Paper ID #32767
ENGAGE: Co-curricular Engagement for Transfer Students
Montana Epps, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Montana is a graduate student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, currently earning her M.S. in Higher Ed-ucation Counseling and Student Affairs. She is originally from San Diego, CA and earned her B.A. inHistory at UCLA. In addition to being a graduate student, Montana is the Graduate Assistant at the CalPoly Transfer Center, and works closely with New Student and Transition Programs, specializing in theTransfer Orientation Experience. She is passionate about diversity, equity and inclusion, which has ledher to pursue research opportunities surrounding these topics. As a former foster youth, low-income andfirst-generation college student herself, Montana understands the difficulty students often face when try-ing to acclimate to their campus environment. Inspired by her own experiences, she strives to create astronger sense of belonging for underrepresented minority students on college campuses. Her top fiveClifton Strengths are: Futuristic, Discipline, Focus, Restorative, Achiever.
Jamie Bettencourt, Cuesta Community College
Jamie Bettencourt is a Master’s Degree candidate at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in the Higher EducationCounseling and Student Affairs program. Jamie earned his Bachelor’s degree in Language Studies atthe University of California, Santa Cruz. He also holds a California Education Specialist InstructionCredential and a M.Ed. from Grand Canyon University. Currently, Jamie is an Academic Success Coachat Cuesta Community College, working with a broad intersection of students as part of a college-wideeffort to support and bolster student success.
Dr. Daniel Almeida, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Dr. Daniel Almeida is an Associate Professor in Higher Education Counseling/Student Affairs at Califor-nia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He is Lead Principal Investigator for the NSF-fundedCalifornia State University Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) Alliance forDiversity and Strengths of STEM Faculty: A Culturally-Informed Strengths-Based Approach to AdvanceEarly-Career Faculty Success. Dr. Almeida is also Co-Principal Investigator for the NSF Scholarshipsin Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (S-STEM) grant, Engineering Neighbors: GainingAccess Growing Engineers (ENGAGE). Dr. Almeida’s graduate training is in Urban Education Policy –Higher Education from the University of Southern California.
Dr. John Y. Oliver, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Dr. Oliver is a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering at Cal Poly, San LuisObispo. His field of expertise is in computer architecture and system performance analysis, dabbler incybersecurity and passionate about broadening pathways for students in engineering.
Dr. Lizabeth L Thompson , California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Dr. Lizabeth Thompson is a professor in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. She has been atCal Poly for nearly 30 years and has held various positions on campus including Co-Director of LAES,Director of Women’s Engineering Programs, and CENG Associate Dean. Her research is in EngineeringEducation, particularly equitable classroom practices, integrated learning, and institutional change. Shespent last academic year at Cal State LA where she taught and collaborated on research related to equityand social justice. With her colleagues at Cal State LA she recently received an NSF grant called Eco-STEM which aims to transform STEM education using an asset-based ecosystem model. Specifically,the Eco-STEM project focuses on shifting the metaphor in STEM education from a factory model toan ecosystem model. This Ecosystem model aspires towards an organic and healthy environment thatnurtures students, faculty, and staff to become individuals fulfilled professionally and personally. She isalso a co-advisor to Engineers without Borders and Critical Global Engagement at Cal Poly.
Dr. Chance Hoellwarth, California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021
Paper ID #32767
Chance Hoellwarth is the Director for Cal Poly’s Center for Engineering, Science, and MathematicsEducation and a member of the Physics Department.
Dr. Jane L. Lehr, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Jane Lehr is a Professor in Ethnic Studies and Women’s and Gender Studies and Director of the Office ofStudent Research at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. She is affiliated faculty inComputer Science & Software Engineering and Science, Technology, and Society. She is also the Fac-ulty Director of the California State University (CSU) Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation(LSAMP) in STEM Program at Cal Poly. She previously served as elected co-chair of the Science & Tech-nology Taskforce of the National Women’s Studies Association, and as a Postdoctoral Research Officerat the Centre for Informal Learning and Schools (CILS) at King’s College, University of London. Mostrecently, she served as the 2019-20 Inclusive STEM Initiatives Fellow in the Colleges of Engineering,Science & Mathematics, and Liberal Arts at Cal Poly. Her graduate training is in Science and TechnologyStudies and Women’s Studies at Virginia Tech.
