If a group of engineering deans were asked whether students at their institutions were successful and why, what information might they immediately or subconsciously use to measure or gauge the engineering students' success? If only academic performance outcomes like GPA, individual course grades, or graduation rate race to their minds, then their rationale aligns with the majority of researchers. My research seeks to shift the mindset that frames engineering student success mainly within the boundaries of academic performance measures. By measuring students' perceived autonomy, competence, social integration and relatedness within their programs, and aspirations after graduation, one can more accurately judge whether engineering students are achieving holistic student success. By utilizing surveys and exit interviews for freshmen Summer Bridge Program (SBP) participants, interviewing continuing and past SBP participants, and surveying engineering seniors, this research gathered more in-depth information on students' experiences. In turn, one can better understand how the structures of engineering summer and undergraduate programs either contribute to or detract from student success and motivation. Results from SBP freshmen indicated that community building, structured studying, real-world experiences, residential life, and mentorship were perceived as valuable components by the students. Also, a perceived difficulty gap, based on students' prior engineering experience(s), was uncovered. For continuing SBP students, there was an emphasis on Black community, leadership, and discourse when moving from SBP to larger departments. Lastly, within the seniors, we found that students tend to choose engineering careers regardless of their undergraduate experiences. This information can be used in practice for enhancing programmatic planning and design as well as potentially developing novel program components that contribute to students becoming more self-determined, motivated engineers. It is my hope that one day in the near future, engineering education faculty, administrators, and leaders will cultivate and measure success based on a more comprehensive assessment of lived experiences and better recognize how their decisions regarding programmatic structures impact students' success and motivation.

Today's engineering graduates will solve tomorrow's problems in a world that is advancing faster and facing more critical challenges than ever before. This situation creates significant demand for engineering education to evolve in order to effectively prepare a diverse community of engineers for these challenges. Such concerns have led to the publication of visionary reports that help orient the work of those committed to the success of engineering education. Research in engineering education is central to "all" of these visions. Research on the student experience is fundamental to informing the evolution of engineering education. A broad understanding of the engineering student experience involves thinking about diverse academic pathways, navigation of these pathways, and decision points--how students choose engineering programs, navigate through their programs, and then move on to jobs and careers. Further, looking at students' experiences broadly entails not just thinking about their learning (i.e., skill and knowledge development in both technical and professional areas) but also their motivation, their identification with engineering, their confidence, and their choices after graduation. However, an understanding of the engineering student experience is clearly not enough to create innovation in engineering education. Educators who are capable of using the research on the student experience are needed. This involves not only preparing tomorrow's educators with conceptions of teaching that enable innovation but also understanding how today's educators make teaching decisions. The nation also needs to be concerned about creating the capacity to do such research--in short, more researchers are needed. One promising approach is to work with educators who are interested in engaging in research, supporting them as they negotiate the space between their current activities and their new work in engineering education research. To fully support this process, the nation must also investigate what is required for educators to engage in such a path. The Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) began research in January 2003 as one of two national higher-education Centers for Teaching and Learning funded by the National Science Foundation that year. Originally funded for 2003-2007, supplementary funds from the Engineering Directorate allowed additional analysis and dissemination to continue through 2010. This report describes the work of CAEE. The authors summarize CAEE's findings and outcomes, followed by highlights from their efforts to disseminate the results, including a set of research instruments and other materials that are available for use by others. The authors conclude with a look ahead at next steps and some questions for future research. Appended are: (1) References and Cumulative Bibliography; (2) Cumulative Team List and Advisory Board Members; (3) APS Headlines; (4) Local Inquiry Questions; (5) Looking Ahead: Ideas for Future Research. (Contains 26 figures and 10 tables.).

In the United States, 1,200 community colleges enroll over ten million students each year—nearly half of the nation’s undergraduates. Yet fewer than 40 percent of entrants complete an undergraduate degree within six years. This fact has put pressure on community colleges to improve academic outcomes for their students. Redesigning America’s Community Colleges is a concise, evidence-based guide for educational leaders whose institutions typically receive short shrift in academic and policy discussions. It makes a compelling case that two-year colleges can substantially increase their rates of student success, if they are willing to rethink the ways in which they organize programs of study, support services, and instruction. Community colleges were originally designed to expand college enrollments at low cost, not to maximize completion of high-quality programs of study. The result was a cafeteria-style model in which students pick courses from a bewildering array of choices, with little guidance. The authors urge administrators and faculty to reject this traditional model in favor of “guided pathways”—clearer, more educationally coherent programs of study that simplify students’ choices without limiting their options and that enable them to complete credentials and advance to further education and the labor market more quickly and at less cost. Distilling a wealth of data amassed from the Community College Research Center (Teachers College, Columbia University), Redesigning America’s Community Colleges offers a fundamental redesign of the way two-year colleges operate, stressing the integration of services and instruction into more clearly structured programs of study that support every student’s goals.

