This full research category paper examines the ways Latinx students' social networks are leveraged as capital to inform their engineering identity development, sense of belonging, and persistence beliefs. There is a dearth of literature discussing how Latinx students' capital is used in engineering coursework and how that capital, in turn, supports important affective and motivational measures. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to answer the following research question: How does Latinx students' social and familial capital used to support their coursework inform their sense of belonging, recognition, and persistence beliefs? Data for this study came from survey responses from 226 Latinx undergraduate engineering students. We found that Latinx students' recognition in engineering was fostered by the course-related advice and resources they received from their peers. Course-related advice from family members bolstered Latinx students' confidence to perform well in their courses. Utilizing family and school peers as resources to help with schoolwork subsequently promoted Latinx students' classroom belongingness. The expressive support received from family members, neighborhood friends, and school peers was also an influential form of capital supporting their sense of belonging and beliefs about persisting. Underscoring how families have helped their students throughout their engineering degree further contributes to the premise that minoritized students' families and communities are rich with capital that should be valued in engineering. We provide suggestions on how instructors can create a space for students to formally draw from the experiences of their family and friends to support their learning.

Studies on mastery learning applied to undergraduate engineering courses have revealed various positive results for students, including enhancing content mastery. Yet, there is a lack of information on how a mastery learning class influences the mindsets related to students' learning motivation, specifically students' growth mindset. In this Work-in--Progress Research paper, we describe the shifts in the growth mindset of a first-generation Latino college student, Rafael, who experienced a mastery learning environment, for the first time, in a Statics engineering course. Specifically, the research questions we investigated were: how did a mastery learning environment affect Rafael's mindset,? and how is Rafael's mindset related to the growth mindset? We longitudinally interviewed Rafael at three-time points. We used thematic analysis to extract three salient themes related to how Rafael's growth mindset evolved while experiencing a mastery learning environment and how he further developed academically throughout his mastery learning participation. First, Rafael described himself as having a “determination mindset” in his courses that led him to keep trying until he got the correct answer to a problem. Second, interviews affirmed that the mastery learning environment cultivated Rafael's “determination” predisposition and that the mastery learning environment kept Rafael motivated and hopeful, even after difficult assessments, which bolstered his growth mindset. Finally, the availability of retake opportunities allowed Rafael to further develop academically. Findings from our analysis show how a mastery learning environment supports students' growth mindset, which can lead to academic growth beyond what a traditional engineering course may offer.

Within engineering, internship experiences are upheld as a high-impact practice for students to increase practical knowledge and gain workforce preparation. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of participating in an engineering internship on the career development of racially minoritized students. We used a quasi-experimental research design to examine the experiences of racially minoritized students who participated in an internship program, titled Corporate Scholars, hosted by the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME), during the Summer of 2022. We conducted a one-group pretest-posttest design followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of the participants. Pre-and post-survey responses were collected for 33 students, and interviews were conducted with 10 of the 33 students. We found that students had a range of experiences with their company that influenced their perceptions of their internship, their company, and the field of engineering. The internship experience appeared to impact vocational identity and building occupational interest. Additionally, we found tensions in students' perceptions of engineering as a result of their internship and found that their perceptions of their company were dependent on mentor's and workplace support. The results of this work could provide useful insight into how to better support engineering students, inform program practices, and increase retention in the field of engineering.

This full research category paper examines how first-generation college students' mathematics and physics identity support the development of an engineering identity and how the three STEM identities support students' commitment to choose an engineering major. This study focuses on first-year, first-generation college students in engineering ($n=616$). The purpose of only focusing on first-year students was to understand how their decision to pursue engineering is shaped before engaging in engineering or college coursework. Structural equation modeling was used to test direct and indirect paths of students' STEM identities on engineering major commitment. First-generation college students' perceptions of themselves as capable and interested mathematics learners supported their views of themselves as capable physics and engineering learners. Forming an identity as a math and physics person supported the development of an engineering identity. First-generation college students' engineering identity supported their confidence of choosing an engineering major. However, female and Latinx first-generation college students were less likely to see themselves as physics people. Female first-generation college students were also less confident about their choice to pursue engineering. The findings elucidate the difference each subject-related role identities have on first-generation college students' developing engineering identity and confidence in their major choice.

In this full, research category paper, we examined the differences in subject-related role identities of first-generation and continuing-generation college students by gender. Subject-related identities have been linked to important educational outcomes and consist of identifying as a math person, physics person, and an engineer. These identities are formed through interrelated factors such as interest in the subject, beliefs about being able to understand the subject material (i.e., performance/competence beliefs), and internal/external recognition. The data came from a large-scale survey administered in introductory to engineering courses at 32 four-year ABET accredited institutions. Women in particular were significantly more likely to be interested in mathematics compared to men. Additionally, our study indicates that women first-generation and continuing-generation college students were less likely to be recognized externally and internally as a physics person, while men continuing-generation college students were more likely to have external and internal recognition in physics. Both men first-generation and continuing-generation college student groups were more likely to feel confident in their abilities to understand and do well in physics. Men in both groups were more likely to feel confident in their abilities to understand and do well in engineering compared to women in either group. Both women and men who are first-generation college students were less likely to feel like engineers in their first-semester of their engineering program. These results illustrate the areas of strength with which first-generation and continuing-generation college students enter engineering programs, as well as the areas of continued support for their developing identities.

