student engagement and persistence. Participants in the current study shared their thoughts and perceptions regarding their time at Michigan State University, including why they chose to attend the university, and th eir experiences in both engineering and non -engineering classes. Choosing Michigan State University Students chose to attend Michigan State University for a variety of reasons, the most prevalent being a family connection, the physical beauty of campus, affordability, and the Participant Alias Current Major Honors College Gender Current GPA Alexa Mechanical No F 3.7 Amy Chemical Yes F 3.6 Anna AES Yes F 2.9 Britney Mechanical No F 3.7 Chelsea Chemical Yes F 3.4 Chris Computer Science No M 3.0 Elizabeth Mechanical No F 3.4 Emma Materials Science Yes F 4.0 Howard Electrical No M 3.6 Jake Civil No M 3.2 Jennifer Mechanical No F 3.5 Joy Chemical No M 2.6 Luke Mechanical No M 3.7 Matt Chemical No M 3.3 North Mechanical Yes F 3.7 Paul Mechanical Yes M 3.5 Smiley Environ mental No F 2.9 Tiger Chemical No F 3.2 Will Electrical No M 3.5 Zak Chemical Yes M 3.8 57 perceived quality of the MSU Engineering program. For nearly all of the students, multiple factors influenced their decision to attend MSU. TigerÕs response included thre e of the most oft cited reasons, Ò I have a lot of family alum ni here, they gave me a lot more scholarships than other schools, and itÕs a Big Ten school, so getting an engineering degree at almost any Big Ten school looks good. Ó A number of students in the current study felt an affiliation with MSU from family ties to the institution, either currently through siblings, or as legacy students with alumni parents and/or grandparents. This sense of fit and familiarity helped to foster a sense of belonging for incoming students. By likening the institution to home, the students matriculated with a pre -conceived sense of belonging. According to Chelsea, Ò[B]oth my brother and sister went to MSU, so I had visited quite a bit and I really like the atmosphere here.Ó JenniferÕs excitement over a campus visit was a main fac tor in her decision. She was planning a weekend visit to see her sister, an MSU senior at the time, and deciding between MSU and Michigan Tech. Jennifer thought, ÒI should go to Michigan State. IÕm this excited to go there for a weekend, I should go.Ó Elizabeth, Alexa, Emma, and Chris all overlapped attendance with at least one sibling at MSU. For Emma, a legacy student, this created a home -like setting. She stated, ÒI just felt very at home, a lot of my family went here too Ð my mom, two of my brothe rs, we were all three here last year together, aunts and uncles.Ó For Britney, a third generation Spartan, Òit just seemed like the right fit for me. My grandma and my dad came with me [on her prospective student visit] and they both went to Michigan Sta te. That persuaded me toward Michigan State versus Grand Valley.Ó Even for students who seemed less enthused about attending MSU, the presence of a sibling was mentioned. Alexa said MSU was her Ònumber two choice because I have an older 58 brother who goes here.Ó Elizabeth was rather nonchalant about her decision to attend MSU, attributing it to her parentsÕ enthusiasm and her brotherÕs presence. She explained her college selection, ÒMy brother went here, heÕs two years older than me, so heÕll be a senior. I didnÕt really visit campuses or anything. My parents were excited for MSU, and it was just like okay, IÕll go there.Ó Aesthetically pleasing surroundings and size played a role in studentsÕ decisions to attend MSU. For students who were not already set on a field of study, the multitude of major choices was attractive. Several students noted that MSUÕs campus was more beautiful than others they had considered, adding an element of pride, including North, who stated: I liked it [MSU] overall because I loved the campus because I like nature and stuff. I was originally going to Central [Michigan] but I liked this campus better and I thought there would be more opportunities here and I was debating between being a physical therapist and an engineer, and I figured they would have the best of either one, so thatÕs why. Alexa was also undecided in her major when selecting a school to attend, sharing, ÒItÕs a pretty campus and I wasnÕt really thinking about programs because I didnÕt know what I wanted to do yet, but I just assumed, they have everything, so IÕll figure it out.Ó Howard stated simply, ÒItÕs a big and beautiful campus, and we are really good at undergraduate studies.Ó For Jake, the campus was instrumental in his decision, sharing ÒI really like d the campus when I came to visit. I originally intended to go to University of Michigan.Ó Joy echoed their sentiments, sharing, ÒWhen I came to MSU, I just really fell in love with it because itÕs pretty huge, and I wanted to be in a huge community. I liked it pretty much better than other colleges.Ó In addition to campus characteristics and family connections, affordability and perception of academic quality were key factors in the studentsÕ decisions to attend MSU. Only three of the 59 20 participants mentioned looking at schools out of state. Students were acutely aware that attending an in -state school would cost less than attending a private institution or a school in another state. Amy stated that she chose MSU, ÒPrimarily because itÕs in -state an d that was the cheaper tuition rate.Ó Paul wanted to avoid placing financial strain on his family, sharing, ÒI didnÕt want to make my parents, Ôcause theyÕre paying for my college, I didnÕt want to make them pay out of state tuition.Ó MSU was perceived to be both academically well regarded and a good value for the studentsÕ investment. Tiger and Emma were both offered prestigious academic assistantships, which indicated to them that MSU valued their presence at the institution. Tiger said she ÒFelt like they wanted me here. They offered me the Professorial Assistantship, the research job with the Honors College, and you really canÕt pass that up.Ó Emma declined admission to a higher ranked engineering program, saying, ÒIt was nice, but this is in -state tuition and theyÕre giving me the job [Professorial Assistantship], they wanted me here more.Ó StudentsÕ perception of the quality of the engineering program at Michigan State University contributed to their sense of pride. Amy stated, ÒItÕs one of the , what I consider the best engineering programs in the state, so I wanted to come here.Ó Will agreed, saying, ÒMSU is a good university with a reputation, especially for the engineering college.Ó Matt is a non -traditional aged undergraduate who lived in the Lansing area as an adult, sharing he Òwanted to go to an in -state school, [is a] Spartan fan from having lived here, and it seemed like a good choice and, looking into the engineering program, they have a reputable program.Ó For other students, MSU was their ÒsafetyÓ school. Some cited not getting in to a competitor institution as their impetus for choosing MSU. The three participants who mentioned being denied by another institution seemed relatively happy with their choice of MSU as a 60 secondary o ption; none of them seemed overly resentful. Paul was deferential when sharing his story about how he ended up at MSU following an admission rejection from the University of Michigan, stating, ÒI thought I was overqualified, but I didnÕt get into their pr ogram. I only applied to two schools. Michigan and Michigan State are the two best schools in Michigan in my opinion, so by default, I came here.Ó Alexa seemed completely nonchalant about her rejection from another school: ÒMSU was actually not my first choice, University of Michigan was, but they put me on a wait list and they eventually declined.Ó Experiences in Non -Engineering Courses Michigan State University requires all students to take interdisciplinary humanities and social science courses. Par ticipants shared primarily favorable experiences with their non -engineering faculty and courses. Students in the Honors College (which includes many of the students in this study) are able to substitute discipline -based courses of their choosing, many of which are taught in smaller sections than the larger, interdisciplinary general education requirements that the majority of MSU students take. Smaller class settings give Honors College students greater access to faculty. North is in the Honors College, and enthusiastically shared her enjoyment of her psychology class. Her voice rose in excitement several times during this part of the conversation, sharing that, ÒThose [non -engineering courses] are fun! IÕm taking my ISS [a social science substitution] this semester and IÕm taking psych. I LOVE psych!Ó While she was slightly more low key in her description, Emma is also an Honors College student who liked her psychology course, stating, ÒI took psych this semester as a substitution. And IÕve really en joyed that class actually. ItÕs one that I look forward to going to.Ó Non -honors students also commented about their enjoyment of non -engineering courses. Elizabeth felt similarly about her university humanities course, stating ÒI have an IAH right now that I feel like 61 IÕve learned a lot in. It was about Italian and performance stuff, so itÕs everything I like! [laughs] I enjoy it!Ó Elizabeth, in addition to sharing that she enjoys her humanities course, credited her professor, for providing a Ògreat experience.Ó Amy and Paul echoed these sentiments. Amy viewed her non -engineering courses as Òmore enjoyableÓ and a ÒbreakÓ from engineering coursework. Paul referred to his sociology class as Òrefreshing,Ó sharing: Sometimes I find those [non -engineeri ng courses] more fun to attend. ThereÕs more discussion, and I find the break from the technical material really refreshing. When I attend my sociology class, which is my only non -engineering class this semester, I find the debate and the subject matter really, really refreshing. Jennifer was so interested in the content of her astronomy elective that it caused her to think differently about her Mechanical Engineering major and her future plans. She shared that Ò[astronomy] was AWESOME and IÕve recently found myself fiddling with the idea of something with that. Like playing with the idea of aerospace, so IÕm going to let my mind wander beyond manufacturing!Ó Anna was able to schedule her courses in a way that saved her non -engineering courses for late r on in her college career. She found the non -engineering courses more useful and applicable, sharing, ÒI actually think that those classes are some of my more favorite classes just because I feel like I learn more useful, relevant information for how you can apply it to different situations.Ó Alexa also liked her non -engineering courses, and mentioned being a bit sad to complete them. Like Amy, Alexa enjoys writing, and shared about her experience in a writing class: 62 It was kind of fun. It was just a break from all of the science and math -y things, and being around nerdy engineering students all the time. IÕll kind of be a little bit sad when IÕm done with my IAH and ISS classes, because from there on itÕs pure engineering. Only one student in the c urrent study disliked non -technical courses because of her disinterest in the subject matter. Tiger, an Honors College student, shared: Most of them are fine; they donÕt interest me as much. I love my math and science classes Ôcause thatÕs what I enjoy. The history classes and the ISS classes, theyÕre just not what interests me, so I donÕt find going to them enjoyable, but I have to take them because the university requires them. I wish there was a history class that pertained more to engineering or sc ience classes versus just U.S. History, and European History, and Asia [sic] History. Even though students knew they had to take non -engineering courses at some point during their undergraduate program, and most reported really enjoyed these classes, Joy and Britney were both surprised that they ended up liking their non -engineering courses. Joy offered, ÒI already had a WRA [writing] class. I thought I would hate that class very much, but I ended up doing very well in it. And now I have one psychology class, I like my psychology class too.Ó Britney was as enthusiastic, if not more so, than the other participants when commenting on her love for her writing class. She could not contain surprise over how much she liked it and how well she performed in t he class, My WRA class was probably one of my favorite classes that IÕve taken here! I HATE English SO MUCH! I am the worst writer ever, and so going into it knowing that this was a college level class, and I knew I had to be good at this and I ended u p getting the 63 best grade in the class. It was really hard, but I felt like I really grew from that. It was really good because it kind of opened my eyes to thinking a different way. Experiences in Engineering Courses Participants were markedly less ent husiastic when talking about engineering courses; only two participants used the word ÒenjoyÓ to describe them . Several participants mentioned, rather nonchalantly, that they liked the classes, and nearly all the participants shared their opinions on the two, mandatory introduction to engineering courses, EGR A and EGR B . Participants spoke of the challenging nature of the engineering course work, the utility, or lack of utility of the content, and offered their opinions on the teaching styles of engineer ing faculty. Elizabeth, Luke, and Zak were the most excited about their engineering courses, and their comments reflected different reasons for their enthusiasm about the courses, including course content making sense, having an interest in math and sci ence, and appreciating teaching methods. Elizabeth stated: I like them [engineering classes]. EGR C was my favorite class. I really, really liked that class! I did NOT do well in the class but I enjoyed it. Right now I have statics as my favorite one . I donÕt know why IÕm enjoying it a lot, it just like makes sense so itÕs easy, and itÕs something IÕd rather study than stats. I hate stats! SO this year was my first CAD class, IÕd never used CAD software or anything before. I totally loved it. Luke stated: Classes like dynamics and thermodynamics, and mechanical design and things like that, those are obviously harder than the [introduction to] engineering classes, but I think theyÕre still all rather enjoyable. IÕd say overall IÕve liked my engine ering courses more than my IAH and ISS [general education requirements] but I think thatÕs probably 64 because IÕve always had that interest in math and science so itÕs probably going to overlap there, but the classes overall, just a good experience. Zak also liked engineering classes, and was the only student who said he liked the way the classes are taught, saying ÒTheyÕre all challenging, they are a lot less opinion based, theyÕre very, very exact and math based, calculus based, chemistry based, and I like the way theyÕre taught, itÕs all problem solving classes, I feel like theyÕre challenging.Ó In general, students felt that engineering courses were challenging. Participants most appreciated courses in which they could see the utility or application of t he material to their specific field of engineering. For example, Amy liked most of the engineering classes, but commented on the high volume of work and the difficulty her non -engineering friends ha ve understanding what she was doing in he r courses. She also noted the importance of learning the applicability of concepts for engineering versus straight memorization that might be okay for other courses, sharing, ÒThey [non -engineering friends] donÕt understand how much work you need to put in, and itÕs a ve ry different type of studying than non -engineering class, more learning how to apply everything.Ó ChelseaÕs comments echoed AmyÕs, sharing that her old ways of managing coursework have not worked with engineering classes: ÒI have always been good at memor izing information, but now I find my classes challenge me to apply the information rather than just memorize it and it makes it significantly more difficult for me.Ó Paul touched on the rigor of the courses, as well as the overwhelming nature of the first day of class. He shared that ÒIt is always a lot of work. They always just start off immediately and they throw a lot at you.Ó Students also had a lot to share about faculty teaching styles. Comments reflected how students perceived the kinds of instr uctional strategies used in different classes and the ways in 65 which faculty were able to effectively communicate challenging material in ways that allowed students to really grasp it. For example, Anna said: In a lot of the classes sometimes the material is kind of dry, and itÕs hard to be enthused about it. For example, IÕm in EGR C right now, and itÕs not that bad, but I guess itÕs just the way that itÕs relayed. The majority of the class falls asleep and sometimes I overhear kids like, ÒIÕm surprised I like didnÕt fall asleep within the first 30 minutes today!Ó ÒWell thatÕs a first!Ó So I think with my engineering classes, the material is harder, but itÕs just a matter of [how] the information being related is not good. Tiger, like several other par ticipants, did not seem to mind the introduction to engineering classes, as Òour teacher went through and how to step by step solve the problems before he made us solve them on our own.Ó Tiger did not, however, appreciate the teaching style of a professor in one of her major -specific courses. She stated, ÒTheyÕve had for the past couple of years a problem with actually finding a good professor teaching it. ItÕs been really hard, and I know IÕm not the only one in my class right now that is failing it.Ó Chris said his first semester Òfelt like high school to me, the homework load was light.Ó He had a much more difficult second semester of this first year at MSU because of the newness of the material in his courses and failed two classes. Like Tiger, Ch ris commented on the teaching styles of his upper level engineering faculty, and his ability to perform better with interactive teaching methods: I had Professor F and now Professor Y, and thatÕs a difference maker for me. Professor Y writes on the chalkb oard instead of lecture notes, which basically forces me to take notes way better than lecture slides. Lecture slides I can fall asleep to. He also does clicker questions, which Professor F did not, and I thought that was benefactory [sic] at 66 the end of class itÕs like a recap question of what you learned. ItÕs either about two days ago, or todayÕs material. In addition to teaching styles, participants discussed course content and format. Typically in their first year in the engineering program, stud ents take two introductory classes that must be completed for admission into the College of Engineering. The courses are designed to introduce students to basic engineering concepts, including computer programming and team based problem solving. The clas ses are not designed to Òweed outÓ potential engineering students, but to assist students in identifying a specific major within the college. Jake and North were very forthcoming when sharing their opinions on engineering courses. Jake was passionate abo ut his disdain for engineering lectures. He exclaimed: Most engineering lectures suck! Like Dr. VÕs lecture was pretty good, cause they went over flood things, flood plains, and, just more interesting things, more interesting aspects of transp ortation, but who taught EGR A ? That was at 8:00 a.m., you HAD to go to class for participation, and you could get everything he talked about in class 10 minutes reading the slides. It was the most boring class that you could go to! North shared, ÒSome of them h ave been really hard. Some of them have been, this sounds bad, but some of them h ave just been dumb, like EGR A and B.Ó Alexa agreed , stating, ÒThe EGR A and EGR B classes, I didnÕt really like those and I donÕt think a lot of people like them actually.Ó Emma liked her engineering courses overall, but disliked the use of technology, specifically PowerPoint in lectures. Emma also ques tioned the usefulness of EGR A and EGR B. She said: IÕve been frustrated with some and IÕve been happy with some as well. The material for EGR A & EGR B - well, EGR A , I understand why it had to happen, but I donÕt think I 67 learned anything in it. I made really good friends with my group. I had a really good group, like the robots were a pain, but itÕs part of the exper ience and it did actually weed a lot of people out of engineering, which I found strange, but I guess thatÕs why they have it. ItÕs just a misrepresenta tion of engineering, but EGR B , I took the honors section, and it was very challenging and I really lik ed it. The programming was really useful. Emma shared that instructors in her materials science classes were Ògood, they know their stuff, theyÕre very passionate and theyÕre good teachers but you teach yourself a lot if you donÕt understand what theyÕre saying.Ó In contrast, Matt both felt his experiences in EGR A and B were positive. Matt had a good group project and won a competition. He stated proudly: My group [in EGR A ], for each of the projects, we succeeded and beat the rest of our class in ev erything that we did, which was cool. Then we got to choose our project and we translated a physics problem into three dimensions for vision -impaired students, and that was really cool. Behavior In BanduraÕs (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, b ehavior is a c rucial theoretical element because it influences environment either positively or negatively, impacting the behavior of others, and themselves. Behavior can be interpreted simply as any action taken by participants as a result of their own beliefs or the influence of their environment. In the current study, students made choices and took action based on environmental factors and strength of self -efficacy. Study participants shared their motivation for engineering, including parental influence, the studen tÕs aptitude in STEM courses, an abundance of job opportunities, and the perception of prestige associated with engineering. In addition to participant behaviors leading 68 to engineering as a major, this section also addresses student behavior and faculty i nteractions with both engineering and non -engineering faculty members. Motivation for Engineering Parental influence. Parental influence was the most widely cited factor in studentsÕ decisions to pursue engineering degrees, mentioned by nine of the 20 par ticipants. Influence took many forms including exposure to engineering as a profession, explanation of job prospects following college, and suggesting major selection to prepare for a career. Students whose parents were engineers were more likely to have been exposed to the intricacies of the profession, and had a better sense of the work involved, the culture, and career options. These students may have been socialized to some degree before even beginning their undergraduate program and may already have a sense of belonging in the profession, similar to the relationship legacy students can have to an educational institution. For some participants, parental influence was quite strong. Elizabeth initially said, ÒMy dadÕs a mechanical and my older brothe r is chemical, so I was very ÔleanedÕ into engineering from the start. I didnÕt know what I wanted to do so my dad was like, letÕs just explore some options.Ó The options that ElizabethÕs dad mentioned did not appear to go beyond specific majors within e ngineering, as Elizabeth elaborated, ÒMy dad has that mentality that other degrees arenÕt important. I feel strongly that thatÕs not the case, but itÕs kind of if I didnÕt do engineering, itÕs not important enough. I pretty much had to do engineering.Ó Elizabeth indicated she values other major s, but did select engineering, stating ÒIÕm okay with that. I like it. IÕm not saying tha t itÕs NOT what I want to do. [N ervously laughs].Ó EmmaÕs parents, both mechanical engineers who met at General Motors, en couraged their children to identify majors that would have practical application and job opportunities following graduation, rather than just 69 subjects of interest ; for example, her parents suggested if ÒyouÕre interested in math be an engineer, something t hatÕs more easily applied,Ó not just a math major. Tiger comes from a family of engineers and shared, ÒMy parents gave me and my siblings the talk, ÔYou can go into anything you want, but be realistic with job opportunities. You can be an artist, but you Õre going to be in debt you r whole life! Be practical!