1. Environmental Factors Affecting Student Retention and
Attitudes in a Freshman Engineering Program
(1670 words)
Abstract
In this paper we analyzed the cultural and environmental factors that affect student
retention in a freshman engineering program. A survey was completed by all
freshman students who left the engineering program between 2007 and 2014
(n=1152). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data as well as looking at
the frequency of selected reasons for leaving engineering to assess students’ beliefs
and perceptions. The results of this study indicate there is a high tendency to leave
the program due to different factors, especially those that relate to a lack of
identification with engineering. This study provided information that could help
improve engineering culture by identifying key environmental factors that cause
students to leave the program at an early stage.
Purpose
Engineering programs are often evaluated on retention rates by observing
institutional factors such as administrators, faculty, facilities, and support systems
(Lau, 2003). While these are crucial to improving engineering programs,
environmental factors should also be considered including the program’s culture
(National Science Board, 2007; Rodgers & Marra, 2012). In order to provide better
support systems to students in engineering, it is critical to examine the potential
cultural and environmental factors that influence students’ decision to leave after
their freshman year. Many first-time freshman students experience a number of
changes such as moving away from home, not living with their parents, and a
heavier work-load than high school (Budny & Paul, 2003), which may increase the
likelihood of students’ decision to leave the program if no strong support systems
are in place. Although previous studies have indicated that academic and
institutional factors affect the attrition rates of freshman engineering students
(Turner & Thompson, 2014; Veenstra, 2009), little research has been done regarding
the internal cultural factors that are detrimental for student retention. The purpose
of this study is to analyze the factors related to engineering cultures and
institutional engineering environment that affect student retention in a freshman
engineering program.
Theoretical Framework
Previous literature indicates that the notion of “culture” in engineering is a relatively
new concept, thus there is an extensive need of research on the impact of how
engineering cultures may create unwelcoming environments for students –
specifically freshman engineering students. Lattuca and Stark (2009) described how
influences external and internal to the institution are embedded within a

2. sociocultural context model. In this model, different variables such as student and
faculty characteristics, collective beliefs about the discipline and program, and the
culture of a university play an important role in defining students’ success in
engineering. Similarly, Godfrey and Parker (2010) investigated the collective beliefs,
behaviors, and practices of students and faculty regarding engineering programs
and how these could influence students’ decisions to stay or leave engineering
programs. They identified six cultural dimensions for engineering education that
affect student’s attitudes towards engineering and ability to adapt and integrate
into the culture (Godfrey, 2014). From a sociocultural perspective, understanding
how the beliefs, behaviors, and practices affect engineering education is an integral
part in deciding how to provide support systems for students that may feel
alienated and excluded from engineering (Foor, Walden, & Trytten, 2007; Godfrey,
2014).
It is important to recognize that these cultures of engineering, including the
recognized “engineering norms”, have an effect on student retention and attitudes
towards engineering (Godfrey & Parker, 2010). These “engineering norms” can
include distinctive ways of thinking and acting as well as identifying with perceived
qualities of an engineer (Godfrey & Parker, 2010). These norms can potentially
create an exclusive environment for those who do not “fit in” (Godfrey & Parker,
2010; Stevens, O’Connor, & Garrison, 2005). Thus, sociocultural factors must be
investigated in order to better understand students’ decision-making processes
related to persistence in engineering programs.
Methods
This study originated from a need to understand the cultural and environmental
factors that may affect freshman students to leave the engineering program during
the first year. A large proportion of the student body at this public institution come
from low socioeconomic backgrounds, are first-time generation college students,
and come from predominantly rural areas. These students are typically the most
affected by engineering cultures because the norms of engineering do not align with
their social and cultural contexts (Orr et al., 2011; O'Keefe, 2013). A survey was
administered and completed by all freshman students (n =1152) who left the
engineering program between 2007 and 2014. The survey included demographic
information, closed form questions, and open form questions. For the purpose of this
study, only the closed form questions were analyzed. These types of questions were
aligned with four of the cultural dimensions described by Godfrey (2014) to help
analyze the environmental factors driving students out of engineering.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data as well as looking at the
frequency of selected reasons for leaving engineering (Creswell, 2014; Gall et al.,
2007). These reasons were correlated with one or more cultural dimensions to
assess the beliefs and perceptions of freshman engineering students. The
relationship between students’ GPA and motivation to leave the program was also
analyzed. In addition, sets of different dispositions selected by the students in the
survey were investigated collectively to determine what motivated the student to
leave engineering.