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021
1
ENGAGE: Co-Curricular Engagement for Transfer Students
This paper is a working research project that examines the rates at which engineering and
computer science transfer students engage in extra-curricular and co-curricular activities. In this
paper, we describe our current intentions and future plans for this study, as well as providing data
from our most recent baseline survey, with hopes of soliciting feedback from the engineering and
computer science community. This research is part of a National Science Foundation (NSF)
funded transfer student success program that provides scholarships, strength-based training and
mentorship to transfer students over the course of two years at two local community colleges and
an additional two years at an established four-year engineering and computer science university.
The overall goal of this NSF funded program is to increase access to high quality
university engineering and computer science education for academically talented, low-income
students with demonstrated financial need. The program aims to address two significant barriers
faced by engineering and computer science students at the participating community colleges.
One barrier is the highly impacted nature of the engineering and computer science programs at
the university, and the other is the university’s focus on admissions practices that cater to first-
time-in-college (FTIC) students. The impacted nature of the engineering and computer science
programs, and limited number of admission spots for transfer students, are two formidable
barriers to academically talented, low-income students from neighboring community colleges.
This program attempts to increase retention and persistence of community college
engineering and computer science students with support at three distinct stages: pre-transfer,
during transfer and post-transfer. The program intends to do this through removing or
minimizing economic barriers and supporting student development in five areas: 1) academic--
via tutoring and other academic support workshops; 2) engineering transfer/career path--via
2
mentoring by faculty at both home institution (pre-transfer) and faculty at transfer institution
(both pre-and post-transfer); 3) personal--via Strengths training from a Social Justice
Perspective; 4) connection to other students and faculty at home institution and to transfer
institution (pre-and post-transfer); and 5) professional--via mentoring and professional
development workshops. It is the hope that through the implementation of this program that
sustainable change will be implemented at the participating institutions, including the increased
adoption of essential transfer practices and the re-prioritizing of transfer student recruitment and
success at the university so that it may better serve its neighboring communities.
Efforts by the program are influenced by two specific student development theories. The
first is “transfer shock,”1 to describe the significant drop in academic performance of community
college students after transfer. Related to “transfer shock” is the concept of “transfer student
capital.”2 This model proposes that “community college students have opportunities to
accumulate different forms of capital while at the community college”2. Higher transfer student
capital is a predictor of post-transfer GPA, ability to cope with problems proactively, and higher
levels of student satisfaction with academics and advising. Through multiple supports, the
program intends to increase transfer student capital in participating students.
Critical Race Theory, another theory underpinning this project, examines how racism and
other forms of oppression are inherent in our institutions and contribute to inequities in
experiences and outcomes for students3. Unlike many other programs supporting marginalized
students that focus on students’ perceived deficits, this program employs a “social justice
perspective of strengths-based educational work”4. Alongside training that supports students in
identifying and developing their unique combinations of strengths5, participants will engage in
activities and discussions involving topics such as power, privilege, oppression, and social
3
identity, and how these concepts operate and cause barriers to student success in higher
education. The goal is to provide participants with opportunities to critically examine the
intersections of their strengths with their social/cultural identities to support students as they
transfer from community college to a highly selective predominantly white institution.
Ultimately, though the data currently reflects a small number of transfer student
participants, our plan is to gather more information over the course of the next academic year to
quantify how and how many transfer students participate in extra- and co-curricular activities.
Ultimately, we intend to describe the impact participation has on their sense of belonging and the
development of their engineering and computer science identity, and to identify any institutional
barriers and institutional supports that can support student involvement in co-curricular activities.
Co-Curricular Involvement
For the purpose of this study, we define co-curricular involvement as participation in
activities that provide students opportunities to practice their academic skills and develop
professional skills while providing social integration with students and faculty in their major.
These types of activities support a student’s major coursework and/or prepare the students for a
career in their chosen discipline, which helps build their identity as an engineer or computer
scientist 15-18. Whereas non-co-curricular activities may provide some of these elements, they
may less likely to contribute to building their identity as an engineer or computer scientist. It is
important to note that an individual student’s participation in outside-of-class activities may be
co-curricular or non-co-curricular, and more or less co-curricular than another student’s
participation depending on their level of involvement and their role within these outside-of-class
activities. Co-curricular engagement offers students an opportunity to surround themselves with
other students who identify as an engineer or computer science student, thus being conducive in
4
the pursuit of their degree. However, co-curricular engagement is not a guaranteed component of
earning a bachelor’s degree, and many students face barriers that ultimately hinder engagement.