This book focuses on one of the key questions in education: What determines a student’s success?Based on twenty years of work on student success, Ray Padilla here presents two related models he has developed that both provide a framework for understanding success and indicate how it can be enhanced and replicated. The research and theory that inform his models are covered in detail.He defines student success simply as progress through a program of study, such that the student and others expect him or her to complete it and be promoted to the next level or graduate. Rather than focusing on the reasons for failure or drop out, his approach focuses on understanding the factors that account for student success and that enable many students, some of them under the most challenging circumstances, to complete all program requirements and graduate. The models provide schools and colleges with an analytical tool to uncover the reasons for student success so that they can develop strategies and practices that will enable more students to emulate their successful peers. They address the characteristics of the students—such as motivation and engagement, the ability to surmount barriers, and persistence—and similarly surface the characteristics of teachers, the educational institution, its resources, and the contexts in which they interact. The process provides administrators with a clear and appropriate strategy for action at the level of each individual unit or subpopulation. Recognizing the need to develop general models of student success that also can be applied locally to specific situations and contexts, the book presents Padilla’s Expertise Model of Student Success (EMSS) that can be applied to general populations, as well as the Local Student Success Model (LSSM) that can be used to drive local institutional strategies to improve student success.The book demonstrates how the models have been applied in settings as diverse as a minority high school, a community college, and an Hispanic Serving Institution, and for such purposes as comparing a high-performing and a non high-performing elementary school. Contributors:* Kimberly S. Barker is an assistant professor at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, System Center San Antonio. She is currently working in the College of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction.* Mary J. Miller is the Instructional Compliance Director for the Edgewood Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas. Prior to this appointment, she served as an elementary school principal for ten years.* George E. Norton is the Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs for Admissions, Orientation & Transition Services at The University of Texas at San Antonio.* Ralph Mario Wirth is an administrator and director of educational planning at The San Antonio School for Inquiry and Creativity, as well as lead researcher for the Democratic Schools Research Institute, Inc.

Today's undergraduate studentsâ€"future leaders, policymakers, teachers, and citizens, as well as scientists and engineersâ€"will need to make important decisions based on their understanding of scientific and technological concepts. However, many undergraduates in the United States do not study science, mathematics, engineering, or technology (SME&T) for more than one year, if at all. Additionally, many of the SME&T courses that students take are focused on one discipline and often do not give students an understanding about how disciplines are interconnected or relevant to students' lives and society. To address these issues, the National Research Council convened a series of symposia and forums of representatives from SME&T educational and industrial communities. Those discussions contributed to this book, which provides six vision statements and recommendations for how to improve SME&T education for all undergraduates. The book addresses pre-college preparation for students in SME&T and the joint roles and responsibilities of faculty and administrators in arts and sciences and in schools of education to better educate teachers of K-12 mathematics, science, and technology. It suggests how colleges can improve and evaluate lower-division undergraduate courses for all students, strengthen institutional infrastructures to encourage quality teaching, and better prepare graduate students who will become future SME&T faculty.

This study examines student success from the perspective of mature, female students in human service programs at one B.C. post-secondary institution. An exploratory, case study approach was employed, focussing on in depth open ended interviews of 36 women. Context for the educational experience of these women was explored through document review and interviews of faculty. Definitions of success and experiences in achieving success appear quite different from the traditional student success literature. These women are committed to holistic definitions of success which include not only good grades and program completion, but also personal growth and maintenance of satisfactory family, extended family, and community relationships They are unlikely to drop out because of their intense internal drive and because of a program model which provides a credential after first and second year (as well as at the degree level), allows stopping out temporarily, and supports part-time participation. They are unlikely to access support services because of the pressures on their time. Factors which impede their progress may also support them (for example, families place demands but also provide support, negative educational experiences in the past both limit their self confidence and make them determined to do well and "prove themselves"). Poverty appears to be the greatest barrier to many, particularly single parents. Implications for theory, educational reform policy, and research are outlined.

This practical guide to outcomes-based assessment in student affairs is designed to help readers meet the growing demand for accountability and for demonstrating student learning. The authors offer a framework for implementing the assessment of student learning and development and pragmatic advice on the strategies most appropriate for the readers’ particular circumstances. Beginning with a brief history of assessment, the book explains how to effectively engage in outcomes-based assessment, presents strategies for addressing the range of challenges and barriers student affairs practitioners are likely to face, addresses institutional, divisional, and departmental collaboration, and considers future developments in the assessment of student success. One feature of the book is its use of real case studies that both illustrate current best practices in student affairs assessment that illuminate theory and provide examples of application. The cases allow the authors to demonstrate that there are several approaches to evaluating student learning and development within student affairs; illustrating how practice may vary according to institutional type, institutional culture, and available resources. The authors explain how to set goals, write outcomes, describe the range of assessment methods available, discuss criteria for evaluating outcomes-based assessment, and provide steps and questions to consider in designing the reflection and institutional assessment processes, as well as how to effectively utilize and disseminate results. Their expert knowledge, tips, and insights will enable readers to implement outcomes-based assessment in ways that best meet the needs of their own unique campus environments.