ÕÓ Parental influence was not always as explicit or as strong as it was for Elizabeth and Emma. Some parents suggested considering engineering among the list of possible majors. Amy indicated that h er father took a more laid back approach, Ò[M]y dad is an engineer, so heÕs always, kind of not persuaded me, but led me more in that direction I guess.Ó Chelsea shared, ÒI was good at math and science. My dad is an engineer and suggested I think about i t for myself. I thought I would start as an engineer and then if I didnÕt like it, I would switch.Ó The family connection to engineering as a profession influenced several students. Will felt that his father being an engineer would help him in his care er, mentioning being able to call his dad for help with his homework, ÒMy father is an electrical engineer as well, so thatÕs why I chose my major as electrical engineering because I think it will help if my father is the same major, or similar major.Ó Because engineering was a family business for Tiger, she chose a major in the field not yet represented by others: ÒBoth my brothers, my sister in law, my dad, couple of my uncles and my aunt are all engineers. So I come from a science and math family to begin with, and NO ONE was a chemical engineer yet.Ó Jake spoke at great length about his love of psychology, and seemed the most disinterested of all the participants in his engineering major even though his father was still very influential in his choice of major: ÒEngineering was actually my dadÕs idea. I was originally 70 interested in psychology, mostly like criminal psychology, but psych nonetheless. It didnÕt have as many practical fields as engineering did.Ó Aptitude and preparation. The students who believed they were particularly strong in subjects valued in the field of engineering proudly expressed their aptitude as a reason for choosing an engineering major. Talent in STEM courses, passion for mathematics, and a genuine interest in what Paul called Òfiguring stuff outÓ was the impetus for many participants. Zak felt that his skills in math and chemistry enabled him to view life events from a different perspective, an engineering perspective, which matches his personality, sharing ÒEngineerin g is a different aspect of life, kind of the way you look at why things happen, and I feel like thatÕs fitting toward my personality.Ó Similarly, North talked about the enjoyment she gets from Òfiguring things outÓ and how for her, engineering is the appr opriate place to be. ÒI took a STEM class, and I realized that I really liked figuring things out. ThatÕs just what I liked to do, so even now, IÕm always Ôwell, why?Õ I know itÕs hard, but I still think itÕs the right spot for me.Ó Alexa expressed her love of math and science and wanted to find a way to apply those topics, sharing Òengineering kind of encompassed those two things and it didnÕt encompass all the things that I HATE like English, and History, and writing and I was like, this is exciting!Ó Smiley added, ÒIÕve always had like a passion for everything environmental. And engineering, IÕve always been strong in science and math.Ó In addition to perceived aptitude, high school preparation contributed to students choosing engineering for a maj or. Britney and Anna participated in special classes in high schoo l they felt le d them to their current majors. Britney hoped to use her mechanical engineering background to work in the auto industry. She shared, ÒI like math, so I knew I 71 wanted to do s omething with math, but I wasnÕt really sure what, at all. I took auto -mechanics my senior year, just as an elective, to learn more about cars.Ó Anna attributed her special high school preparation as part of an arts and sciences academy to her decision t o major in engineering: ÒWe had concentrations, and mine was math -science, so I already had prior knowledge of math and science, and I have a love for math, as nerdy as that sounds, but I wanted to incorporate that into my future career.Ó Tiger Õs love for Advanced Placement chemistry and honors chemistry classes from high school were the reason she is currently a chemical engineering major. Employment opportunities. Participants talked about the plethora of jobs available to engineering majors, the flex ibility of engineering jobs in terms of type of work and locations, and high job salaries when discussing their motivation for pursuing degrees in engineering. For Jennifer, selecting engineering was very straightforward, stating ÒI like the college [of Engineering] because of jobs, which is the same reason I like engineering [laughs] Ð jobs!Ó Will and Matt both changed majors to engineering after realizing that engineers were in high demand and they could apply their skills in practical ways in the field of engineering. Will thought , ÒBest reason to major in engineering is that itÕs easy for me to find a job. I was [a] mathematics [major] before, and then I thought engineering would be better because itÕs easier to find a job.Ó For Matt, who began his c ollege career as a chemistry major, Òthe need for engineersÓ was what attracted him to the major, sharing ÒI figured IÕd be able to get a job if I were to have an engineering degree, as opposed to getting a chemistry degree or something like that.Ó EmmaÕs motivation stemmed from the ability to get a Òhigh paying jobÓ without having to get an advanced degree was appealing: 72 Job prospects were for sure important when I chose engineering. I chose between either engineering or maybe being a doctor. I knew tha t if I wanted to go to med school I could get in with an engineering degree, so I ended up doing that, and I do not want to go to med school, so IÕm happy with it. In high school I thought like yeah, IÕll go to college go to med school and now I see the p re-med kids realizing all that extra school and how intense it is, that you donÕt even get to start your life and youÕre in debt. This is like four years and you have a really high paying job. Amy and several other participants were confident in their ab ilities to get jobs after graduation. While AmyÕs initial comments regarding her choice of major focused on employment possibilities, after a minute she paused and reframed her original statement, focusing on the salaries associated with engineering caree rs. She said, ÒIÕm very certain that going through this program I will be able to get a good, WELL PAYING job and be well prepared for my future, so thatÕs good.Ó Of the entire group of participants, Jake seemed least enthusiastic about pursuing an engi neering degree. A sophomore in civil engineering, he spent the majority of our 75 -minute interview talking about his love of psychology, the paper he was currently writing in collaboration with three of his classmates, his study abroad in Italy - almost a nythin g but engineering. He explained: I took a psychology class just for fun because I wanted to be a psychologist. ThatÕs interesting, thatÕs still one of the most interesting things to me Ð psychology. That interests me most but thereÕs not as many jobs in that, it wouldnÕt pay as well. Similarly, Chris was not initially interested in engineering; instead , he wanted to be an architect. He was, however, the only participant who mentioned a high school teacher 73 influencing his decision, sharing ÒOne h igh school teacher basically converted me to engineering because the job opportunities was a big factor. If youÕre good at architecture you can make a lot of money but you have to be an artist basically.Ó Faculty Interaction Student responses regarding th eir interactions with faculty were lengthier and more descriptive than their thoughts regarding their college and major selection process . Faculty interaction was considered part of Behavior as it was fluid and varied for each student and faculty member; it was up to the students to initiate interaction, not an expected behavior within the environment. Participants spoke about their experiences interacting with engineering and non-engineering faculty, both in and out of the classroom. Consistent with the literature, student contact with faculty was limited in both settings; however, students appeared to have positive interactions and meaningful relationships with faculty in departments external to engineering, which included humanities, writing, social sc ience, mathematics, and physics. Participants found non-engineering faculty to be more personable, relaxed, and approachable. Students spoke less positively about their experiences with engineering faculty, citing intimidation, lack of contact, and poor communication skills on the part of their professors. Non -engineering faculty. The tone faculty set for the educational environment influenced student behavior. Participants were more likely to engage with faculty if they perceived a welcome environmen t and the faculty to be approachable. Several students commented that non -engineering faculty were calm, laid -back, more personable than engineering faculty, and that it was easier to ask questions and seek help from them . Overall, non -engineering facult y were viewed as caring, intelligent, and supportive. Participants attempt ed to explain why they felt this way about non-engineering faculty and how these feelings impacted 74 their relationships with those professors. Several students believed the subjecti ve nature of non -engineering coursework lead to interactive discussions which allowed them to get to know their professors better, others stated that smaller class sizes in non -engineering courses was the reason for increased positive interactions. The fo llowing comments highlight the studentsÕ enthusiasm when talking about their non -engineering faculty. For example, Chris shared: Dr. J! I loved [for ISS]! And my MTH 234 teacher, he was incredible! If you did poorly on a quiz, exam, he would have you wait after class and he would personally talk to you on what you needed to improve and how you should do it. He worked in the MLC [Math Learning Center] so you could come and see him. He did everything to make his students do well. While Paul never actua lly met with a non -engineering professor outside of class, he reflected , ÒI donÕt think IÕve ever had to meet with a non -engineering person [faculty] outside of class. In class and after class and everything, I feel really comfortable approaching them.Ó Anna described her non -engineering professors as ÒuniqueÓ and Òmore outgoingÓ than her engineering professors , and felt they were more creative, artistic, and Òmore carefree with their personalitiesÓ while remaining professional. Quick to say, ÒI donÕt me an to say that engineering people arenÕt outgoing,Ó Anna said that non -engineering faculty are Òprobably not as stressed out about a lot of different things and projects [laughs].Ó The sharing of personal stories was something participants identified as hu manizing and created a sense of approachability among non -engineering faculty. Elizabeth described her writing professor as Òall over the mapÓ with her experiences, yet had a great deal of admiration for this professor due to her intelligence and welcomin g demeanor, sharing that ÒI did go to her office hours a couple of times, just because she was so friendly.Ó Elizabeth appreciated that her 75 professor shared personal life experiences, which fostered a sense of humanity and a familial relationship, stating , ÒYou get to see a lot of who they are, versus just a teacher. She was like having a mom at school. She was just really, really nice to go to. Non -intimidating. She was really, really smart.Ó Students and faculty alike shared personal stories, which led to more familiar relationships between students and faculty. Britney felt comfortable enough with a writing professor to seek help to improve her writing skills: ÒI went and talked to her about my papers a lot. I wanted to make sure they were perfect Ôcause my papers in high school werenÕt that great.Ó In the process , Britney developed a relationship with her professor: ÒI felt like I really connected with her. The papers we wrote, it was stuff about ourselves so she got to learn about me, and I kin d of learned about her personal life too, so that was cool.Ó Matt dreaded taking a writing course required by the university but eventually became, in his opinion, Ògood friendsÓ with his professor. He developed a relationship with her based on her suppo rtive nature and her encouragement of his writing abilities. He stated he put off enrolling in a writing class until the last minute: I took whatever was open, and for whatever reason, I took Women in America. Apparently no one likes feminist writing but I loved it. I grew up with MS. Magazine. My momÕs a feminist, my familyÕs pro É you know, woman, so I became good f riends with my professor there, Dr. E. I still talk to her all the time. Periodically I pop into her office maybe every month or so to s ee how sheÕs doing. I like the content of the class, sheÕs super supportive, like real encouraging. She recommended me for this presentation that she could only recommend one student for, so I did that. It was an honor that she did that for me. 76 Similar to Britney and Matt, several participants mentioned course content as a factor in faculty interaction. The subjective nature of and class discussions used in non -engineering courses increased studentsÕ perceptions that these faculty were more human and approachable, as Alexa commented, ÒSomething about the content of their classes makes it seem like theyÕre Òmore conversationalÓ and making conversation and asking questions.Ó She continued that her IAH class encouraged thinking about topics, rather than her math class where a comment like, ÒThis is how you do the problem, go do itÓ was a regular practice . Emma, an Honors College student who took psychology to fulfill a university social science requirement , was surprised by the class discussions . Group discussion as a form of classroom interaction was new to her because it was not part of her engineering courses, presumably she believed because of the objective nature of the subject matter. Bu t she recognized its benefit in her psychology course, sayin g: That class was very open to discussion, for people to even take a topic, have a curious question, ask him [the professor] to talk back, other people raising their hand. É Sometimes [students] ask these very intricate personal questions [in psych], and i t was like ÔWHAT?Õ Ôcause people wonÕt do that in engineering. Emma and her roommate were in the psych class together and she reflected that they Òkind of sat there [sounds incredulous] and we were like, weÕre having a discussion right now, this never happens [in engineering], we donÕt have conversations in class. It worked for that subject, and you can gain things from that.Ó Overall, Emma really enjoyed this class and referenced it often. Several times during our conversation she became very enthusia stic about a non -engineering course or a non -engineering professor and immediately backpedaled, countering with something positive about engineering faculty, as in this example , ÒThe [psych] teacher was good. You can 77 just tell the difference between the e ngineering, not that the engineering teachers arenÕt good. The psych teacher, maybe the material is easier to relate, but heÕs a really young guy and heÕs cool.Ó Some participants indicated that the non -engineering faculty members encouraged thinking abou t things in new and different ways. For Britney, exposure to her Òreally liberalÓ humanities professor, as well as the course content helped her to open her eyes Òto thinking in a different wayÓ and to seeing things from a different perspective. Her arts and humanities professor, who came across as being against technology was different, ÒI never really thought in his way and at first I didnÕt like the way he taught. I was like who are you to say all this stuff, and after the course went on I kind of agr eed with him.Ó Classroom interactions may be more integral to non -engineering classes, providing a venue for students and faculty to better know one another. Amy said she connected with her writing professor more than other faculty, got a good grade in th e class, and used the professor as a reference. When asked why she talked to this particular faculty member, she used the word ÒforcedÓ due to the way the class was structured, and its small size of 16 students. She shared, ÒI got to know my professor re ally well. I honestly probably [connected with her] because I was more forced to do that. I think smaller classes definitely help you connect a lot better.Ó North also used the word ÒforcedÓ when describing why she interacted with her instructors. She t ook a softball class in the kinesiology department because it so unded like fun and because she had room in her schedule. She credited the small class size, as well as the interactive and collaborative nature of the game, with these interactions, stating, ÒIt kind of forced you to be interactive with them. They were the ones picking teams and kind of joking around. I talked to them more than I did some of my other teachers.Ó 78 Not all participants had positive interactions with non -engineering faculty. Pa ul was one of two participants who talked about an unpleasant experience with a non -engineering professor. He did not especially care for his mandatory writing class, as he was not a fan of English, express ing frustration with the subjectivity of the cour se and the reaction he received from the professor when Paul believed he did a sufficient job. He said his prof essor was Òkind of intimidating. She kind of thought that you know, Ô I have the Ph.D. here, so anything I say goes.Õ So I didnÕt like that. I have had some similar experiences, but it seems to happen more frequently with my engineering professors.Ó Jennifer also became very animated when sharing a story about a negative interaction with a faculty member in the physics department. She attended office hours to ask questions about points she lost on an exam , stating : He [Dr. M] almost made me cry! It was just horrible! I thought I deserved so many more points. I got a three out of 15 on an exam and I was like there is no way I did that bad! I know what IÕm doing! ThereÕs no way this is that wrong! And I went in there and I tried to have a conversation just to understand where I got points off, and he would start talking over me, and talking over, and wouldnÕt let me talk or ask a question! He would just keep telling me why I was wrong! ÒYouÕre wrong! YouÕre wrong! YouÕre wrong!Ó and it was the most frustrating conversation IÕve ever had. It took everything I had not to say something rude or mean or literally yell at him! I was so angry after that conversation! Engineering faculty. StudentsÕ negative experiences with engineering faculty appeared to be the norm rather than the exception. ParticipantsÕ contact with engineering faculty seemed limited by fear, course content, and a lack of impetus to meet with faculty. If students did not 79 have questions or experience difficulty with a subject, they did not feel the need to interact with engineering faculty. When discussing faculty interaction, only two of the 20 participants mentioned t heir engineering faculty mentoring program mentors without being prompted to do so. Many students expressed discomfort asking engineering faculty questions out of fear of ridicule, or being perceived as not smart enough to be in an engineering major, de spite having very high GPAs. For example, Paul had a 3.5 GPA and was in the Honors College , yet still mentioned a fear of asking what could be perceived by a professor as a ÒdumbÓ question. He described some of his engineering professors as Òvery, very i ntimidatingÓ in contrast to his experiences in sociology and history, providing this example from engineering: A lot of them tell you that they want you to ask questions, but you donÕt feel comfortable asking questions or they say, you know thereÕs never a dumb question to ask, but youÕll ask a question, and youÕll get the ÒthatÕs kind of a dumb questionÓ type of look and answer. Paul stated that his history and sociology faculty ÒhavenÕt had that same type of attitudeÓ and seem to be more open than eng ineering faculty. When asked what he thought the difference was between engineering faculty and his general education professors, he shared, ÒWell, it may be entitlement, or the fact that they think that theyÕre really intelligent or something like that, but I seem to find a pattern.Ó Similarly, Elizabeth, a mechanical engineering major with a 3.4 GPA, explained how she avoided asking questions in engineering classes as well as attending office hours: I donÕt want to point him out, but like Dr. V [engine ering professor], heÕs just a strict man, up in the front, you donÕt mess with him, you know what I mean? [laughs] I feel 80 able to ask questions in my IAH professor, versus Dr. VÕs class, where IÕm going to look like an idiot. ÒDonÕt ask a question,Ó you know? [nervous giggle] I went to one engineering professorÕs office hours and I didnÕt feel comfortable, so IÕm not going to go there for a while. I was getting snarky comments or replies [from the professor], I was just like okay, IÕll go. I donÕt ha ve to be here. Elizabeth participated in a spring break tour of Midwest corporations that hire engineering students for co -operative learning experiences and employment post -graduation in the semester prior to our conversation. A few months later, she r ecognized the confidence she gained from the trip, but it was still not enough to attend office hours and ask questions one on one, retaining a feeling of fear of faculty and feeling like she did not belong. She continued: IÕm still scared [to go to offi ce hours]. IÕve got to get over that. I know that next semester I will go to office hours and I feel more confident to go. I think that they would just think that youÕre dumb. They are just SO smart that if you say anything youÕre like, please donÕt as k a question back because I donÕt know what to say. I guess IÕm afraid that theyÕll think, ÒYouÕre not fit for engineering and you should go do something else.Ó Even when students have positive interactions with faculty members, studentsÕ own self-consci ousness may be preventing further engagement. Smiley, Paul, and Elizabeth are all afraid of being seen as dumb and not able to do the work on their own. Smiley discussed positive exchanges wit h engineering faculty and staff but acknowledged that she is r eluctant to engage further with them due to her own shyness and shared that her interactions were mostly good, once sh e actually went to office hours. ÒB ut itÕs a mix of me trying to do it on my own and being shy and timid and worried that theyÕre going t o think that IÕm dumb or something.Ó Like Anna and Smiley, Jennifer expressed fear of faculty interaction and cited shyness as a potential 81 reason for her apprehension ; she realized she is not the only student who felt this way. When discussing her thermo dynamics professor, Jennifer said that while he told the class ÒthereÕs no stupid question,Ó she is Òjust afraid if I ask a question it will be answered in a condescending tone, like ÔWhy donÕt you know this kind of thing?ÕÓ Engineering faculty appeared t o foster a more formal academic environment than their non-engineering peers , according to these participants . Zak shared that his discomfort with faculty interaction was based on a perception of the formality of his engineering professors. Similar to El izabeth, Zak emphasized their high level of educational achievement, and seemed almost in awe of the faculty who have Òspent the longest time in school. They are the people that are teaching the next class of professors. TheyÕre the experts in their fiel d, and IÕve always looked up to professors.Ó He explained: Every interaction that you have with professors is really formal, or itÕs made to be more formal than I feel like IÕm used to. IÕm not used to really a formal lifestyle. Every time IÕve been in a professorÕs setting, besides the Connector Faculty, or going to class, IÕve always had to be dressed up for something, which is a little weird. Zak noticed a difference between his interactions with engineering faculty versus non -engineering faculty. He talked about the rigid curricular structure, and the seriousness of the material in engineering, where Zak felt Òthe way youÕre taught to think about things drives you down. Whenever you make a decision thereÕs no humor about it, itÕs really serious.Ó Zak discussed his criminal justice professor with real world experience, describing him as Òmore social,Ó Òreal,Ó and Òa lot funnierÓ than his engineering counterparts: ÒHe had stories, and he could just tell stories, and you donÕt get that from engineeri ng professors.