This research category work-in-progress paper describes a beginning examination of how to adapt the identity trajectory theory from its original use with graduate students and early career faculty to understand how early career undergraduate students develop identities as engineers over time. This study focuses on students who have diverse attitudes, beliefs, and mindsets, i.e., latent diversity, to understand how engineering education and culture may support or hinder students' identity development in and out of the classroom. In this paper, we use the identity trajectory theory to explore students' stories about their background, pathway into engineering, and first-year engineering experiences. We are adapting the three strands of this framework (institutional, intellectual, and networking) in addition to identifying additional or supplementary strands to make meaning of the students' identity trajectories in engineering. We probed the aforementioned strands through narrative interviews with 26 engineering students. This preliminary work describes the challenges and affordances of translating this framework into narrative research with undergraduates and provides new ways of understanding identity development.

This work-in-progress research paper stems from a larger project where we are developing and gathering validity evidence for an instrument to measure undergraduate students' perceptions of support in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The refinement of our instrument functions to extend, operationalize, and empirically test the model of co-curricular support (MCCS). The MCCS is a conceptual framework of student support that explains how a student's interactions with the professional, academic and social systems within a college could influence their success more broadly in an undergraduate STEM degree program. Our goal is to create an instrument that functions diagnostically to help colleges effectively allocate resources for the various financial, physical, and human capital support provided to undergraduate students in STEM. While testing the validity of our newly developed instrument, an analysis of the data revealed differences in perceived support among College of Engineering (COE) and College of Science (COS) students. In this work-in-progress paper, we examine these differences at one institution using descriptive statistics and Welch's t-tests to identify trends and patterns of support among different student groups.

This research category work-in-progress paper uses cross-sectional data, collected in the fall of 2017, to understand first-generation and continuing-generation college students' intended choice of an engineering major. Data for this analysis came from a large-scale survey of 3,711 first-year engineering students from 32 U.S. institutions of which 790 students identified as first-generation college students and 2,072 identified as having one or more parent(s) with a bachelor's degree or higher (continuing-generation college students). A Welch's t-test was used to examine the differences in engineering major selection between and within groups. Results from the within-group comparison show that men and women, who are first-generation college students, have similar disciplinary interest as reported in the ASEE Engineering by the Numbers. Most notably women first-generation college students were more likely to choose biomedical, chemical engineering, and other STEM-related degree compared to men first-generation college students. When analyzing the data by gender and examining college generation group differences, we found that women first-generation college students were more likely to choose, civil, computer, construction management, electrical engineering, computer science and, information technology compared to women in the other group. While men first-generation college students were more likely to choose construction management, electrical engineering compared to men in the other group. Enrollment trends of first-generation college students in engineering are difficult to determine, this study provides a first step towards understanding the fields that attract these students.

This research category full paper examines the attitudes and beliefs that first-year engineering students have about the stereotypes of engineers and what it means to fit in engineering. We explored the attitudes and beliefs of 12 first-year engineering students, who may or may not identify with certain aspects of the stereotypical engineer, to understand their initial perceptions of engineering and what it means to fit in engineering. Most of the students' descriptions of an engineer aligned with the widely-accepted stereotype of an engineer, but they were also careful to state that that image was not true of all engineers. Several students expressed how they fit in engineering as a matter of “sticking it out” because engineering requires hard work, motivation, and commitment, along with other attributes that were not descriptive of a stereotypical engineer. In this paper, we explore the tensions in how students describe the role of “an engineer” generally and their own identities and fit as engineers.

This research-category full paper investigates the relationship between first-year engineering students' career aspirations and attitudes towards engineering. Career aspirations describe students' beliefs about professional roles they might perform in the future. Attitudes towards engineering were measured using engineering identity, belongingness within engineering, and specific motivation constructs. Examining the intersection of aspirations and attitudes allows educators to understand how students' intended career choices are related to their perceptions of their educational experience. Using survey data from 2,916 students at four large public universities, we found that an interest in industry-based careers was associated with high engineering identity, belongingness, and motivation scores. We found that gender had a moderate effect on aspirations and attitudes. Additionally, we found that an interest in mechanical engineering was associated with increased certainty in an engineering/industry career, while interests in biomedical engineering, non-engineering STM majors, and non-STEM majors were associated with decreased certainty in an engineering/industry career. These results have implications for the current discourse around how engineering students make decisions about their future careers.