3. Data Sources
The survey was used to collect data from all exiting freshman in the engineering
program starting in 2007. Students completed the form and met with an academic
advisor to ensure completion of the form. All surveys undergo a final review from
the assistant dean and are entered into a spreadsheet which is stored in a secure
database. The data are used both as a student record and a tool for analysis of
future program improvement.
The survey included one major closed-response question asking students about
their decision to leave. The students were provided with eleven different options
linked to that specific question. Students had no guidelines for selecting a minimum
or maximum number of reasons. The multiple options included statements such as
“engineering majors offered do not match my interests” and “I had problems with
advising” in order to capture internal and external influences representative of
sociocultural factors.
Results
In order of frequency, the top five selected reasons for leaving the engineering
program were “engineering majors do not match my interest” (41%), “I am having
academic difficulty” (38%), “I do not think I can succeed in engineering” (32%), “too
much effort required when I am uncertain what I want to do” (28%), and “other”
(27%). The “other” category reasons included transferring due to finances, only
starting in engineering because of the money and job outlook, having parents or
close family members in engineering, being more interested in another major or
engineering technology, and repeating other reasoning options in their own words.
Nearly half the exiting students selected that engineering did not match their
interests. As indicated by Godfrey and Parker (2010), developing an engineering
identity is key for retention. These students were confident in their decision to
leave the field after less than eight months in the program. This indicates it is
pivotal to help students develop an identity and sense of belonging within
engineering in this short time frame. Students did not see how their interests were
related to engineering, thus never having that crucial sense of “belonging” (Rodgers
& Marra, 2012). Godfrey and Parker also analyzed the perception of an engineering
way of thinking and doing. Those students who did not believe they could succeed
in engineering were likely exposed to those concepts and felt alienated, resulting in
attrition from the program. Additionally, the logic that engineering was too difficult
when students were unsure of their future plans coincides with other assertions of
how engineering is perceived. It is assumed that engineering should be hard and
include a heavy workload (Stevens et al., 2007).
Thirty-eight (38) percent of exiting students indicated that they had academic
difficulty, yet 82% of the students left the program with a GPA of 2.0 or higher, half
of those with a 3.0 or higher. The institution’s rules state a student will be put on
academic probation only when her/his GPA falls below a 2.0. Even if the remaining
18% of students who would have been placed on probation selected this reason,
that still leaves a high number of students who left the program while in good

4. academic standing. Of the students who did not pass their recent math class (D, F,
or W), 13% did not believe they were having academic difficulty.
When analyzing sets of dispositions, the most frequently paired motives were “I do
not think I can succeed in engineering” and “I am having academic difficulty”. This
relationship highlights student’ perception that if they are struggling academically,
they will never make it in the engineering field. Additional common pairs includes
“fields don’t match my interests” with “I don’t think I can succeed”, “I do not think I
can succeed in engineering” with “too much effort and uncertain of what I want to
do”, and “fields don’t match my interests” with “too much effort and uncertain of
what I want to do”. This last pair may indicate the student was only exposed to
aspects of engineering they did not like, but did not get the change to explore fields
they would be interested in.
The results of this study indicate there is a high tendency to leave the engineering
program after the first year due to different factors, especially those that relate to a
lack of identification with engineering. Many students did not feel like they would
succeed in engineering nor that they had interests within the field. Even though
their academic performance was satisfactory, this suggests academic performance
is only a small factor in their decision. It was determined that the culture and
environment of both the freshman and engineering program contribute to student
retention.
Significance
This study gave the opportunity to analyze environmental and cultural factors
affecting retention of freshman engineering students. Analysis of retention rates
and the effect of cultural and environmental factors allowed us to learn more about
the institution’s program, advance our understanding of engineering culture, and
provide information necessary for the development of educational strategies that
could be used to improve the learning environment for students. Additionally, this
study will assist the freshman engineering program in identifying key areas for
improvement and culture change within the program. This study also provides
information necessary to improve the survey administered to students leaving the
program as well as the program’s collection and management of data. Future work
will include qualitative studies that help expand our understanding of additional
environmental factors affecting students’ attitudes towards engineering. This body
of work contributes to the engineering education literature by providing information
that could help improve engineering culture by identifying key environmental
factors that cause students to leave the program at an early stage.

5. References
Budny, D. D., & Paul, C. A. (2003). Working with Students and Parents to Improve
the Freshman Retention. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 4(3/4),
1-9.
Bushong, S. (2009). Freshman Retention Drops, Except at 2-Year Colleges. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 55(21), A17.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gall. M. D., Gall, J. P., Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational Research: An Introduction (8th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.)
London, England: Routledge.
Godfrey, E. (2014). Understanding Disciplinary Cultures: The first Step to Cultural
Change. In Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp.439-446).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2010) Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering
education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 5-22.
Hensel, R. A. M., Poland, M. (2015). Freshman Engineering Program ABET Report &
Documentation. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional Factors Affecting Student Retention. Education,
124(1), 126-136.
Lattuca, L. R., & Litzinger, T. A. (2014). Studying Teaching and Learning in
Undergraduate Engineering Programs: Conceptual Frameworks to Guide Research
on Practice. In Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp.487-
490). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans
in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mejia, Joel Alejandro, "A Sociocultural Analysis of Latino High School Students' Funds
of Knowledge and Implications for Culturally Responsive Engineering Education"
(2014). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3969.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/3969
National Science Board. (2007). Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education.
National Science Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122.pdf.

6. O'Keefe, P. (2013). A Sense of Belonging: Improving Student Retention. College
Student Journal, 47(4), 605-613.
Orr, M.K., Ramirez, N.M., & Ohland, M.W. (2011). Socioeconomic trends in
engineering: enrollment, persistence, and academic achievement. In Proceedings of
the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.
Vancouver, BC, Canada. Washington, DC: ASEE.
Rodgers, K. A., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Why They’re Leaving. ASEE Prism, 21(5), 43.
Stevens, R., Amos, D. L., Jocuns, A., Garrison, L. (2007). Engineering Lifestyle and a
meritocracy of difficulty: Two pervasive beliefs among engineering students and
their possible effects. In Proceedings of the Annual conference of Exposition
American Society for Engineering Education. Honolulu, HI.
Stevens, R. O’Connor, K., & Garrison, L. (2005). Engineering student identities in the
navigation of the undergraduate curriculum. In Proceedings of the 2005 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Portland, OR: ASEE
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
Turner, P., & Thompson, E. (2014). College Retention Initiatives Meeting the Needs of
Millennial Freshman Students. College Student Journal, 48(1), 94-104.
Veenstra, C. P. (2009). A strategy for improving freshman college retention. The
Journal for Quality and Participation, 31(4), 19-23.