Ó In contrast, while 82 Zak felt Òapproachable -nessÓ was a critical skill of a professor, if engineering faculty use stories in the classroom , he said: ItÕs like no jokes are involved. Some are funny, but a lot of them are serious, safety, or always worrying about unit conversion failures that make bad things happen . É Some [engineering faculty] just donÕt ooze that personality that you can go talk to them. Students hold faculty in high regard for their perceived intelligence and expertise. AnnaÕs initial statement regarding her experiences with engineering faculty was a bit shaky, and it appeared that she was trying to be neutral, or positive: ÒTheyÕve been like, good experiences, I guess?Ó For example, Anna mentioned the intelligence of the faculty, along with her belief that the faculty ÒWant you to try and understand the material.Ó Anna shared that it is difficult when students do not understand the material being presented: ItÕs not that theyÕre offended, but I feel like they [engineeri ng faculty] are like ÒWhy donÕt you get it?Ó that kind of thing. They donÕt outright say that, but then you know they just get frustrated, or theyÕre like ÒohÓ and it just gives you this kind of sad feeling Ôcause youÕre like ÒThis is hard! I need your h elp!Ó From their perspective, they know the material really well, so itÕs kind of hard for them to understand why students donÕt. Faculty office hours are offered as a time outside of class where students can visit a professorÕs office to seek addition al academic assistance, to review or clarify homework assignments and exams, or to talk to the faculty one on one. Only a small number of students in this study mentioned ever having attended office hours. Alexa explained that she was more at ease with h er teaching assistants , in part because they were closer to her age and learning with them was appealing and less intimidating , so she attended TA office hours instead of faculty office hours. ÒIÕm more comfortable going to TA office hours because they ar e younger and I 83 think they have a better perspective. TheyÕre students too, and theyÕre learning also.Ó Anna said she turns to classmates for help and avoids faculty office hours out of fear of being viewed negatively by faculty: ÒJust because that feeli ng of getting looked down upon sometimes, itÕs just easier to go to fellow students or someone who has already taken the class before, so I usually turn to my fellow students.Ó Paul also felt that he has no interaction with faculty inside of classes, whic h made going to office hours awkward: ÒItÕs to the point where out of class you feel intimidated to go and see them because youÕve never had any interaction with them. Just walking into their office is kind of a scary experience.Ó Will was the only parti cipant who spoke enthusiastically about attending faculty office hours. He said when he visited faculty in their offices to ask questions or get help with homework those faculty members answered him Ònicely.Ó Will was looking forward to more interactions , because other than attending office hours, his one on one time with faculty was infrequent, noting, ÒIÕm kind of looking forward to having deeper interactions with them.Ó Will recognized the challenge of finding opportunities to connect with faculty, sh aring, ÒI think the different interactions happen only if you go to the research lab in one certain professorÕs lab [meaning you work in the same professorÕs lab] or you guys are in the same organization, like IEEE.Ó Participants mentioned faculty communi cation styles during their interviews and shared that faculty intelligence was stymied by an inability to relate basic concepts to students. Elizabeth cited communication challenges as a barrier when interacting with engineering faculty, sharing that facu lty often know so much about a subject that it makes it difficult for a student to follow along: ÒItÕs that feeling where you canÕt ask a question because theyÕre going to start talking about it and you have no idea what theyÕre saying because a whole new language you 84 donÕt even know.Ó Matt said he attended an engineering professorÕs office hours, usually for math, but it was not a positive experience because of the professorÕs inability to communicate : ÒDr. R seems like heÕs really smart. HeÕs not exactl y the best at interpersonal communication. HeÕs kind of absent minded professor kind of thing, like super genius, canÕt talk to people you know what I mean?Ó Faculty membersÕ ability to relate course topics to current events was mentioned by several stud ents. Elizabeth, Alexa, Chris, and Smiley shared favorable comments about engineering faculty whose teaching styles and personalities were more open and cultivated a learning environment in which students felt comfortable. The openness created the percep tion that their professors cared about studentsÕ educational experiences. Students were pleasantly surprised when faculty used more personal, informal tactics to encourage class participation. For example, Elizabeth shared Dr. OÕs approach of discussing current events if students were not answering course -related questions in class. Elizabeth was s urprised that she was able to see a bit of Dr. OÕs personality: ÒPeople would liven up and answer those questions, she would come back to that question, and yo uÕre like ÒDarn it! Still donÕt know it!Ó [laughs] I didnÕt expect the personalities of the professors to come out, so itÕs cool.Ó Chris was impressed by his computer science professorÕs willingness to talk to students about topics both related and unrel ated to the class, as well as his ability to show students the applicability of their coursework. Chris especially appreciated Dr. RÕs style of easing the students into the class while showing them in different ways what is new with technology and what ma y be possible 10 years into the future. ÒSometimes you know heÕll do evolution, or something thatÕs cool in computer science that was just released, something that just relates you to the world thatÕs outside of you, to what youÕre learning.Ó Smiley also appreciated a specific 85 engineering professorÕs ability to relate coursework to current topics , pointing out that this professorÕs approach was unique in her experience , and that Òa lot of professors struggle with that, especially in engineering.Ó Student s valued faculty willingness and availability to talk, faculty who took time to know students in class, and faculty who learned studentsÕ names. Smiley, while exploring major options before being admitted to the college, reached out to Dr. C to discuss th e newly created environmental engineering major because ÒIÕd heard that she was the one who fought for it to become its own major here.Ó Smiley was not afraid of reaching out to Dr. C, sharing ÒI just e -mailed her and said like hey, she had no idea who I was, IÕm just trying to learn more about it and she was SUPER nice and SUPER informative and SUPER helpful.Ó Smiley credited her decision to major in environmental engineering to Dr. C. Another example of faculty behavior that struck a positive chord w ith students was faculty knowing studentsÕ names. Will and Emma talked about a materials science professor who was ÒapproachableÓ and stopped to talk to students in the hall. Emma talked about a professor who taught both the lecture and lab components of a course of 15 -20 students, that ÒHe knew our names and he was approachable and heÕs actually the teacher.Ó In addition to this course, Emma planned on studying abroad in Spain with this instructor . ÒHeÕs [faculty member] coming abroad, so if we pass ea ch other in the hall weÕll stop and have a conversation. Same with some of my old TAs, if I see them around, weÕll stop and talk, ask how things are going.Ó Students believed that interacting with faculty is something they should be doing in college. Jennifer shared that she met with her thermodynamics professor, who Òmade it really interesting, understanding, all that stuff. I talked to her one time after class and sheÕs cool, I liked her.Ó Jennifer also mentioned going to office hours to discuss exam credit with her 86 deformable solids professor. She received the partial credit she hoped to get and learned more about the topic in the process, Just for showing up and showing the effort, it was more comfortable than I thought it would be. He seemed fai r and going through it with me, just talking to him for that 15 minutes made so much sense, like Òthis is wrong becauseÓ and I was like okay, that makes sense , I understand. ChrisÕs strategy for interacting with engineering professors was very different from JenniferÕs. For Chris, having a relationship with faculty was important Ònot necessarily for a grade,Ó but more s o that they would recognize him and know that he was trying. He said faculty were helpful outside of class, and he believed a relations hip with faculty was beneficial because ÒI think that if they donÕt see you try or participate in class, they might be less likely to help you if you are in a time of need.Ó Student expectations of faculty -student relationships can differ greatly, but reg ardless of their desired level of connectivity, there appears to be a common appreciation of openness on the part of their faculty. Self Perceptions of self, both internally and assigned by others, impact studentsÕ feeling of self-efficacy, studentsÕ bel iefs in themselves that they can successfully accomplish tasks (Bandura, 1986) . In the current study, s elf seemed to be impacted by perceptions of peers, perceived difficulty of coursework, and prestige and pride felt in comparison to the work, effort, and outcomes of their non -engineering peers. S elf-efficacy influenced student behavior in terms of faculty interaction. Students took pride in engineering resources, both the facilities and the people. Combined with external perception of intelligence and achievement for their 87 engineering majors, participants were confident in their ability to be successful as both engineering students and future professionals. Association with the College of Engineering Participants exuded pride and confidence , many empha tically stating that engineering was the most difficult major, therefore engineering students work harder and are perceived to be smarter than students in non -engineering majors. In attempting to justify these claims, participants gave numerous examples o f friendsÕ and siblingsÕ educational experiences in education, kinesiology, psychology, and business. Participants believed that non -engineering majors are less time consuming, have easier schedules, and can be taken less -seriously than engineering majors . Students also mentioned they received positive attention from others for majoring in engineering because of its perceived difficulty, which appeared to reinforce their pride and hubris. For example, Paul shared that people learn ing that he was in engin eering assumed he had difficult classes and that he was Òmore intelligent than people.Ó He said that friends ÒdonÕt understand the workÓ and assume all engineering classes are difficult. Students discussed their pride in being in the College of Engineeri ng. Will was very straightforward with his response, ÒSince engineering is kind of the hardest major, IÕm really proud to be an engineer.Ó AlexaÕs situation was unusual of students in this study because she had many friends outside of engineering. She shared that her friends are impressed with her mechanical engineering major and her math aptitude , ÒPart of the reason I like math is because IÕm so good at it, and other people are BAD at it, and somebody has to do it! So, yeah, I am proud of it.Ó Amy al so felt her engineering major made her feel smart and gave her confidence. She said it was partially a stereotype that engineers are smart and impress others, but it made her think ÒOh yeah, IÕm an engineer! I can do this.Ó Anna thought that her gender added to the 88 element of prestige, as there are fewer wo men engineers than men, and this is reflected in the reaction she gets from others. For her, the intellectual aspect is related to tenacity, ÒWhen you meet people theyÕre like Ôoh, youÕre in engineeri ng? You must be really smart!Õ and you kind of have to be to stick with it, I guess.Ó Participants commented about the perceived difficulty of engineering coursework and how that made them feel . Jennifer laughed about the external perceptions of enginee ring, and shared she was fearful of the major before she even started classes, stating, ÒI heard so many bad things about engineering like ÔOh, youÕre going to have no life. ItÕs going to be the worst four years,Õ ÔItÕs so hard, good luck!Õ ÔUgh! Have fu n!Õ It was scary hearing everybody say that.Ó Two years into her coursework at the time of this study, Jennifer was less afraid of what others had told her, sharing that her courses were not Òas bad as people said it was going to be.Ó Matt was proud of his ability to meet the challenge of the coursework, stating, ÒIt does make me feel proud that IÕm definitely not shirking a challenge or trying to take the easy way out.Ó JoyÕs family came from India, where culturally, majoring in engineering is a status symbol : ÒItÕs about pride, and in my family, they are also interested in those things. Of course if you are born in a more collectivist culture like IÕm from, people think doctor, engineer, more high status people.Ó Emma said she did not think she was Ò better than oth er peopleÓ because of her major but that the level of work was higher in engine ering and that engineering students were Òjust a little bit smarterÓ than their non -engineering peers. She had concerns about the credit system based on her expe riences in both engineering and non -engineering courses and how laboratory and lecture classes are credited differently, stating Òthree credits in engineering might be considered four or five credits of [non -engineering], or I think it should be.Ó Emma co mpared her engineering 89 schedule to her brotherÕs business major schedule and lamented that Òboth are 15 credits, and he has barely any class and IÕm packed with labs, and he has no class on Friday.Ó Even though Chris experienced a course outside of engin eering that was demanding in terms of both homework and difficulty level, he maintained his conviction in the power of an engineering degree to a nearly unrealistic level of transferability, and that engineers are Òat a higher level than most people on cam pus.Ó He truly felt as if he could do any type of job with nothing more than an undergraduate engineering degree. Chris shared: I just think when you graduate with something in engineering, people that are hiring look at that differently because [of] t he course material compared to other majors. I think itÕs the problem solving thatÕs a huge factor because no matter what you do in the business world you have to problem solve and so if youÕre an engineer you can go and be an accountant, and use your ski lls. Several participants reiterated ChrisÕs comments about the transferability of an engineering degree. Zak truly felt as if his major allowed him to pursue any career he chose because of the intellectual capabilities of engineers and the rigor of the degree: I looked at all the greatest intellectual people we think of and they were all engineers. ItÕs prestigious. If youÕre an engineer you can become the president, you can go into business, supply chain management, medical school, you can [go into the] energy industry, really anything, and so itÕs one of the hardest degrees to get, so once you get it, it kind of qualifies you for most anything you want to do. Participants identified that being an engineering major provided them a feeling of pres tige . Similar to AmyÕs ea rlier comments about why she ch ose to major in engineering, Jake linked prestige to the ability to secure the Òbetter jobsÓ and Òbetter moneyÓ associated with 90 engineering majors versus arts and sciences majors. Jake argued that e ngineering degrees hold Òmore weightÓ with employe rs than arts and science majors and that the associated prestige of being an MSU engineer is demonstrated by the job placement rate within engineering. Others shared JakeÕs sentiments , to varying degrees. The perceived difficulty associated with engineering majors, by both the participants as well as their peers, reinforced this notion. Britney stated simply that for her, ÒJust being in the college itself was a big accomplishment. I think it means that y ouÕre hard w orking, a good critical thinker, Ó while Tiger thought that the difficultly of the engineering curriculum makes it a more prestigious degree, ÒItÕs VERY difficult, and I think that the more difficult it is, the more prestigious it is Ôcause the more work you have to put into it.Ó For these students, a large part of the pride they felt from majoring in engineering came from comparisons to peers in non -engineering majors seen as less rigorous and less worthwhile. Non -engineering majors were disc ussed with what could be interpreted as a mixture of jealousy and haughtiness. Jennifer shared in a slightly dismissive, sarcastic tone that her elementary education major suitemate invited Jennifer to social activities frequently, to which Jennifer repli ed ÒI CANNOT. I really canÕtÓ because she was busy with engineering homework. Her roommate, a kinesiology major considering pre -physician assistant, is Òpretty busy too, but at the same time sheÕs got timeÓ to socialize. Not all participants described t heir being an engineering student as something that made them better than their non -engineering peers. Three participants did not view themselves as any smarter or harder working t han their non -engineering peers and dismissed the idea of an engineering de gree being more difficult. Elizabeth immediately distanced herself from her engineering peers and their perceptions of their academic endeavors in relation to other majors. 91 She felt strongly that there are Òincredibly smartÓ s tudents in other fields as w ell and acknowledged that engineers must be Òsmart to get throughÓ college, but Òthere are so many other smart people.Ó She mentioned the value of other degrees: I canÕt do biology, thatÕs not my thing. People are incredibly smart in other fields - like business majors, I could never do accounting. ThatÕs a lot of tedious work that I cannot do! And so, I think engineers usually just put it to the side when someone says theyÕre a business student. Okay, thereÕs good things in there! A lot of people do nÕt see the good in it Ð like supply chain & packaging. You do so much! Another student who did not hold engineering high above other majors at the university was Anna, an Honors College student, who did not discuss her GPA in the interview nor view academics as an important indicator of ability . She stated that when determining success in school, there could be a number of factors that influence academic performance including professors or life events. She acknowledged that while some engineering cou rses are difficult, they are not the only determinant of oneÕs intellect and offered, ÒI donÕt really look at academics as being an important factor in determining your level of intelligence. I see a lot of engineers with low GPAs, but that doesnÕt really mean anything to me.Ó Luke was also somewhat reluctant to boast about his association with the college. When asked if he was proud of his major, Luke was nonchalant. He said that if a student was good at a subject and worked hard at the requirements fo r the degree, it was just another degree that was earned. Engineering was no different: I think getting any well -earned degree is prestigious in itself, from bachelorÕs to anything. If youÕre good at it, learn it, you get the grades and you get the deg ree, you donÕt have to be like a 4.0 in it. ThatÕs just the way I see it, so being in the college itself, IÕd say itÕs a 92 nice achievement in your life so far É IÕd say that really comes after everyoneÕs gotten a degree. I donÕt know, just because youÕre in the college doesnÕt mean you get the degree. StudentsÕ Assessments of Engineering When asked what they appreciate and would change about the College of Engineering, participants responded quickly and with multiple answers. It was very evident that th e students value the engineering -specific career center and the availability of academic support. Others mentioned the people in the College of Engineering; participants felt that college employees, from academic advisors to career consultants, are happy to help them. Several participants mentioned that t he computer labs in the engineering building are very popular among engineering students, are a point of pride, and are the nicest labs on campus. It appeared that the studen ts did not have many complain ts and that they genuinely had to think about what they did not appreciate about the college. The majority of participants had little to say about what they would change about the College of Engineering. Emma stated, ÒI donÕt think I have any complaints. IÕm sure they come up and I just forget about them.Ó Like Emma, Howard and Chris said that there was nothing significant they would change. Howard shared, ÒWould change? Not that I can think of as of now,Ó and Chris similarly said simply, ÒNot that I can think of off the top of my head.Ó Participants identified College of Engineering resources that they found helpful or could be improved, including career resources, computer labs, and laboratory classes. Several participants mentioned appreciating that the College of Engineering is a separate college, self -contained, with its own building and its own physical resources, located in the middle of campus. Luke appreciates the location, sharing ÒWell, I like that itÕs location based. ItÕs the center o f campus, and it makes me feel like IÕm the center of campus!Ó Zak shared, ÒI like that itÕs got its 93 own computer labs, I love that it has its own study room, its own library, itÕs separated but it has got all the amenities that you really need. It has i ts own parking, thatÕs great.Ó An additional feature of the self -contained College of Engineering is The Center for Spartan Engineering (the Center), the college -specific career services center located in the engineering building. Half of the participants spoke highly about services in the Center, including the ease of securing jobs, internships, and cooperative educational experiences, as well as help with resumes and practice interviews. Tiger is grateful for services and career fairs that are targeted primarily at helping engi neering students. She felt the engineering specific career events eased her anxiety about networking because ÒYou can talk to the people right at the career fairs to look for jobs and find out whatÕs interesting and they can answe r questions about companies that normally you would never get exposed to.Ó Matt also attended a workshop to prepare for a career fair and observed that Òeveryone seems real excited and energetic and enthusiastic. It seems like thereÕs a lot of support wit h regard to getting you a job and bringing in prospective employers to the College. ThatÕs a good thing.Ó Zak commended the college for Òthe fact that it offers the Center for employment, theyÕre trying to help all students here get to where they want to go, and itÕs really nice.Ó Will shared similar feelings, ÒWeÕve got a center and we can always go into the Center and ask for resume advising and a bunch of advising stuff, and theyÕre really glad to help us.Ó Participants spoke very highly of the comp uter labs located in the engineering building. Accessible to all admitted engineering students, the labs are a popular place for students to work and socialize. Howard liked the fact that his girlfriend, a business major, had computer envy, and said, ÒOu r computers are THE BEST on campus, and we have so many of them. My girlfriend is an accounting major so whenever she comes over to our college sheÕs like, ÔIÕm so 94 jealous!ÕÓ Will echoed HowardÕs thoughts stating, ÒWeÕve got a bunch of resources here. I n the engineering building, weÕve got double -screened computers. ThatÕs really awesome. And the other colleges donÕt have that.Ó Smiley and Emma both shared appreciation for the computer labs and that these felt like productive environments with people constantly around. Engineering students pay special fees each semester, some of which offset the cost of the computer labs. Understanding the role of these fees, Smiley shared: ÒThe computers are awesome, I know that weÕre paying for that. I donÕt apprec iate the fee that much, but itÕs worth it to be able to use those computers.Ó In addition to funding the labs, students receive an allotment of free printing each semester, although Emma did not see the pri nting in quite this way saying, it is Ònot free b ecause we pay more for tuition.