This full, research category study examines how out-of-school experiences in Grades 9-12 predict first-generation college students' engineering possible selves and certainty of career path. The data for this study came from a large-scale survey on outreach programs which was distributed in first-semester English courses to capture an array of responses from students interested in STEM and non-STEM careers. We used structural equation modeling to examine a set of hypotheses: 1) out-of-school experiences would be mediated by interest and recognition in physics and STEM and no direct effect will be found for out-of-school experiences on physics and STEM identities, 2) these identities subsequently predict engineering possible selves, and 3) engineering possible selves will predict certainty of career path. The results of our structural equation modeling analysis supported our hypotheses, out-of-school experiences alone are not enough to develop an identity as a physics person or STEM person, rather they need to be mediated through recognition by others and an underlying interest. A physics identity and a broad STEM identity were found to significantly predict students engineering possible selves. Engineering possible selves were a significant predictor of first-generation college students' certainty of career path. Future possible selves for first-generation college students have important implications for academic development, integration into their community of practice, retention, and the formation of a future professional identity.

This work-in-progress (WIP) research paper investigates contributing factors for how students describe what it means to be an engineer and what particular characteristics enable students to belong in engineering. We answer the research question, “What are the key contributing factors that influence how diverse students feel that they belong in engineering?” We used a semi-structured protocol to interview 12 diverse engineering students during Fall 2016 about their pathways into engineering, identities, and belongingness in engineering. The participants were selected from a pool of students who completed an attitudinal survey during Fall 2015 as a part of a larger study. They were purposefully recruited to maximize the number of women, students of color, first-generation college students, students with visible and non-visible disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students. The interviews were coded inductively to understand the emergent themes of how students described their social and individual identities and how they did or did not fit with what it means to be an engineer. The themes are emergent and this work-in-progress paper will describe our findings to date.

This work-in-progress research study examines the response patterns of first-generation college students (FGCS) to the engineering identity measures compared to non-first-generation college students (non-FGCS). This work answers the following research question, “Do FGC and non-FGC engineering students interpret the engineering identity measurement items in a conceptually different manner?” We explore if FGCS respond to engineering identity items similarly to non-FGCS and the fairness of using these instruments for FGCS to make claims about this group. The data for this work are from a survey instrument completed by 2,916 first-year engineering college students from four U.S. institutions. We hypothesize that quantitative measures constructed for the general engineering student population (non-FGCS) may not function the same for a FGCS subpopulation in engineering. Using extensions to the confirmatory factor analysis, we tested for measurement invariance of engineering identity constructs between FGCS and non-FGCS. Our comparative analysis of FGCS and non-FGCS found weak measurement invariance within the engineering identity constructs (i.e. interest, recognition, and performance/competence) indicating a similar factor structure and factor loadings, but different uses of the identity item scale. This research raises questions on the use and fairness of normative measures in engineering education for populations that fall outside the majority engineering student population.

Students who qualify for Calculus credit via the Advanced Placement (AP) exam often have the choice of accepting the credit, and starting in Calculus II or III, or declining the credit, and retaking Calculus I in a university setting. This study investigates and reports success metrics for students who make a choice of accepting or declining AP Calculus credit. The 2014 College Board National Report states when compared to similar peers, students who receive a score of 3 or higher in an AP exam tend to earn higher college grade point averages (GPAs), have higher graduation rates, and have the opportunity to take more discipline course work in college. This report is based on all the AP courses offered by College Board. It is not certain what the outcomes are for an individual course, i.e. AP Calculus, or how the markers of success translate to engineering students and engineering programs. By analyzing 3,600 engineering students academic records from Fall 2012 and 2014 (i.e. gender, ethnicity, residency, grade received in Calculus I course, AP Calculus exam score, High School GPA, SAT/ACT Math and Verbal score), this study seeks to describe patterns of success in students' subsequent Calculus courses from those who accepted AP Calculus credit, skipping Calculus I, as opposed to those who did not accept their AP Calculus credit and took Calculus I. Students ask for recommendations from their first year engineering advisors on whether to retake Calculus I in college or accept their AP Calculus credit, which consists of a score of 4 or 5 at this university. As research in this specific topic is absent, advisors in a first year engineering program must advise in the absence of concrete data. This paper offers insight based upon previous student academic records, which may inform advisors and incoming first year students on whether or not to accept AP Calculus credit.

This study investigates first-generation and non-first-generation engineering undergraduates' math/science identities, subject-related interests, and career plans. First-generation students are an understudied, but growing population. Understanding how these self-beliefs and background factors affect students' engineering choice can help widen pathways into engineering which continues to be defined as “pale and male.” Additionally, identity has predictive value for practical outcomes like engineering choice in college. The data for this study comes from the nationally representative Sustainability and Gender in Engineering (SaGE) survey completed by 6,772 college students who enrolled in first-year English courses at 2- and 4-year colleges across the U.S. Data were analyzed using t-test and chi-square tests for linear and dichotomous outcomes respectively. Our results show differences in first-generation students' identities, interests, performance/ competence beliefs, and family support for science. These differences can serve as a stepping stone towards understanding the trajectories of first-generation college students in engineering. By understanding underrepresented students' identities, performance, and backgrounds, specific strategies can be developed to support these students in our engineering programs.