Ó While a favorite aspect of the College of Engineering, the computer labs were also mentioned as a facet of engineering that participants would change. Anna and North would both like to see extended hours in the computer l ab located in Wilson Hall, the residence hall that houses several hundred early engineering students. The computer labs had software nec essary for engineering students but closed at midnight and were only open on weekdays, unlike the College of Engineerin g labs, which were open 24 hours. Some students suggested changing the residential computer lab to be open 24 hours to help students complete assignments and also improve safety so students did not have to walk across campus from the engineering building to the residence hall by themselves in the middle of the night. Anna shared, ÒAs a girl walking to and from the engineering building at night and usually with homework, IÕm usually not done until like 1:00 in the morning, so I have to walk there by myself .Ó North was very animated and her voice shrill when she shared that she did not Òwant to have to walk back all aloneÓ after using the computer lab. 95 In addition to computer labs, participants expressed concern about what they felt was a lack of hands -on experience in academic labs. The most frequently cited change that participants would like to see made in the College of Engineering was to increase the number of lab classes offered. For example, Amy was unsure as to whether or not the lack of hands o n experience in her courses was a result of her class level, or if it would increase as she progressed in her degree program, but shared, ÒI think it might be better to have more hands on parts of the classes.Ó Jennifer offered the example of when she ran into questions about her lab experience, or lack thereof, at an interview for an internship. The company was surprised by her limited lab involvement, even at her early stage in her academics. Zak thought the lack of lab work was due to his Chemical Eng ineering (CHE) major being more conceptual in nature than other majors. He identified the few labs required in CHE, but cited ÒthereÕs no other application where you actually see what youÕre doing in personÓ unlike other majors that work Òwith circuits or physical objects.Ó Zak recognizes the limitations of working at a molecular level, but he felt Òlike they [the faculty] should try to get more.Ó Joy also wanted to see more classes with practical applications, as he felt he was stronger in labs than in theoretical coursework: ÒI would try to make more practical classes so you can actually do stuff, rather than just learning how to do it.Ó This chapter detailed participant responses regarding the three areas of Social Cognitive Theory, Environment, Behavi or, and Self. The following chapter will address findings related to the faculty -mentoring program. 96 CHAPTER 5 As part of a multi -faceted intervention to improve retention among early engineering students, Michigan State University implemented the Connect or Faculty (CF) mentoring program to provide opportunities for early engineering students to interact in informal settings with engineering faculty. The CF program was an attempt to moderate studentsÕ negative perceptions of the engineering education clim ate. ÒInstitutio ns must create environments and opportunities for students and faculty to engage with one another in an effort to make faculty members more approachableÓ (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004, p. 563). By providing participants a familiar face amon g the faculty, the aim was to create a more welcoming, supportive environment for students. The Connector Faculty program was instituted based on literature (Seymour & Hewitt , 1997) that claimed students left engineering majors due to an unwelcoming or Òc hillyÓ educational climate. This chapter provides studentsÕ motivations for participating in the mentoring program as well as their experiences with their faculty mentors. Finally it presents students Õ perceptions of the engineering education climate at MSU based on their participation in the Connector Faculty program. Participant Motivation Students were motivated to participate in the mentoring program for multiple reasons. Several mentioned wanting to get to know a faculty member, meet a faculty me mber who would be available to answer questions, provide support, and assist with clarifying academic and career plans, and stand out as individuals amidst the larger student population, specifically in terms of research opportunities, which can be highly competitive given the large number of students enrolled in engineering majors. 97 Some participants signed up for CF in an attempt to get to know engineering faculty outside of their classes. Howard was incredibly enthusiastic about the mentoring program and was very optimistic that he would benefit from it. He expressed a genuine interest in getting to know a faculty member, as his only prior interactions were related to specific course questions. Howard recognized the importance of faculty interaction prio r to taking part in the program and was excited about his CF mentor, sharing, ÒI didnÕt expect they would match me with one specific professor even in my major! So I was really happy! I liked it a lot!Ó Zak was optimistic about his experience prior to signing up for the mentoring program, sharing, ÒI just wanted to hear another story about how somebody got to where they got, or someone elseÕs life story, their perspective on things, what made them want to do what they did, just something else to help me figure out what I want to do.Ó Zak said he was always looki ng for new ways to get involved and enjoyed hearing about faculty projects, ÒI love hearing about new stuff, new research, cutting -edge things, also just getting acquainted with someone on cam pus.Ó Chris stated he wanted to learn more about a faculty member: ÒWhen I get to have lunch with a professor and just talk about when they worked in the job force or what their research is or just random facts that I can learn from them, I think itÕs fun .Ó The mentoring program provided students a way of meeting w ith faculty one on one. Such interactions were important because some students saw office hours (another opportunity to meet individually with faculty) primarily as a place to get help for aca demic issues, not a way to get to know faculty. For example, Tiger never needed academic help and felt she could not connect one on one with faculty in office hours. Jenn ifer, like Tiger, expressed she Ònever felt the need to talkÓ with professors becaus e she did not need help with her courses, though she Òknew that having a faculty relationship would benefit, at least in the long runÓ whether it was 98 through research or conversation. Emma also expressed an interest in having a connection to the faculty i n case she needed something within the college like a course override or course information, and Smiley credited her courage at the moment for motivating her to participate in the program. She said, ÒI need all the help I can get, and it seemed like a goo d opportunity.Ó Some participants joined the program in hopes of exploring engineering as a profession. Alexa thought that meeting with a faculty mentor through CF would help her to see her path as an engineer more clearly, stating, ÒIt sounded like a re ally good way to see where I would be.Ó She also said that faculty can share what she called, Òthe adult perspective,Ó from Òtalking to people that were actual engineers with actual experience who knew what it was lik e Ôout there.ÕÓ Luke hoped his mentor ing experience would benefit his engineering career. He was less interested in personal growth or general well-being but knew he would learn something from conversations with his connector faculty mentor. Luke said, ÒI just wanted it to be beneficial to my engineering degree, rather than just my general well -being or life or whatever. I value most conversations I have with people. You always learn something.Ó Jennifer said she signed up for CF because she was looking for ÒSomeone who would give me spec ial treatment kind of, in a way, and not even if I was in their class but just be on the lookout for me and be there for me.Ó Chris was looking for any faculty member to answer questions about his academic and career interests, sharing, ÒIt didnÕt matter who I was aligned with. I was looking for something that if I had a question, I knew I could ask.Ó In addition to exploring engineering, some participants opted in to the CF program to develop relationships with engineering professors in hopes of ident ifying potential references and advancing their engineering careers. Tiger gave many reasons for her decision to join the mentoring program, including an opportunity to network, a desire to be recognized by a faculty 99 member other than those teaching her c lasses, and to have a resource within chemical engineering to talk to about her major choice: ÒI thought it would give me good connections for jobs or actually talking to someone who wasnÕt my professor to figure out if there was any other route I could go , if I was struggling in classes or not.Ó Tiger wanted to find a professor who knew her well enough to give her an academic reference, as ÒI never had someone that KNEW me that I could use for references or anything like that.Ó Similarly, Matt hoped to meet someone who could eventually support him or help him in his career, commenting, ÒI thought it would be advantageous, and I thought itÕd be a good thing for some support or a good avenue in, ÔItÕs not what you know itÕs who you know!ÕÓ PaulÕs sole purpose for signing up for the program was to network with faculty, stating, ÒI expected we would meet every once in a while.Ó Anna was interested in the networking aspect, as well as potentia l social connections with peers and stated: I just thought it wou ld maybe create more personal interaction with certain faculty so that when youÕre walking down the hall youÕre like ÒHey!Ó or if you like need help with a question you can like go to them and not have it be like weird. I thought IÕd meet more students in the program, making more friends and networking. And networking with faculty was important to me because theyÕre full of resources; not only career wise but around campus, informational, just all sorts of different things. A few participants signed up for the program without clearly conceived expectations, aside from possibly meeting a faculty member one time. Amy did not have any expectations for the program saying, ÒI didnÕt really know what to expect fully out of it, but itÕs not going to hurt so I might as well see what happens.Ó Chelsea shared, ÒHonestly , I did not expect much from it Ó and identified her own shyness as a reason for signing up, adding, ÒStarting college, I decided 100 that I was going to try my best to be more outgoing. I figured [CF ] would be a great opportunity to break down the barrier I felt between myself and faculty.Ó Program Results Outcomes of the mentoring program include positive influences on student perceptions of individual faculty, on major choices, and on peer intera ction but did not appear to be linked to their perceptions of their educational climate. The program affected how students perceived the college and its level of care toward students. Students were both surprised and pleased that faculty wanted to intera ct with them. Mentors influenced major choice, and provided an opportunity for networking and professional development opportunities. S tudent sÕ negative experiences in the mentoring p rogram, had a negative influence on their perception of individual facu lty members a nd the mentoring program, but not their perception of engineering. Faculty -Student Interactions and Networking For several participants, the faculty -student mentoring program provided positive faculty contact and helped students be more comf ortable interacting with engineering faculty. For these students, the faculty proved to be caring, approachable, and knowledgeable Ð providing academic advising, career advice, and in some cases, fostering social connections. Positive impact on percept ions. Amy and Smiley both described positive experiences with their mentors. Amy said, ÒJust knowing that I can go talk to this person and theyÕll be willing to help with any aspect of college. ItÕs not just ÔI need help with this EGR topic,Õ itÕs every thing.Ó Smiley felt her CF experience was Ònothing but positiveÓ and it made the College of Engineering Òwarmer, more welcoming.Ó Smiley later had a class with her Connector Faculty mentor, describing it this way: 101 I have nothing but positive things to s ay about [my faculty mentor]! SheÕs very understanding, and in class she presents the material in a way that makes it relevant to issues that you know, society issues today and also in a way that we can understand and I think that a lot of professors stru ggle with that, especially in engineering. Tiger spoke very enthusiastically about interactions with her faculty mentor, sharing how the mentor brought cookies to the first group meeting, scheduled around the studentsÕ schedules and was ÒAWESOME.Ó Tige r added that Dr. A made it very clear she was available in person or over email. Tiger appreciated this gesture , stating it Òwas really nice, Ôcause, since I went to school far away from my parents, and even though I had family close by, it was nice to kn ow that there was [sic] still adults who like cared.Ó Chelsea said her mentor experience influenced her Òperception of the College of Engineering very positively!Ó She met with her mentor formally one time, and stated that when she saw her mentor Òrandom ly, she was very approachable.Ó ChelseaÕs mentor helped select classes for the next academic year and encouraged her to get more involved in co -curricular activities within the College of Engineering. Chelsea was having difficulty deciding upon a major a nd her mentor was an important factor in her decision to remain in the College of Engineering. Chelsea shared that her mentor Òwas very supportive. Ultimately it was the positive experiences I had in the College of Engineering that convinced me to stay w ith it. My mentor encouraged me to stay in the college.Ó Many students opted into the Connector Faculty program to get to know faculty members better and explore opportunities at MSU and following graduation. Chris was paired with a faculty member whose sibling worked within ChrisÕ area of interest: ÒI have innovative ideas, and I met with Dr. C, I actually met with him a couple of times after our original time, just to talk 102 about my ideas.Ó Dr. C helped Chris realize his career goals were possible and connected Chris with MSUÕs entrepreneurship group and other students at MSU who shared those interests. Chris saw his mentor as a resource: I expected to get just recognition. IÕve asked him questions about job opportunities and thatÕs something that I c an kind of rely on him for. But also, he can give me a heads up on teachers, on classes. Paul was motivated to engage with hi s mentor for professional gains and ended up having positive faculty interaction ÒOne time I just talked to him, met him, and th en the other time, after a while I had applied for an internship and I just went there and talked to himÓ to inquire about serving as a reference. Paul added, ÒHeÕs a very friendly guy, and I enjoyed working, networking with him, I enjoyed being his stude nt. It was a positive experience with him.Ó Zak stated that he knew that while he was unsure if his Connector Faculty was a mentor for him, if he Òwanted a research position, or if I wanted to get into his lab or something it would have offered me one of those ÒinsÓ that you just need kind of to break the ice between people to contact them.Ó HowardÕs mentoring experience opened the door for an eventual summer job in an electrical engineering lab, working for his Connector Faculty mentor. Howard contacte d Dr. K, who reacted positively to his interest: ÒI was not expecting that from an engineering professor. I thought they were always nerdy and donÕt like to talk to people and stuff.Ó Howard continued, explaining how his introduction to Dr. K led to rese arch opportunities, ÒI was really happy that I was connected with him.Ó Howard recognized his own initiative, sharing, ÒI was even happier that I made this move to actually reach out to Dr. K because I could have just easily missed it and say, Ô Okay, I ha ve this Connector Faculty, IÕll just leave it that wa y.ÕÓ Howard has 103 continued working for Dr. K, sharing, ÒIÕve realized that he is really a nice guy and he is really kind of strict and has high expectations for himself as well as his lab research studen ts, and thatÕs what I really like about him.Ó Negative impact on perceptions. Participant feedback about the program was largely positive or neutral , but one student, Matt, expressed strong negative feelings toward the mentoring program. His assigned me ntor never reached out beyond an initial email and ignored multiple requests from Matt for meetings. He was very disappointed in the program and said that it negatively impacted his views of the college and the faculty, sharing: We had one in -person meet ing where there were three or four of us, at the introductory thing. [My mentor] was like, ÒAre you interested in trying this out?Ó the connector thing? He sent out an e -mail to people and four people showed up. He was like Òcall me anytime, e -mail me a nytime,Ó gave us all his card. I did e -mail him several times to try to get help finding participants for a social research project for my writing class, but he never responded back. So after break I thought, maybe heÕs out of town, you know, maybe he ha d a SUPER vacation, and then afterward I sent him another message and another one, and then, nothing. And I havenÕt talked to him since that initial meeting. You know, itÕs like, Òcall me, e -mail me, IÕm here to helpÓ, and nothing happened for me, so my experience with it is, thatÕs great that you say these words or whatever, and maybe make you feel good or that youÕre a participant but then when itÕs happening nothing occurred so it doesnÕt really give me great faith in doing it again. No impact on per ceptions. For several participants, the Connector Faculty program had no impact on their perceptions of the College of Engineering. For Elizabeth, one professorÕs negative actions or negative behavior was not enough to influence her opinion of her experi ences 104 in engineering or other faculty members. She shared, ÒI donÕt think of them associated with the college [of engineering]; I donÕt think everyone is like that. I feel the other professors IÕve had good experiences with. I just kind of ignore it.Ó Paul had a good experience with his faculty mentor, sharing, ÒI definitely gained a positive attitude toward Dr. G Ôcause he was very nice.Ó He separated his CF experience from the College of Engineering this way: ÒI donÕt think it had an impact on my vie w of the College of Engineering as a whole. That might just be a personal thing; I attempt to not attribute one experience to a whole thing in general.Ó Jake met with his mentor once and discussed Òwhat environmental engineering positions were. HeÕs one of the people that expressed to me that environmental seemed to be more Ô cleanup than build up, retroactive rather than proactive.ÕÓ While it was not a meaningful, long -term connection, Dr. Q helped him realize that the major he initially chose was not a good fit for his interests. The following semester Jake had Dr. Q in class and struggled to remember where he had met him, sharing, ÒI didnÕt put it together until half way, ÒOh yeah, I met with him last year.Ó Because I had only had that one brief, hal f-hour long meeting with him.Ó Jake stated that the Connector Faculty program ÒReally didnÕt influence my perception of the college at all.Ó For some participants, the amount of contact they had with their mentor was not enough interaction to make a diff erence in their perceptions of the environment. This was NorthÕs experience: It didnÕt really change anything to be honest. Yeah, I kind of wish she was easier to understand. I just feel like she was really quiet, and if youÕre quiet WITH an accent, I canÕt always catch it and I feel SO BAD! I mean, itÕs not like I look down on her for having it. I feel bad that I canÕt understand her because I feel like I should be able to, but 105 she was really nice, so that was a plus. I was kind of expecting more int eraction but again, I should have been the one to follow -up in the second semester. Student -Student Interactions and Networking The Connector Faculty program focused on faculty -student interactions, but an additional, positive result of the mentoring pr ogram was the development of friendships among students assigned to the same faculty mentor. For example, Amy ended up making friends with students in her major as a result of her mentor hosting group activities. She shared, ÒThey werenÕt my friends at t he time, but one of the girls whoÕs actually in the same group as me, weÕre actually pretty close friends now.Ó Tiger added, ÒIt gets you at least interacting with other students and that shows you more engineers that will probably have at least the same class interests as you so, it helps making friends easier at least.Ó Chelsea also felt that she made friends in her major through events organized by her faculty mentor: The majority of our gatherings were group events. I think we had about three of the se. I was able to meet some other chemical engineering students in my class and some of them I am good friends with now. My mentor took us all [out] once as she tried to get to know us, and we all got to know each other. HowardÕs face lit up as he spoke fervently about his CF mentor Dr. K and his surprise when it turned out that Dr. K was friendly and engaging. Dr. K invited Howard to join him and a group of his upper -level electrical engineering students at a local restaurant, which greatly impressed H oward. Howard was curious what upper class students would be like, and on the outing, he was able to interact with more advanced peers, sharing, ÒThose students were outside of class, so it would be really relaxed for them and they talk whatever they want and I learned that Dr. K is a really good guy, and he seems like a decent professional.Ó 106 Formal Support for Students When asked about their actual experiences in the student -faculty mentoring program, several students mentioned that they were surprised a nd impressed by the fact that faculty were willing to spend time meeting with them. The surprise expresse d by participants indicated this was not how they expected interactions with engineering faculty to look. Alexa shared that spending time with studen ts was n ot part of her professorsÕ jobs and that she assumed, Òthe faculty is just there to do their job, which is not a good thing to think, so it [CF] made him seem more friendly. Reminded me that some adults DO care about you.Ó Like Alexa, Anna did no t consider student interaction to be part of faculty responsibilities: ÒIt definitely made me realize that theyÕre people too, and you can go to them. You know, they want to interact with students, because they donÕt really get a chance to with their work and studies and their teaching.Ó The existence of the program signaled to participants that the college deemed mentoring important for new students. For Luke, the fact that the faculty agreed to mentor early engineering students showed that faculty want ed students to feel welcome and were open to talking to students. He thought it was a tactic to get students to believe that faculty as a whole are open to meeting with students, despite the difficulty students sometimes have in recognizing faculty willin gness to interact. Luke said, ÒIt made me more perceptive, open to accepting that all the professors are probably going to be okay with just talking or you know theyÕre all just people really.Ó Spending time with her faculty mentor helped Anna come to a similar conclusion that faculty want to spend time with students. Chris was also impressed that the College of Engineering was encouraging faculty -student interaction indicating, ÒTo know that they want kids to connect with faculty was cool. I think th at they want the professors to be very interactive with their students.Ó ZakÕs thoughts 107 were similar in that he felt that simply offering the mentoring program to students showed faculty cared about spending time with them, sharing, ÒThat professors take time out of their day to participate in something with a student in an informal setting, I thought that was cool.Ó He viewed participation in the mentoring program as a chance to make a faculty connection to further his opportunities within the College of Engineering, adding, ÒIt was another event that got me integrated into the school just because I was able to meet another familiar face.Ó Major Selection and Commitment Mentors and students discussed many things during their meetings, including engineeri ng careers and the opportunities within each major and several students indicated that mentors made a significant impact on their major considerations. ChelseaÕs mentor was a significant support person who was influential in her decision to remain in chem ical engineering. She spoke enthusiastically about her mentoring experience sharing, ÒI had a lot of trouble deciding if I wanted to stick with the major that I chose, and ultimately it was the positive experiences I had in the College of Engineering that convinced me to stay with it.Ó Emma visited MSU in high school and interacted with the professor who later became her faculty mentor. The professor presented her research to incoming students and Emma remembered, Ò She Õs cool. I really like her research .Ó Emma recalled asking the professor/her mentor about research opportunities but never followed up with the requested email, though Emma shared that the faculty member Òwas very personable.Ó As EmmaÕs mentor, the faculty member was influential in her ch oice of major: ÒShe kind of has a lot to do with why I chose materials science and why I chose the biomedical concentration.Ó BritneyÕs mentor made course suggestions and directed her to other individuals within the college to declare her cognate: ÒDr. X was TOTALLY encouraging. She told me about her class 108 she was teaching, [to] help solidify concepts, and it totally did, so that was really helpful.Ó BritneyÕs mentor helped introduce her to upper level students pursuing the majors she was considering an d these students helped her decide on an eventual major. Britney shared that her mentor Òset me up with another couple of women she knew in computer science. I told her I wanted to work with self -driving cars so she set me up with contacts to talk about that, so that was totally awesome.Ó Program Results Summary HowardÕs experience with Dr. K is what the Connector Faculty Program intended to provide for students, fostering a connection between student and faculty member and connecting students with resear ch opportunities. Overall, participants were divided in their opinions about whether or not the mentoring program influenced their perception of the College of Engineering. For the students who said that CF made them feel welcomed, their feelings were ro oted in the notion that faculty do care about students. As a result of the current study, it is evident that students need to be reminded that engineering facul ty are there to help them learn and to facilitate an environment that enables educational succe ss. 109 CHAPTER 6 This chapter provides an interpretation of the findings discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, and attempts to make sense of the findings in relation to the theoretical framework, Social Cognitive Theory. ÒInterpretation means attaching signific ance to what was found, making sense of the findings, offering explanations, drawing conclusions, extrapolating lessons, making inferences, considering meanings, and otherwise imposing orderÓ (Patton, 2002, p. 480). Twenty interviews were conducted with s tudent participants from a mentoring program targeting early engineering students. The intent of the current study was to learn more ab out student -faculty interaction and student perception of climate in engineering education. In this chapter the data are explored relative to its significance and suppo rt for the emerging story and answer s the following research questions: ¥!How do early engineering students perceive their interactions with engineering faculty? ¥!How do early engineering students perceive th e climate of engineering as a result of having participated in a formal mentoring program? As discussed briefly in Chapter 1, and more thoroughly in Chapter 2, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) focuses on the continuous interplay of three reciprocal factors: environment, self, and behavior (Bandura, 1986). When one factor is positively or negatively affected, it positively or negatively affects the other two elements. This is particularly important to note, as SCT can be used as a strategy to create change a mong individuals and within groups. Previous studies focused on college students across majors indicate that environment has the greatest effect on student persistence and engagement (Zimmerman, 1989). A commonly cited reason for the departure of early e ngineering students is student perception of an unwelcoming environmen t (Marra et al. , 2012; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The current study is focused on an intervention 110 that attempted to influence studentsÕ perceptions of the environment with the goal of inf luencing their behavior, to keep them from leaving the College of Engineering. The current study uniquely contributes to extant literature in that it focused on early engineering studentsÕ perceptions of climate based on their interactions with engineeri ng faculty in a formal mentoring program. The mentoring program was designed to facilitate student -faculty relationships outside the classroom in an attempt to foster positive interactions between students and faculty, resulting in improved environmental perception by early engineering students. P articipants shared they had little contact with engineering faculty outside of the classroom, which aligns with previous re search on the subject (Cox et al. , 2010). Faculty interaction with undergraduate student s is least frequent at doctoral universities where faculty interact most with graduate students, and are focused primarily on research (Cox & Orehovec, 2007). Seymour and Hewitt (1997) attributed high attrition rates in STEM majors, in part, to lack of fa culty guidanc e (Marra et al ., 2012). Literature indicate s that increased faculty student interaction creates more positive educational experiences for undergraduates including higher self-efficacy, increased GPAs, and greater rates of persistence (Vogt, 2 008). Discussion While the current study did not directly focus on the educational climate in the College of Engineering, the more data I collected, the more apparent it became that students at this particular institution did not view their climate in th e same way that previous research on engineering education indicated. Previous studies, as mentioned in Chapter Two, found the presence of a chilly climate in engineering education that pejoratively affects the learning environment for all student s (Marra et al. , 2012; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). As faculty members are key socializing agents in educational environments, their actions and attitudes strongly 111 influence student behaviors and experiences (Bean & Kuh, 1984 ; Fuentes et al. , 2014; Pascarella, 1980). To provide an understanding of studentsÕ perceptions of climate within the College of Engineering, I assessed their views of the educational environment, which included the institution, the college , and the classroom. The discussion section also address es student perceptions of peers, faculty, and the Connector Faculty mentoring program. Michigan State University Identity The majority of participants were very proud to be MSU students; very few considered going elsewhere, and even those rejected by an ac ademically prestigious competitor institution seemed satisfied at MSU. Many participants likened MSU to home, saying that they felt comfortable and part of a family at the university. Several students had grandparents, parents, and siblings who either gr aduated from MSU or were currently attending the institution, adding to the familial nature of the experience. Participants perceived that the reputation of both MSU and the College of Engineering was prestigious and worth their investment. Cost was a determining factor for many students in their college selection process , and in addition to in -state tuition, three participants received highly competitive university -wide scholarships for academic merit. Comments such as, ÒI just felt very at home,Ó and Ò I really like the atmosphere here,Ó indicated that participants were pleased with the overall university environment and found it to be a good fit for their academic pursuits. This study focused on student perceptions of climate based on an intervention aimed at improving retention and persistence specifically in engineering programs. Perception of climate is a contributing factor to studentsÕ primary commitment to an institution and academic programs/units within it, their sense of belonging and identit y, and as a result, their overall persistence (Hagedorn, 2005; Tinto, 1975, 1993, 1997). Part of establishing commitment has 112 been attributable to many background variables including family influence and prior academic success (Tinto , 1997), and these fact ors p roved true in the current study as well. Engineering Identity StudentsÕ impressions of themselves in relation to their academic pursuits were influenced by the culture and the climate within the College of Engineering and reinforced by sources exter nal to the college culture . Participants were fiercely proud of their engineering identity, which was reinforced by sources wi thin the College of Engineering as well as external to it. Peers in non -engineering degree programs, parents, and faculty played a significant role in participantsÕ pride in their major. Participants were convinced that engineer ing is the most difficult major and were very pleased by how their intelligence was perceived as a result of their major choice. Identity. While students identified as Michigan State University Spartans, their primary identity was that of engineering student. In a study of engineering undergraduate identity, Stevens, OÕConnor, Garrison, Jocuns, and Amos (2008) posit that identity is Òdouble sidedÓ and tha t studentsÕ identities are shaped by how they actively identify themselves and how they are identified by others. The connection between self -identify and attributed identity mirrors social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) in that self is shaped by enviro nment and behavior . Students were proud of their affiliation with both the College of Engineering and their specific engineering majors. When describing their college affiliation, their word choices clea rly reflected feelings of pride as well as exclusi vity. Participants articulated great satisfaction with themselves and their academic accomplishments as early engineering students, claiming that the worldÕs greatest intellectuals were engineers, saying that they felt ÒeliteÓ on campus, and downplaying t he importance and rigor of non -engineering majors. 113 Participants perceived that the College of Engineering was exclusive, and the notion that engineering was a superior major appeared to be engrained in the culture of the college as recounted by the student s. Literature indicates that when culture is internalized, as seemed to be the case for most participants in this study, people acquiesce to the norms of that culture and the culture then dictates peoplesÕ actions, beliefs, and behaviors ( Barley & Kunda, 1992). Individual behavior is restricted and reinforced by the environment in which the person exists (Eitzen & Zinn, 2004). As noted in Chapter Two, climate is derived from culture and offers a descriptive index of that culture. According to the recipr ocal nature of social cognitive theory, environment and behavior are shaped by self -identity, much like self -identity is shaped by environment and behavior. In the current study, students within the culture contributed to the climate based on their inter pretations of the cultural norms, which included feelings of academic superiority, sacrificing social engagemen ts, and focusing heavily on academics. Social norms theory posits that behavior is influenced by inaccurate perceptions of the actions and behav iors of peers (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). These perceptions appeared to be reinforced by those inside as well as outside of the college of engineering . In the current study , participants wanted to conne ct with faculty , yet outside of the mentoring progr am participants were hesitant to do so based on perceptions of unapproachability shared by their peers , which were exacerbated by negative faculty interactions in the classroom . Students contribute to cultural and social norms and may propagate a negative environment based on what they believe peers seek, even if no students desire the environment they are advancing. Participants shared reactions of peers and others who were impressed by the studentsÕ engineering major due to the perceived difficult subjec t matter in the required courses. In several 114 instances, participants alluded to the intelligence, and in a few cases, the perceived arrogance, of engineering faculty. Students noticed faculty attitudes and have, to some degree, replicated their perceptio n of these attitudes and behaviors within the culture. Classes. Participants shared less enthusiasm for engineering courses than they did for non-engineering courses. Of the participant group, only a few students displayed some level of passion for thei r engineering classes. Within this subgroup of students, some struggled to articulate why they liked their engineering classes, while others shared positive experiences with certain faculty and appreciation for specific skills acquired in engineering cour ses. Three students said that interest in engineering courses was due to their aptitudes in math and science - the subject matter came easily to them. Engineering coursework tends to be less discussion based, more factual, and rooted in math and hard sci ence according to the literature (Blickenstaff, 2005; Godfrey & Parker, 2010; Marra et al., 2012), and participants in the current study. The engi neering classes participants completed involved a great deal of group project work and many hours of homework regularly throughout the semester. Although engineering problem sets tended to have specific solutions or a specific set of expected results from group work, students were surprised to realize they had to learn problem solving methods and work to find an swers, rather than memorizing correct answers. This represented a shift for many students from high school experiences where memorization often equaled success. The characteristics of engineering classes the students identified are particularly true in e arly classes, as these were all early engineering students. The amount of homework and time spent in labs and classes differentiates engineering students from th eir non -engineering peers. Lack of free time created tension among friends and roommates who w anted to include their engineering peers in social activities. Several students 115 noted that it was difficult to explain to non -engineering major friends how much work they neede d to do for engineering classes and how time consuming that work was. The engi neering students were unable or unwilling to participate in social functions or extra -curricular activities due to educational demands or perceived lack of free tim e. The theoretical framework, social cognitive t heory (Bandura, 1986), directly connects to this phenomenon, as the engineering classes (environment) and friendships (environment) caused conflict for the engineering student (self) and affected student decisions about academic and social commitments (behavior). Many students felt they were not w orking as hard as their engineering peers if they chose to spend time with friends, especially those friends who were non -engineering majors. Participants made social sacrifices in pursuit of their engineering majors, which appeared to add to their pride and perception of engineering exclusivity. Teaching . The overall nature of engineering coursework and the experiences student s reported with it may have contributed to the kinds of feedback they provided about teaching styles of their engineering facult y, the majority of which was not positive. Only one participant thought the method of instruction in the College of Engineering was helpful and contributed to a positive experience in engineering courses. Engineering coursework tends to be less discussio n based, more factual, rooted in math and hard science, with faculty who see a primary role as disseminating information (Cox et al., 2010). While participants recognized that content transmission was a necessary aspect of the classroom experience, they n oted that the ways in which faculty conveyed the information was not engaging. For example, students stated that classmates slept through lectures due to boring course content, faculty had an overreliance on PowerPoint, lectures were without opportunity f or open discussion, and students did not often ask questions in or out of class for fear of how faculty would react and perceive them. Students 116 also stated they taught themselves course content in some situations, as faculty members were unable to effecti vely teach them and students often found the teaching assistants better inf ormation sources about material . Non -Engineering Interactions and Perceptions Given their engineering identity and how participants saw the elite and rigorous college and majors to which they had been admitted, it might not be surprising that they were sometimes judgmental and dismissive about non -engineering majors. Students believed that engineeri ng was the most difficult major and that other academic pursuits were not as importan t, challenging, or useful in society and that students in those majors worked less with time for other social pursuits. For those who felt this way, it was difficult to understand why one would choose to major in a non -engineering field where there are Òn o jobsÓ and the salaries are much lower. There appeared to be a lack of respect among some engineering students toward non -engineering students; even participants who were performing poorly in engineering expressed a lack of respect for non-engineering st udents . For students who may not be academically successful in early engineering courses, an exclusionary environment could hasten their departure from the field due to unsupportive competitive peers, creating a ÒchillyÓ climate (Marra et al., 2012; Seym our & Hewitt, 1997). The theoretical framework, SCT, states that environment, behavior, and self are mutually influencing (Bandura, 1986). Student attitudes toward non -engineering majors (and less successful engineering students) were engrained in the cu lture of the college and reinforced by facu lty attitudes and actions. These attitudes in turn influenced studentsÕ sense of self. Classes. Somewhat surprising, participants were enthusiastic and positive when describing non -engineering courses. Despit e expressing pejorative opinions of non -engineering 117 majors, study participants enthusiastically lauded their social science classes, sharing that they were a nice break from engineering and taught well. Students appeared to enjoy social science classes mo re than engineering classes, and described non -engineering classes as Òrefreshing,Ó Òinteresting,Ó and Òfun,Ó but not because they perceived these classes to be easier or less rigorous than engineering classes. Rather, students appreciated that these clas ses were more interactive and that non -engineering faculty were more ÒrealÓ and more engaged than engineering faculty. Participants also found non -engineering classes to be more useful and a pplicable to various situations , and that they fostered critical thinking skills. The subject matter also caused students to question their perspectives about their abilities, their majors, and their future plans. Social science classes tended to address issues from myriad viewpoints, utilize discussion, and rarely h ad problems with one correct answer; in some cases, many different perspectives were considered valid. In spite of this departure from their perception of engineering classes, some students were surprised to really like their non -engineering courses. For example, Alexa said that she would be sad to be done with her humanities courses because she enjoyed writ ing and was not looking forward to Òpure engineeringÓ courses. Enjoying the university required writing course was a big surprise for se veral student s who said they never thought of themselves as writers. Britney considered herself to be Òthe worst writer everÓ yet loved her writing class because she had to work really hard at it, her professor was excellent, and Òreally grewÓ from it. Student Perce ptions of Faculty Interaction Regardless of class setting, participants were comfortable with and enjoyed interacting with faculty who recognized students outside of class and knew studentsÕ names. Participants identified faculty who engaged with students in more positive ways to be those who knew student names, who told personal stories and encouraged discussion in class, who were 118 approachable in and out of class, while less positive aspects of faculty behavior were attributed to those who lectured or use d formal titles in the classroom. These findings are similar to studies that found faculty who simply lectured and did not interact with students in class are viewed as less approachable and even feared by students (Cox et al. , 2010). Positive behaviors were extrapolated to general beliefs about faculty approachability (more often attributed to social science faculty), and because they believed in these distinctions, students often behaved differently including seeking out faculty in office hours, engagin g in different kinds of conversations, and feeling more supported. Although participants tried to be deferential in their comments about all faculty across discipline, it was clear that they saw engineering faculty as focused on course content and social science faculty as those with whom they could engage in many areas. Participants found non -engineering faculty to be relaxed, approachable, and personable, as well as engaging, intelligent, and interesting. Students offered multiple examples of non -engi neering faculty telling stories, knowing studentsÕ names, and spending time outside of class helping students with assignments. Participants shared that professors in social science courses told personal stories in the classroom and in interactions with s tudents. While course content may lend itself to personal sharing within non -engineering courses, students cited these revelations as humanizing and made the professor seem more approachable. Participants were less positive about their interactions with engineering faculty, citing intimidation, lack of contact, and poor communication skills on the part of the faculty. Students felt that engineering faculty members were typically una pproachable , intimidating, and that engineering faculty rarely acknowledg ed their personal lives in the classroom setting , seemingly reinforcing their distance from students . Some engineering faculty were able to incorporate 119 current events into their classrooms, and students cited these as engaging practices that fostered a sense of approachability and ÒrealnessÓ among those faculty members. Even while providing their perspectives, s tudents were reluctant to cite negative traits or experiences with engineering faculty, seemingly from the belief that negative comments were Òselling outÓ or ÒbetrayingÓ the College of Engineering and their own engineering identities. Several participants struggled to share critical comments about engineering faculty, often trying to excuse or justify faculty actions or behavior that might have come across as negative. During conversations, students grappled with how to convey admiration for non -engineering faculty without pointing out deficiencies in engineering faculty. For example, o ne participant did not want to give the non -engineering pro fessor credit for her enjoyment of the class, but looked for other reasons, such as her appre ciation for the course material and the professorÕs youthfulness. Not all participants were hesitant to divulge negative perceptions of engineering faculty. Six participants perceived engineering faculty to be unapproachable, others described them as intimidating and arrogant . Further challenges shared by participants include the perception that engineering faculty have bad interpersonal skills and do not care ab out students. Bjorklund, Parente, and Sathianathan (2004) addressed approac hability, stating that while instructors may cognitively understand how interactions take place, instructor attitude and personality are important in order for students to see the instructor as approachable and initiate interactions with the instructor. Intimidation. Additionally, students shared that they were afraid of asking questions in class out of fear of a negative reaction from the professor. The participants who shared th ese reservations had either witnessed engineering professors humiliating classmates for asking 120 questions the faculty member thought were Òstupid Ó or had a sense of how faculty would react based on faculty tone o r body language, which is similar to findings from Cox et al . (2010). Students recognized the importance of inter acting with engineering faculty but were hesitant to seek out such opportunities on their own due to fears of being perceived as Ònot smart enoughÓ to pursue an engineering degree by both faculty and classmates, which caused them to limit faculty interaction and in turn, potential learning and networking opportunities. Feelings of doubt about belonging in an engineering major can be exacerbated by engineering faculty behavior, and indicat es the possible existence of imposter syndrome (Cox et al., 2010; Seymour, 1995; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Participants shared signs that imposter syndrome was present and influenced their behavior in terms of engageme nt with engineering faculty in and out side of the classroom. Students who already questioned their abilities as engineering students did not feel comfortable approaching faculty during office hours due to their observations of faculty in class. Professors Õ actions in the classroom in the pre sence of students signal how they will act outside of the classroom in office hours, in the hallways, or in social setting toward students (Wilson, Wood, & Gaff, 1974). If students observed what they perceived to be rude behavior in front of a full classr oom, they assumed faculty members would continue that behavior in office hours with an individual student. An uneven power distribution exists between students and faculty across disciplines in higher education , as f aculty control studentsÕ grades, access to laboratory and practical experience s, and references for post baccalaur eate opportunities. In the College of Engineering, power of faculty over students is heightened due to the secondary admissions process. Engineering students must achieve a specifi c grade point average in relevant science, enginee ring , and math courses to be admitted to the college and allowed to pursue an engineering 121 degree. This secondary admissions process to the college and major could be a contributing factor to studentsÕ fear ful perceptions of engineering faculty , and explain the perceived approachability of non-engineering faculty who are not seen as playing key roles in the professional trajectory of students . Early engineering students have limited opportunities to intera ct with engineering faculty, relegated to large classes filled with peers and out of class office hours. Large class sizes hinder quality student -faculty interactions as classes are not structured to foster conversations and early engineering students often lack confidence to ask questions about course content in front of their peers. The majority of participants shared that they do not attend office hours for engineering classes if they do not have specific course related questions or topics to discuss, due in part to their own shyness and because they felt that they had nothing to talk about with faculty if it was not a course related topic. While this particular group of students had high GPAs and was collectively very involved in the College of Engine ering and on campus, intimidation can be greater for those who are less confident in their abilities . Previous research indicates that high performing students do not attend faculty office hours because they believe that if they are not struggling in the class, or if they do not have questions about homework assignments or lecture topics, there is no need to interac t with faculty in this setting (Cox & Orehovec, 2007). Connector Faculty Mentoring Program In an effort to provide students with opportuniti es to interact informally with faculty outside of the classroom or office hours, the College of Engineering implemented the Connector Faculty mentoring program in the fall of 2009 as part of a National Science Foundation grant aimed at increasing retention among early engineering students . The goal of the mentoring program was to improve early engineering studentsÕ perceptions of climate by providing them 122 with an engineering faculty mentor with whom they could associate through informal, out of class inter actions based on extant literatu re (e .g., Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The current study found that by pairing students with faculty mentor volunteers in their chosen majors, the program helped to relieve students of the fears and awkwardness associated with approaching faculty members, as well as identified faculty who were open to spending time with undergraduates outside of the classroom. Program Foundation StudentsÕ specific motivations for joining the program were largely practical: to learn about facu lty research and student research opportunities, to have a support person who was also an engineer to go to for advice on courses and their major path, and for networking and career advice. Students also sometimes went into the experience without expectat ions; they simply thought they would give it a try. These s tudents were not motivated to participate in the mentoring program by perception of negative climate , as those initiating it may have believed . Prior to signing up for the mentoring program, the majority of participantsÕ interactions with engineering faculty were limited to in class experiences and infrequent office visits. Participants knew that it was important to interact with faculty within the College of Engineering , and w hile appreciating a nd acknowledging the attention and care shown by their social science faculty, students recognized the need for interaction and guidance from faculty in their specific engineering majors. Participants did not mention seeking psychosocial or emotional supp ort, which along with career advice, is generally an expectation associated with prot”g”s in mentoring relationships (Kram, 198 5). Luke went so far as to say, ÒI wanted it to be a beneficial experience, more than just a waste of my time. I just wanted it to be beneficial to my engineering degree, r ather than just my general well -being, or life.Ó 123 Program Content Mentoring pr ogram participants who felt they had sufficient interaction with their mentors shared that they benefitted greatly from participation in the program. Participants believed that career focused support from their mentors had significant impacts on their major choices and their decisions to remain in the College of Engineering. Mentors discussed the intricacies of the profession and care er path options and helped students clarify their majors. Jake changed his major within engineering after meeting with his mentor, and other students received help choosing appropriate classes to meet their interests and progress to degree completion. Ho ward received a research position as a result of his involvement with his faculty mentor, and Paul used his mentor for a reference for an internship. Additionally, even though it was not a reason for students to participate, faculty mentors provided parti cipants with psych osocial support by encouraging involvement in engineering student organizations, facilitating group activities for student mentees that resulted in peer friendships, and general care and motivation. Students shared that faculty mentors m ade engineering feel Òmore like homeÓ and more welcoming. Overall, the majority of participants had positive experiences in the mentoring program. A small number of participants said that the program did not change their feelings toward the College of En gineering or their feelings about their majors because time with their mentors was so limited. A few students expected more from the program and more attention from their mentors. One participant was blatantly angry about his experience in Connector Facu lty and said that the program had a negative e ffect on his perception of the College of Engineering. The studentÕs mentor ignored multiple requests to meet after their initial meeting . The student initially made excuses for this mentorÕs behavior, but af ter multiple attempts to connect, he 124 stopped trying. As a result of this failed mentoring relationship, the student indicated he had little faith in the program and felt more reluctant to reach out to faculty. Before becoming involved with the program, so me participants believed interacting with students was not part of faculty membersÕ jobs. Participants were surprised by the fact that the program was offered by the College of Eng ineering and that faculty actually wanted to spend time with students. Aga in for the most part, the mentoring program appeared to change student perception that engineering faculty did not want to spend time with students, or were too busy to engage with them. Students thought faculty mentors wanted CF participants to feel welc omed and that faculty are open to talking with undergraduates. This is notable because when discussing interactions with engineering faculty, students failed to mention the mentoring program until I asked them specific questions about their faculty mentor s. They appeared to compartmentalize the mentoring program from the rest of their engineering experiences. The positive interactions with mentors as well as their perceptions about faculty wanting to spend time with students was something they attributed specifically to the mentoring program, not to the engineering culture at large: one year after participation in Connector Faculty, students still thought that faculty were not interested in spending time with them outside of the program. While the mentor ing program did not chan ge studentsÕ perceptions of the engineering environment, their experiences seem to align with KramÕs (1983) seminal work on mentoring relationships, which focused on mentors providing Òemotional and psychological support, direct assistance with career and professional development, and role modelingÓ (p. 513) to their prot”g”s. 125 Identity Development Participants in the current study demonstrated strong attachment to their identities as engineering students and perpetuated their und erstanding of norms within the college. Maintaining their identity as engineering students appeared to be more salient to these participants than poor faculty interactions, difficult, time consuming coursework, and sacrificed social engagements. Identity establishment has been widely examined throughout higher educatio n literature. According to Eri kson (1963 ), young adults struggle to find purpose, values, beliefs, and future direction , while e stablishing identity is one of Chickering and Reisser Õs (1993) seven vectors of college student development. Identity pursuits can be challenging for young adults who are bombarded with new ideas, beliefs, and experiences , and college experiences strongly contribute to identity development, including the importance of faculty -student interaction because of the important personal and intellectual influences of faculty on the lives of students (Lamport, 1993). Given the minimal interaction between participants and engineering facul ty before the mentoring program and t he importance of their field of study, their peers, and families, the outcomes of the current study appear to echo the findings of Lamport that faculty student interaction is critical to student identity development (1993). However, for participants who h ad positive experiences with their faculty mentors, several mentioned that their mentors solidified their interest in and decision to pursue a career in engineering. Students in this study reconciled messages from their mentor, faculty, family, and peers with their own beliefs and expectations about identity . For engineering students in the current study, their identities appeared to be intensely tied to their engineering major. Based on the strong sense of pride they exuded when discussing their 126 affilia tion with the College of Engineering, it appeared that this shaped their sense of self and heavily contributed to high levels of self -efficacy. For early engineering students, self -efficacy is instrumental to success. Belief in oneÕs abilities to accompl ish difficult tasks and persist in a demanding curriculum can be the difference between success and failure for enginee ring majors. According to social cognitive t heory (Bandura, 1986) , belief in self influences and is influenced by behavior and environme nt, also known as triadic reciprocal causation. Negative faculty interactions appeared to contribute to a type of imposter syndrome (Dancy & Brown, 2011 ). For some students, pejorative faculty interactions did not result in negative feelings toward their environment. High self -efficacy appeared to drive student behavior in numerous ways, including: sacrificing social activities to do academic work, demonstrating loyalty toward engineering faculty despite poor teaching practices, and willingness to join t he mentoring program despite shyness and fears of faculty interaction. Perceived Climate as a Result of Mentoring Program Participation As noted in Chapter 1, climate is a description of peoplesÕ perceptions of what they see and report happening to them w ithin an organization (James et al., 1988; Jones & James, 1979; Schneider et al. , 2002). In the context of higher education, climate is differentiated by classroom climate and campus climate (Marra et al., 2012). Classroom climate refers to interactions i n the classro om between students and faculty and among students and their peers (Marra et al. , 2012), while campus climate focuses on the Òattitudes, perceptions, and expectations associated with an institutionÓ (Marra et al., 2012, p. 101). In the curren t study, participants shared their perceptio ns of Michigan State University as well as their classroom experiences in both engineering and non -engineering courses. The motivation for creating the mentoring program was to positively impact participantsÕ pe rceptions of climate in the College of Engineering. 127 The current study found that participants perceived engineering faculty to be unapproachable. Outside of the mentoring program, only one student reported interaction with engineering faculty that did no t occur in class or in faculty office hours , which aligns with decades of research in higher education examining student -faculty interaction. Since PascarellaÕs (1980) study revealing low occurrences of faculty -student contact, very little has changed in terms of reported frequency ( Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Cox et al. , 2010). Additionally, research is lacking as to why some faculty choose to engage informally with students and others do not, the answer to which would be instrumental for those interested in facilitating student -faculty interactions ou tside of the classroom (Cox et al., 2010). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, student perceptions of MSU and the College of Engineering were very positive. Participants in the cu rrent study identified with M SU, and already had a strong sense of engineering identity, despite being only sophomores at the time of data collection. The majority spoke favorably of their non -engineering class experiences and non-engineering faculty interactions. Overall, students appeared to experience challenges with engineering classes, from the content to the teaching methods used in them. They had little substantive interaction with engineering faculty due in part to the perception that engineering faculty were unapproachable. Participants cited challenges with individual professors as stand alone issues and did not attri bute them to faculty as a whole or to the climate of the College of Engineering. Students shared stories of negative interactions with faculty consistent wit h those indicative of chilly climate ( Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Marra et al. , 2012) yet failed to make a connection between these experiences and the engineering education climate. They also did not equate dissatisfaction with engineering coursework with th e classroom climate, saying that the 128 classes were either not taught well or the subject matter was unappealing. They remained proud to be engineering majors and proud to be MSU Spartans. The current study provided evidence that for this group of student s, perception of faculty interactions did not impact the studentsÕ perceptions of their overall educational environment, or the studentsÕ views on the College of Engineering per se . Students did not associate faculty members as part of the engineering cli mate, even when they we re often afraid or intimidated by professors and were hesitant to approach them ; rather than attributing this to the engineering climate, students seemed willing to consider this more a function of individual faculty personalities, b ehaviors, or expectations . The mentoring program did not create a shift in climate perception for either the classroom climate or the campus climate because students associated individual faculty behaviors with just that specific faculty member, not consi dering it part of the larger engineering climate or culture. Connector Faculty provided students with a ÒsafeÓ engineering professor to approach to ask questions, ask for recommendations, and seek career and academic advice because students believed the C onnector Faculty mentors had volunteered to interact with them these ways. The faculty volunteered to be Connector Faculty and wanted to spend time with students was a surprise to the participants, given their beliefs about the roles of engineering facult y in general . Through the mentoring program, faculty mentors were Òpre -screenedÓ for a willingness to help students early in their engineering education, removing the awkward and scary initial steps of approaching a professor with the possibility of a neg ative outcome. When paired with an engineering faculty member via the mentoring program, several participants enjoyed the interactions and were not intimidated. However, even with these positive experiences, participants were not willing to approach and risk getting rejected by other faculty during class or in office hours, or try to connect with engineering faculty in general 129 without the safety of the program. Even with the program, some participants were wary of the meetings for fear of not having an ything to talk to faculty about or were still a bit intimidated interacting with faculty based on classroom behavior or perceived awkwardness on the part of faculty. Summary ParticipantsÕ generally positive academic and social experiences, and strong feeli ngs for Michigan State University, combined with pride in their engineering identities, were more important to their overall undergraduate experience thus far than dull course content and unapproachable faculty in the College of Engineering. Participants in the current study welcomed engagement with engineering faculty, and for those students whose mentors met their expectations, positive outcomes occurred. Outside of the Connector Faculty program, participants did not interact with any frequency with eng ineering faculty. While the Connector Faculty program provided students with mentors and gave students the overall impression that engineering faculty wanted to interact with them, it did not influence studentsÕ perceptions of the engineering climate. Students did not associate faculty behavior or approachability to be part of the climate. Students received the majority of their psychosocial support fro m their non -engineering faculty and their peers in engineering, with whom they had shared experiences. Implications and Recommendations for Future Research Based on the findings of this study and existing literature, areas of future research are shared below, including formal mentoring, support for students outside of the College of Engineering, study partic ipants, and gender. 130 Formal M entoring The majority of existing research on mentoring compares the experiences of those who had a mentor in a formal relationship with those who had a mentor in an informal capacity, or those who have not been mentored at all (Allen et al., 2006; Rag ins & Cotton , 1999; Scandura & Williams, 2001). Results from these studies indicate that formal mentoring is better than no mentoring, but not as effective as informal mentoring. The Connector Faculty program was a formal mentori ng program that fostered informal relationships between faculty and undergraduate students . A comparison of informal and formal mentorships between College of Engineering students and faculty could be useful in identifying practices, characteristics, and environmental perceptions of both faculty and students within the college. Formal mentoring programs could be improved by incorporating s uccessful outcomes and best practices from informal mentoring relationships . Further research could compare the attit udes and experiences of engineering student mentees paired with engineering faculty mentors to engineering students paired with mentors outside of engineeri ng. Much research focuses on the quantity of student -faculty interactions, however, like the curren t study, it is equally important to recognize the nature and quality of student -faculty interactions (Astin, 1984; Cotten & Wilson, 2006; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001). Without understanding both the quality and quantity of faculty -student interact ions it is impossibl e t o account for the related student outcom es such as self -efficacy or persistence (Sax, Bryant, & Harper, 2005). Support External to E ngineering Results of the current study indicate that early engineering students seek support and informal mentoring relationships from faculty in their non -engineering courses . It is unclear the long -term impact of these relationships on student persistence, major selection, and job 131 attainment. For example, d o students continue to rely on faculty me mbers external to engineering for guidance through out their engineering majors , or do they seek other kinds of information or different roles for these mentors ? Participants indicated that they retained informal mentors in other academic disciplines into their upper level engineering courses. Future research could examine , in greater detail , how and why students sought out these professors, and how the relationships developed, as well as the impact they have on the studentsÕ academic and psychosocial deve lopment. Once in advanced engineering courses that are smaller with potentially different instructional strategies and faculty interaction, it would be interesting to see if informal faculty mentors remained a significant factor in studentsÕ lives. Addit ional research could compare engineering students who have identified a strong support person within the College of Engineering to those whose mentor is external to it and examine similar factors such as major commitment, persistence, and self -efficacy in relation to engineering courses , mentors, and faculty . Participant GPA and Mentoring Experiences Of the students who participated in the current study , seven were members of the Honors College and the average GPA at the time of the interviews was a 3.41 /4.00. The average GPA for students admitted to the College of Engineering is approximately a 3.25, and at Michigan State University, one in six members of the Honors College is an engineering major (T. F. Wolff, personal communication, March 1, 2015). Fu ture research could expand on the current study of perceptions of climate to include those with lower GPAs or those who placed into lower level math classes at the time of matriculation . Students with a lower math placement are limited in the number of engineering courses available to them due to prerequisite course requirements, which can lead to a higher number of courses taken outside of the College of Engineering in the 132 first few years at Michigan State University compared to their peers with higher ma th placements . Given the large number of Honors College members, participants in the current study may have had higher than average numbers of Advanced Placement courses and transfer credits when entering MSU, putting them into classes not typical of firs t year student schedules . Honors College substitution courses may include smaller classes , more experienced faculty, more non -first year students, and be of more topical interest to participants than the required general education courses . Honors College substitution courses may foster faculty -student interactions in a different way than typical early student experiences due to faculty instruction, peer role -modeling, and environmental norms in those courses . Future expansion of this study could include students with more traditional first -year student schedules to gather more information about their non -engineering class experiences and how they impact student approaches to faculty engagement across all disciplines . These stu dents would have more typica l, or average GPAs, generally closer to a 3.2 ( T. F. Wolff, personal communication, March 1, 2015) , capable of gaining admission to the College of Engineering, but may not have the same level of academic capital or preparation when beginning college. Addi tional research could include a focus on students who participated in the mentoring program and left engineering for other majors to gain insight into their perspectives on the engineering environment and their relationship with their faculty mentors. Gender Formal mentoring programs offer legitimacy to diversified mentoring relationships, provide educational opportunities and foster upward mobility for those facing challenges in informal mentoring situations (Baugh & Fagenson -Eland, 2007). One such chal lenge in male 133 dominant fields is the shortage of female mentors for same gender pairings (Allen & Eby, 2004) . Empirical data on both same gender and cross gender mentoring pairs in fields where women are traditionally underrepresented, such as engineering , is lacking (Ragins & Kram, 2007). The validity of cross -gender mentoring relationships varies across disciplines (Jacobi, 1991) . In the management field, male mentors indicated that they provided more career mentoring functions to prot”g”s, while femal e mentors said they offered more psychosocial mentoring functions to female rather than male prot”g”s ( Ragins & Kram , 2007). In the current study, several CF female faculty mentors requested groups of female mentees and these requests were honored when po ssible. While the current study did not focus on gender pairings of faculty and students , future studies examining student experie nces with same gender and cross -gender mentoring in engineering education could shed light on whether or not gender impacts t he mentoring experience for women students, as women are still under repre sented among engineering students and faculty . Effects on Mentors Research on the effects of formal mentoring relationships on the mentors themselves is lacking (Allen et al. , 2006). The current study does not examine the experience of faculty mentors in the mentoring program, nor does it look at how the faculty view their relationships with early engineering students in general. Faculty mentor data could be used to analyze congruen ce between faculty perceptions of their interactions with students and studentsÕ perceptions of their interactions with faculty. Future research exploring the faculty perspective on both the mentoring program and general student intera ctions would provide information that could be used t o train future faculty mentors or close the gap between m entor and prot”g” expectations. 134 Implications for P ractice This section discusses implications for future practice based on the results of the current study. As tuit ion costs and enrollment numbers escalate, faculty are increasingly expected to serve as resources for students in lieu of hiring additional student affairs professionals, such as professional academic advisors and student group advisors, creating more opp ortunities for student -faculty interaction ( Cotten & Wilson, 2006). As these opportunities are created, it is necessary to provide faculty with the proper means to address student ne eds and to utilize existing programs and resources. Suggestions are both specific to the mentoring program as well as general to student -faculty interaction, not specific to mentoring. Alternatives to Mentoring Mentoring relationships can be highly beneficial and proven to eng age students with faculty ; they can also be very t ime consuming for both faculty mentors who are balancing research, teaching, and service, as well as engineering students who devote much of their time to educational commitments (Jacobi, 1991) . Providing meaningful, structured ways for students to intera ct with faculty outside of the classroom that do not require large time commitments of either students or faculty can be challenging. One such solution could be d epartment specific, interactive faculty panels , where faculty discuss their experiences and t heir career paths as members of a specific discipline . The target audience would be a group of students interested in that particular major . The panels should be done in s mall groups such that the faculty -student ratio is no larger than 1:10, which would allow students to personally interact with faculty if they choose to do so. Successful outreach programs in the College of Engineering that specifically target women often include a panel of female faculty members sharing their experiences as women in a 135 predominantly male field (C. L. OÕDonohue , personal communication, March 27, 2015 ). Panelists discuss their career paths, work -life balance, and provide information about the courses they teach and their specific engineering majors. Faculty also could share helpful information for students regarding how to interact with faculty, how to secure internships, and study tips. Faculty panels could be held twice during the academic year, once in the spring and once in the fall so that students can recognize fa culty, become familiar with their research, and begin to make connections within their chosen majors. Panels could take place in the residence halls, bringing faculty to the students, utilizing a space that is comfortable and familiar to students, as opposed to faculty offices. Faculty time is limited with teaching, research, and service commitments. In the classroom faculty are bound by engineering accreditation requirements and restricted by dense course content and required progress for scaffolded cour se sequences . At a large research institution class size and classroom setup are limiting and may not be conducive to fac ulty -student interaction. However, faculty can be overt with their messages , both verbally and on the syllabus , to indicate accessibi lity and approachability . Faculty are required to hold office hours and can utilize that time to develop relationships with students . Students may be more likely to attend office hours if faculty explain that the time is available to all students, not ju st those struggling in class. Students in the current study shared their experiences in the College of Engineering Cornerstone and Residential Experience program (CORE). CORE is a living -learning community, similar to a residential college, occupied by th e majority of early engineering students that serves as a small society of students and faculty wi thin a large r university focused on a particular field of study and integrate s academic and social resources within a residential 136 setting . The primary goal o f such groups is to foster an increased sense of community within the larger university (Cox & Orehovec, 2007). Faculty are arbiters of culture in engineering education, yet are markedly absent from the residential program , aside from teaching early cours es in the residential building classrooms . All first year engineering students, regardless of housing placement, are invited to participate in the wide array of co -curricular activities offered by the CORE program. The college could utilize the existing resources of the CORE program to create opportunities for student -faculty interaction, such as hosting events where students could meet and interact with faculty or inviting faculty to guest lecture on topics of interest outside of regular course material. Integrating the faculty into the residential experience more could provide an easy venue for out of class interaction between students and faculty , as opposed to meeting for office hours in faculty offices , which participants viewed as potentially awkwar d, and in unfamiliar settings . Suggestions for M entoring Program Despite its widespread popularity and proliferation in business and educational settings, the efficacy of formal mentoring has been, and continues to be, a point of debate in existing literature ( e.g., Allen et al., 2006; Crisp & Cruz, 2009 ; Jacobi, 1991). Formal mentoring partnerships are commonly designed similar to the Connector Faculty program, to last for one year, and often have a third party pair the mentors and the prot”g”s (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). By comparison, i nformal mentoring relationships often develop organically, without a managed structure forming the partnership and providing assistance. Relationships based on the partiesÕ own choice or mutual attraction are more effective than those formed through assignment. In higher education, the extent of the existence of informal mentoring relationships in both graduate and undergraduate edu cation is largely unknown, as such relationships are nearly impossible to 137 track (Crisp & Cruz , 2009; Jacobi , 1991). Should a similar student -faculty mentoring program be attempted, more structured guidance should be given to both engineering faculty and student participants in terms of program expectations and instructions on how to interact. Setting clear expectations and providing program guidelines would help manage expectations for both student participants and faculty mentors. Participants in the current study were unsure as to how the mentoring program worked and how much interaction to exp ect from their mentors. Several students mentioned that they expected more mentoring, closer relationships, and more contact with their mentors. Because the current study did not examine the experiences of the faculty mentors, there is no way of knowing their expectations or vi ews on student interactions. It can be infer red , based on participant perspectives that there was some discrepancy between faculty actions and student expectations in terms of amount of contact, faculty interest, and response time to student requests. The availability of program procedures could help the program run more efficiently, and create a more positive experience for everyone involved. Research indicates that offering training for both mentors and prot”g”s prior to the sta rt of a formal mentoring program could make the partnerships more significant by clarifying roles, defining objectives, and establishing mutually agreed upon mentorship e xpectations (Allen et al. , 2006; Johnson, 2002). Additionally, having students supply mentors with brief forms in advance of being paired with a mentor that indicates studentsÕ academic interests, strengths, and goals for the mentoring interactions could be helpful for faculty or those planning mentoring activities. While one of the ben efits of faculty -student interaction outside the classroom is students get to know faculty in an informal capacity, many students joined the program in hopes of being partnered with a faculty member who could advance their position within the College of 138 Engineering, help them stand out among their peers, and be recognized by a faculty member who could look out for them. Students sought to cultivate references, make professional connections, and secure research opportunities. In addition to informal gather ings such as lunches or m eeting for coffee, career or research focused activities could be planned during the year for students and their mentors to provide a Òpre -approvedÓ venue for students to ask questions about career paths and get to know faculty bet ter. Such activities could be done in conjunction with the career services office specific to the College of Engineering , The Center, which, from student comments, they value and utilize frequently . Several participants in the current study mentioned re search possibilities with faculty as an impetus for signing up for the mentoring program. Participants recognized that research positions are important, yet at a large institution, securing them can be very competitive, even for high achieving students. Based on the comments shared, students need more guidance identifying and pursuing these opportunities. Websites exist that are maintained by MSU faculty hiring research assistants, but are not often up to date and students at this stage are largely unawa re that they exist. Even if faculty do not have positions available in their labs, or if they do not have labs themselves, they do have the knowledge and experience to train students for future opportunities. Early engineering students may not have the a cademic background yet to be competitive for research, but with exposure to advanced case studies or lab reports, they could be competitive upon completion of advanced coursework. A suggestion for future mentoring program activities could be to have facul ty mentors host book clubs focu sed on engineering case studies or do critiques of lab reports to give students exposure to work that would make them more competitive for undergraduate research opportunities. 139 Implications for T heory BanduraÕs Social Cogn itive Theory ( 1986) shaped the current study. SCT posits that environment, behavior, and self are mutually influencing factors upon one another ; a change in one factor results in changes in the other factors. Behavior is influenced by an individualÕs env ironment and belief system, including self -efficacy . Initially, this framework appeared to be applicable, as perception of environment was the focus of the current study. However, upon analyzing the data, participants did not view their environment in wa ys that aligned with previous research, and, perhaps as a result, the mentoring program did not affect student perception of the environment , certainly not to the extent intended by those who initiated it . A framework that includes environmental factors, identity development, and faculty -student expectations would be ideal for studying such programs. There is no framework specifically designed to examine mentoring relationships, a commonly cited challenge . As mentioned in Chapter One, disparities among the three disciplines in which mentoring is most frequently studied ha ve created the absence of even a common definition of mentoring. Currently cited definitions are discipline specific and reflect that discipline (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Equally problemat ic is the lack of theory necessary to inform researchers about studentsÕ perceptions of their experiences with mentors and the roles and functions provided within mentoring relationships (Crisp & Cruz , 2009; Jacobi, 1991; Merriam, 1983). It is estimated t hat thousands of scholarly articles have been published on the subject of mentoring, yet despite the popularity of mentoring research in business, education, and adult development, basic essential and theoretical issues are absent (Allen et al. , 2006). A specific theory examining student mentoring by faculty would be greatly beneficial, given the 140 number of studies examining faculty -student interaction and the increasing popularity of mentoring programs in higher education . Conclusion Faculty members are c ritical socializing agents by virtue of their position as academic leaders who create and manipulate culture, and provide organizational meaning for students. This type of socialization is especially pertinent in engineering education, where faculty often facilitate student engagement with both the major and the profession. Existing research implies that students who spent time informally with faculty have increased student satisfaction, greater academic achievement, and higher rates of persistence. Informal contexts are generally out of class, allowing for friendly exchanges over subject matter not bound by course content. This study provide d an in -depth examination of the experiences of early engineering students at a large, public research university t hat participated in a programmatic intervention to improve perception of climate by implementing a formal, faculty -student mentoring program. The key component of BanduraÕs Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (1986), the theoretical framework utilized in this s tudy, is triadic reciprocal causation, which explains human action in terms of three mutually influencing factors: environment, self, and behavior. PeopleÕs feelings, beliefs, and thoughts influence their behavior, therefore a change in one factor influen ces change in the others, and consequently, the outcome. In the current study, faculty -student interaction was used in attempt to influence studentsÕ environmental perceptions. Results of the current study indicate d that despite high grade point average s and significant involvement by the study participants, many were intimidated by engineering faculty, had fears of imposter syndrome, and sought out faculty connection in the humanities and social sciences. Engineering students found non Ðengineering facu lty approachable and personable due 141 to teaching styles, personalities, and subject matter of coursework. The majority of participants were not intimidated by non -engineering faculty, and felt comfortable interacting with them , both in and out of the class room. However, participant comments on their interactions with engineering faculty in the classroom were not entirely positive. Feedback from the majority of participants on their interactions with their engineering faculty mentors was very positive. As ide from a few students who had hoped for more responsive faculty or more time with their mentors, the major of participants had very favorable experiences in the program. Engineering faculty mentors were approachable, helpful, and kind, and made particip ants feel more at home within the college. Several students shared that their mentors helped solidify their interest in their specific engineering major. As the current study indicates, there was a great deal of external pressure from family and peer gr oups as well as self -imposed pressure to complete engineering degrees often as quickly as possible to secure jobs in industry, often excluding social activities, diverse social networks, and relationships with faculty as a result of the felt pressure . Depending on the engineering program and how the student experience is structured, there might not be an expectation for student -faculty interaction. For engineering students whose course work is often technical in nature, and not always conducive to the typ es of identity shaping discussions that can occur in humanities or social science classrooms, offering structured , or formal programs to facilitate informal contact between students and faculty can be a challenging, yet potentially rewarding experience for students . Given the extensive research demonstrating the benefits of such interaction, mentoring programs such as the one in the current study could be highly beneficial to early engineering students if implemented properly and with appropriately engaged faculty mentors. The College 142 of Engineering has a good foundation on which to continue to build an exemplary mentoring program for early engineering majors. 143 APPENDICES 144 Appendix A Interview Protocol 1.!Why did you decide to attend MSU? 2.!What lead you to choose an engineering major? a.!When did you decide to become an engineer? 3.!What does it mean to you to be associated with the College of Engineering? a.!Academic importance b.!Job prospects c.!Parental/family influence/pressure d.!Prestige 4.!Tell me about your experiences as an engineering student. a.!Classes (EGR & non -EGR classes) b.!Homework c.!Friends/Social Life d.!Extracurricular Activities 5.!Are there aspects of EGR that you would change, aside from workload? 6.!What do you appreciate about the College of Engineering? 7.!How have these experiences compared to your expectations prior to starting college? a.!Classes (EGR & non -EGR classes) b.!Homework c.!Friends/Social Life d.!Extracurricular Activities 8.!What have your interactions with EGR faculty been like? a.!In class b.!Out of class 9.!Do you think that EGR faculty members treat all students equally? Why? a.!Behavior indicators/Examples? 10.!Do you think that gender plays a role in faculty treatment of students? 11.!Why did you decide to participate in the Connector Faculty Program? 12.!Tell me about your experiences with your Connector Faculty mentor. a.!E-mails b.!In person meetings c.!Group activities 13.!How have your CF mentor interactions influenced your perceptions of the College of Engineering? 14.!Have your thoughts about your major changed since interacting wit h your CF mentor? How so? 145 Appendix B Participa nt Information and Consent Form Dear Participant: You are being asked to participate in a research study regarding student impressions of engineering culture and mentoring. Your participation in this stu dy will contribute to a body of research intended to improve the climate for undergraduate students majoring in engineering. Your participation will consist of one, 60 -minute interview, and completing one background information sheet. There is a possibili ty you will be contacted again for follow -up information or to answer clarification questions. Data will be collected by Colleen McDonough, under the supervision of Dr. Marilyn Amey. Your responses will be kept anonymous through the use of pseudonyms and all potentially identifying information will be de -identified. For your efforts, you will receive a $20 Meijer gift card. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any time. If you are under the age o f 18, you may not participate. You can choose not to answer specific questions, or not participate at all. There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study. The interviews will be recorded. You can request that the recorder be turned off at any time, or not used at all. Recordings of interviews, notes taken during interview sessions, and information forms with participant data will be kept in a secure location to protect participant privacy for three years prior to the study. Should you hav e questions regarding the study, please feel free to contact the researcher, Colleen McDonough, at mcdono56@msu.edu, or at (310) -592-2483, or her faculty advisor, Dr. Marilyn Amey, in the Department of Educational Administration at amey@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University 's Human Research Protection Program at 517 -355-2180, Fax 517 -432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. _____________________________________________________ _______________________ Sign ature of Participant Date _____________________________________________________ Name of Participant (please print) 146 REFERENCES 147 REFERENCES Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2004). Factors related to mentor reports of mentoring functions provided: Gender and relational characteristics. Sex Roles , 50(1-2), 129-139. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of App lied Psychology, 91 (3), 567-578. Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54(3), 453-470. Alvesson, M., & Skıldberg, K. (2000 ). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Asmussen, K. J., & Creswell, J. W. (1995). Campus response to a student gunman. The Journal of Higher Education , 66(5), 575-591. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critic al years. Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (4), 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1985) . Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1993). Undergraduate science education: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences . Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Ballantine, J. (1989). University teaching around th e world. Teaching Sociology , 17(3), 291-296. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. W. (1993). Perceived self -efficacy in cognitive development and functioni ng. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148. 148 Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly , 37(3), 363-399. Baugh, S. G., & Fagenson -Eland, E. A. (2007). Formal mentoring programs: A "poor cousin" to informal relationships? In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 249-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Bea n, J. P., & Kuh, G. D. (1984). The reciprocity between student -faculty informal contact and academic performance of university undergraduate students. Research in Higher Education, 21 (4), 461-477. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Joss ey-Bass. Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianathan, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education , 93(2), 153-160. Blake -Beard, S., Bayne, M. L., Crosby, F. J., & Muller, C. B. (2 011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues , 67(3), 622-643. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education , 17(4), 369-386. Bowen, D. D. (1986). The role of identification in mentoring female prot”g”es. Group & Organization Management, 11 (1-2), 61-74. Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring. Administration & Society, 39 (6), 719-739. Brain ard, S. G. (2003). Mentoring: Lessons learned and research questions. Paper presented at meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and National Science Foundation Committee on Equal Opportuni ties in the Sciences and Engineering. Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six -year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87 (4), 369-376. Burke, R. J. (2007). Women and minorities in STE M: A primer. In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 3-27), Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Campbell, T., & Campbell, D. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38 (6), 727-742. 149 Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51 (1), 15-28. Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non -mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45 (3), 619-636. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2002). Equal but separate? A cross -national study of sex segregation in hi gher education. American Sociological Review , 67(4), 573-599. Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., & Hamilton, E. R. (2008). Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of faculty to student engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education , 97(3), 339-353. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass Inc. Chubin, D. E., May, G. S., & Babco, E. L. (2005). Diversifying the engineering workforce. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 73-86. Clark, B. R. (1960). The open door college: A case study . New York: McGraw -Hill. Clark, B. R. (1963). Faculty organization and authority. In T. Lansford (Ed.), The Study of Academic Administration (pp. 76-93). Boulder, CO: WICHE. Clark, B. R. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in highe r education. Administrative Science Quarterly , 17(2), 178-184. Clewell, B. C., & Ficklen, M. S. (1986). Improving minority retention in higher education: A search for effective institutional practices. ETS Research Report Series , 1986(1), i-157. Colbeck, C . L., Cabrera, A. F., & Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students' self -perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education , 24(2), 173-191. Cosgrove, T. J. (1986). The effects of participation in a mentoring -transcript program on freshmen. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27 (2), 119-124. Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student -faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants. Higher Education , 51(4), 487-519. 150 Courter, S. S., Millar, S. B., & Lyons, L. (1998). From the students' point of view: Experiences in a freshman engineering design course. Journal of Engineering Education , 87(3), 283-288. Cox, B. E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty -student interaction outside the classroom: A typology fro m a residential college. The Review of Higher Education , 30(4), 343-362. Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Terenzini, P. T., Reason, R. D., & Quaye, B. R. L. (2010). Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: Factors shaping faculty -student interaction out side the classroom. Research in Higher Education , 51(8), 767-788. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Qualita tive inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39 (3), 124-130. Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (20 09). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50 (6), 525-545. Dancy, T. E., & Brown, M. C. (2011). The mentoring and induction of educators of color: Addressing the imposter syndro me in academe. Journal of School Leadership , 21(4), 607-634. DeAngelo, L. (2009). Can I go? An exploration of the influences of attending a less selective institution on studentsÕ aspirations and preparation for the PhD. In M. F. Howard -Hamilton, C. L. Mo relon - Quinanoo, S. D. Johnson, R. Winkle -Wagner, & L. Sintiaque (Eds.), Standing on the outside looking in: Multiple causes, implications, and potential remedies to address underrepresentation among minorities in graduate programs (pp. 25-44). Sterling, V A: Stylus Publishing, LLC. DeAngelo, L. (2010). Preparing for the PhD at a comprehensive institution: Perceptions of the Òbarriers.Ó Journal of the Professoriate, 3 (2), 17-49. Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture an d organizational climate? A nativeÕs point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619Ð654. Dill, D. D. (1982). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of meaning and social integration, Higher Educati on, 11(3), 303-320. Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (2007). Mentoring and career outcomes: Conceptual and methodological issues in an emerging literature. In B. R. Ragins, & K. E. Kram (Eds.), 151 The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and pract ice (pp. 51-93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dryburgh, H. (1999). Work hard, play hard: Women and professionalization in engineering Ð adapting to the culture. Gender & Society, 13 (5), 664-682. Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T. , & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta -analysis comparing mentored and non -mentored individuals. Journal of V ocational Behavior , 72(2), 254-267. Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The pr otege's perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57 (1), 1-21. Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (2004). In conflict and order (10th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ellinger, A. D. (2002 ). Mentoring in contexts: The workplace and educational institutions. In C. Hansman, V. Mott, A. D. Ellinger, & T. Guy (Eds.), Critical perspectives on mentoring: Trends and issues. ERIC Info Series No. 388 (pp. 39-48). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of student -faculty interaction on students' educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16 (2), 115-138. Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contac t on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 (3), 460-481. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society . New York: Norton. Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of prot”g”s versus non -prot”g”s. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10 (4), 309-320. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education , 78(7), 674-681. Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C. E., & Dietz, E. J. (19 95). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education , 84(2), 151-163. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Fox, M. F., Sonnert, G., & Nikiforova, I. (2009). Successful programs for undergraduate women in science and engineering: Adapting versus adopting the institutional environment. Research in Higher Education , 50(4), 333-353. 152 Fox, M. F., Sonnert, G., & Nikiforova, I. (2011). Programs for undergraduate women in science and engineering. Gender & Society, 25 (5), 589-615. Frehill, L. M. (2004). The gendered construction of the engineering profession in the United States, 1893 -1920. Men and Masculinities, 6 (4), 383-403. Fuentes, M. V., Alvarado, A. R., Berdan, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2014). Mentorship matters: Does early faculty contact lead to quality faculty interaction? Research in Higher Education , 55(3), 288-307. Gale, A. W. (1994). W omen in non -traditional occupations: The construction industry. Women in Management Review, 9 (2), 3-14. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Genn, J. M., & Harden, R. M. (1986). What is medical education here really li ke? Suggestions for action research studies of climates of medical education environments. Medical Teacher, 8 (2), 111-124. George, Y. S., & Neale, D. (2006). Report from study group meetings to develop a research and action agenda on STEM career and workfo rce mentoring. American Association for the Advancement of Science Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs. Gereffi, G., Wadhwa, V., Rissing, B., & Ong, R. (2008). Getting the numbers right: International engineering education in the United States, China, and India. Journal of Engineering Education , 97(1), 13-25. Gibson, D. E. (2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 65(1), 134-156. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitat ive researchers: An introduction (3rd Ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99 (1), 5-22. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Ess ays on face -to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books. Graves, K. D. (2003). Social cognitive theory and cancer patients' quality of life: A meta -analysis of psychosocial intervention components. Health Psychology, 22 (2), 210-219. Hacker, S. L. (1981). Th e culture of engineering: Woman, workplace and machine. Women's Studies International Quarterly, 4 (3), 341-353. 153 Hacker, S. L. (1983). Mathematization of engineering: Limits on women and the field. In J. Rothschild (Ed.), Machina Ex Dea (pp. 38-58). Elmsfo rd, NY: Pergamon. Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 89Ð106). Wes tport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. (200 7). Career cycles and mentoring. In B. R. Ragins, & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (pp. 471-497). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hansford, B. C., Ehrich, L. C., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(4), 518-540. Healy, C. C., & Welchert, A. J. (1990). Mentoring relations: A definition to advance research and practice. Educational Researcher, 19 (9), 17-21. Hegstad, C. D. (1999). Formal mentoring as a strategy for human resource development: A review of research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (4), 383-390. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & Rose, A. S. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review , 8(3), 475-485. Jacobi, M. (19 91). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research , 61(4), 505-532. James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review , 13(1), 129-132. Johnson, C. S. (1989). Mentoring programs. In M. L. Upcraft & J. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp.118-128). San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Johnson, M. J., & Sheppard, S. D. (2004). Relationshi ps between engineering student and faculty demographics and stakeholders working to affect change. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (2), 139-151. Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (1), 88. 154 Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2008). The elements of mentoring . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Johnson, W. B., Koch, C., Fallow, G. O., & Huwe, J. M. (2000). Prevalence of mentoring in clinical ve rsus experimental doctoral programs: Survey findings, implications, and recommendations. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37 (4), 325-344. Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of indiv idual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 23(2), 201-250. Jorgenson, J. (2002). Engineering selves negotiating gender and identity in technical work. Management Communication Quarterly, 15 (3), 350-380. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Pool halls, chips, and war games: Women in the culture of computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34 (2), 159-164. Klasen, N., & Clu tterbuck, D. (2001). Implementing mentoring schemes: A practical guide to successful programs. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth -Heinemann. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal , 26(4), 608-625. Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training & Development Journal . 39(4), 40-43. Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life . Lantham, MD: University Press of America. Kramer, G.L., & Spencer, R.W. (1989). Acade mic advising. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The freshmen year experience: Helping students survive in college (pp. 95-107). San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student -faculty interaction in the 1 990s. The Review of Higher Education , 24(3), 309-332. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities. ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Edu cation. Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high -tech corporation . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 155 Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student -faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28(112), 971-990. Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2007). Mentoring as a forum for personal learning in organizations. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 95-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Levinson, B. A., Foley, D. E., & Holland, D. C. (Eds.). (1996). The cultural production of the educated person: Critical ethnographies of schooling and local practice . Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Levinson, D. J ., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a manÕs life . New York: Knopf. Levitz, R. S., Noel, L., & Richter, B. J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success. In G.H. Gaither (Ed.), Promising practices in recruitment, r emediation, and retention: New Directions for Higher Education, n. 108 (pp. 31Ð50). San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and success. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & Associate s (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 65-81). San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Light, D. (1974). Introduction: The structure of the academic professions. Sociology of Education , 47(1), 2-28. Lincoln, Y., & Gruba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Long, J. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. The Australian Educational Researcher, 24 (2), 115-133. Lowell, B. L., Salzman, H., Bernstein, H., & Henderson, E. (2009). Stead y as she goes? Three generations of students through the science and engineering pipeline. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC. Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering th e faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3 . Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty -student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45 (5), 549-565. Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self!efficacy: A multi !year, multi !institution study of wome n engineering student self !efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education , 98(1), 27-38. 156 Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2012). Leaving engineering: A multi !year single institution study. Journal of Engineering Education , 101(1), 6-27. Marsh, S. L., Trytten, D. A., Reed -Rhoads, T., & Murphy, T. J. (2008, July). Faculty -student interactions in engineering: The influence of social reproductions on representing of the sexes. Research in Engineering Education Symposium . Davos, Switzerland . Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12 (2), 52-64. Marx, D. M., & Roman, J. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting womenÕs math test performance. Personality and Social Psy chology Bulletin , 28(9), 1183-1193. Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education, Review of Higher Education, 8 (2), 157-168. Maverick, L. A. (1926). The vocational guidance of college students (Vol. 8). Boston , MA : Harvard University Press. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Mayo, M. J. (2007). Games for science and engineering education. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 30-35. McIlwee, J. S., & Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. McLoughlin, L. A. (2005). Spotlighting: Emergent gender bias in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Educat ion, 94 (4), 373-381. Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33 (3), 161-173. Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . Hoeboken, NJ: John Wiley & So ns. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Montgomery, S. L. (1994). Minds for the making . New York: Guilford. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 157 Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41 (3), 457-479. Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2007). Mentoring students: Conceptualizing and validating the multi -dimensions of a support system. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice , 9(3), 337-356. Ohland, M. W., Shep pard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (3), 259-278. Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizati onal climate and culture. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12 (pp. 565-593). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Pace, C. R. (1963). College & u niversity environme nt scales . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Pascarella E. T., & Terenzini P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research . San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student -faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50 (4), 545-595. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1976). Informal interaction with faculty and freshman ratings of academic and non -academic experience of college. The Journal of Educational Research , 70(1), 35-41. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Student -faculty informal contact and college persistence: A further investigation. The Journal of Educational Research , 72(4), 214-218. Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Hibel, J. (1978). Student -faculty interactional settings and their relationship to predicted academic performance. The Journal of Higher Education, 49(4), 450-463. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alc ohol education programming. Substance Use & Misuse , 21(9-10), 961-976. 158 Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., Dainty, A., & Neale, R. (2004). Does the engineering culture in UK higher education advance womenÕs careers? Equal Opportunities International, 23 (7/8), 21-38. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource -based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 22-40. Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power p erspective. Academy of Management Review, 22 (2), 482-521. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84(4), 529. Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and progra m design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal , 43(6), 1177-1194. Reskin, B. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology , 19(1993), 241-270. Robinson, J. G., & Mcllwee, J. S. (1991). Men, women, and the cultur e of engineering. Sociological Quarterly, 32 (3), 403-421. Roche, G. R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57 (Jan), 14 -28. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2011). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research . Thousan d Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Rugarcia, A., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., & Stice, J. E. (2000). The future of engineering education I. A vision for a new century. Chemical Engineering Education , 34(1), 16-25. Sagebiel, F., & Dahmen, J. (2006). Mascul inities in organizational cultures in engineering education in Europe: Results of the European Union project WomEng. European Journal of Engineering Education , 31(01), 5-14. Sandler, B. R., & Hall, R. M. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for wome n. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges . Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Harper, C. E. (2005). The differential effects of student -faculty interaction on college outcomes for women and men. Journal of College Student Development , 46(6), 642-657. 159 Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24 (3), 449-467. Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between mentorship initi ation and prot”g” perceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 (3), 342-363. Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (2) 229-240. Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A . N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87(2), 220. Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education , 79(4), 437-473. Seymour, E. H., & Hewett, N. M. N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences . Boulder, CO: Westview. Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013). Discipline !based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education , 102(4), 468-471. Sparrow, J. (2001). Knowledge management in small firms. Knowledge and Process Management , 8(1), 3-16. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stevens, R., O'Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A., & Amos, D. M. (2008). Becoming an engineer: Toward a three dimensional view of engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education , 97(3), 355-368. Strauss, A ., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Strauss, K. (1988). Engineering ideology. Physical Science, Measurement and Instrumentation, Management and Edu cation -Reviews, IEE Proceedings A , 135(5), 261-265. Studdaby, R. (2010). Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review. 35 (3), 346Ð357. Sturm, S. (2006). The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29 (2), 247-334. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. Journal of Higher Education , 59(1), 2-21. 160 Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research , 45(1), 89-125. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd Ed.) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1997). Classr ooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education , 68(6), 599-623. Tonso, K. L. (1996). The impact of cultural norms on women. Journal of Engineering Education , 85(3), 217-225. Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs: Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 577-596. Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1985). The relationship of noncognitive v ariables to academic success: A longitudinal comparison by race. Journal of College Student Personnel 26 (5), 405-410. Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46 (2), 153-184. Vogt, C. M. (2008). Faculty as a critical juncture in student retention and performance in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (1), 27-36. Vogt, C. M., Hocevar, D., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2007). A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women's and men's success in engineering programs. The Journal of Higher Education , 78(3), 337-364. Whittaker, M., & Cartwright, A. (2000). The mentoring manual . Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company. Wilson, J. A., & Elman, N. S. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. The Executive , 4(4), 88-94. Wilson, R. C., Wood, L., & Gaff, J. G. (1974). Social -psychological accessibility and faculty - student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology of Education , 47(1), 74-92. Wrightsman, L. S. (1981, August). Research methodologies for assessing mentoring . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Wulf, W. A. (1998). The urgency of engineering education r eform. In E. W. Ernst, & I. C. Peden (Eds.), Realizing the New Paradigm for Engineering Education: Proceedings of the 1998 Engineering Foundation Conference (pp. 28Ð30). New York: EFC. 161 Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Young, A. M., & Perrew”, P. L. (2000). The exchange relationship between mentors and prot”g”s: The development of a framework. Human Resource Management Review , 10(2), 177-209. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self -regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 81(3), 329.