Barriers and Benefits to Student Involvement
Previous research has shown that there is a relationship between students’ sense of
belonging and their engagement at their institution6. This relationship extends to their academic
success, illustrating the importance of co-curricular engagement in students’ academic
performance6. In addition to academic achievement, there are many other reasons for pursuing
various engagement opportunities. Out-of-class engagement is becoming increasingly popular,
often resulting in outcomes related to academic, personal and cognitive development7. However,
in addition to these benefits, there are barriers that prevent student engagement in co-curricular,
ultimately affecting students’ overall performance and sense of belonging at their institution.
Barriers to Involvement
Students often face many unique challenges and barriers, both at the personal and
institutional level, that impact their involvement on campus. According to a study conducted by
Simmons et al.7, timing is one of the largest barriers for out-of-class engagement within the
engineering student population. The majority of students’ time is spent preparing for class or
studying for exams, thus leaving little time for other opportunities. For transfer students, this
reality is even more constricted due to the shorter timeframe these students are given to graduate.
When looking to get involved on campus, most students are presented with the challenge of time
management, often resulting in poor academic performance or lower levels of involvement7.
Though timing is just one of many barriers that can affect the rate and capacity of
engagement for transfer students, their identities are another important factor. Being a transfer
student is often not the students’ most salient identity. Students hold multiple identities that
5
intersect, creating different levels of privilege and disadvantages that influence their experience
at the institution8. These identities include but are not limited to race and ethnicity, citizenship,
social class, gender, sexuality, religion, as well as first-generation, commuter, and parenting
status. These identities, though not always visible to society or the institution, play a huge role in
students’ comfortability and sense of belonging at the institution, thus impacting their level of
engagement. In the same study conducted by Simmons and colleagues7, the researchers analyzed
the connection between out-of-class activities and the participant demographics. Among their
results was that female-identifying students, an underrepresented population within engineering,
chose to be involved in out-of-class activities to break down barriers, suggesting that identities
such as gender can be barriers to involvement.
Lastly, Simmons et al.7 found that cost, or a financial obligation, was another barrier to
student engagement, highlighting that lower-income students, which transfer students often also
identify as, are perhaps less likely to be involved in co-curricular activities due to the lack of
financial support received from their families. For transfer students, this barrier is often
magnified due to the financial responsibilities many students have based on their other identities.
For instance, a student-parent would likely choose to use their income to support the needs of
their children versus spending that money on registration for a student organization. Similarly, a
commuter student’s income would likely be allocated to their transportation costs rather than an
engineering club. For students who are able to overcome these barriers, however, there are many
benefits to engaging in co-curricular activities.
Benefits of Involvement
Laanan cites many studies that support the common assumption about engagement—the
more students engage with their institution, both academically and socially, the more successful
6
they are and the more positive their student experience9. Ultimately, there are three key areas in
which students can benefit from engagement: personal, professional and academic. While
academic engagement is often perceived to be the primary benefit of co-curricular engagement,
there are many forms of co-curricular engagement within the personal and professional realms,
and the benefits of each type of engagement can influence students’ overall experience in a
positive manner.
Personal engagement is closely related to community building and creating relationships
that support an individual’s personal goals and wellbeing. Students can create these relationships,
and thus establish a support network, by engaging in their classes, attending office hours, and
joining clubs and organizations on campus. Previous research has shown that establishing a
social support network, including relationships with staff and faculty, increases students’
academic success, further resulting in a positive academic experience10. Furthermore, a social
support network offers students an avenue of emotional support, which provides students with an
opportunity to gain personal and social skills, in addition to enhancing their overall academic
performance. This illustrates the importance of co-curricular engagement, and ultimately the
importance of relationship-building between students and faculty. Student-faculty interactions
contribute to student success most often if students perceive their professors to be understanding
and encouraging11.
In addition to establishing relationships within their academic departments and beyond,
students can benefit significantly from getting involved in professional development
opportunities that align with their academic goals, and concurrently, their professional goals.
Professional engagement, often a research or internship experience at the undergraduate level,
has proven to benefit students’ academic success and enhance their overall college experience10.
7
Many students look to enhance their resume or build their professional network by engaging in
research opportunities, both at the paid and unpaid level. This exposure to both an academic and
professional environment is conducive to forming skills that will prepare them for life after
graduation and help them build a professional network. Research conducted by Carter and
colleagues12 found that undergraduate research influenced students’ attitudes and life objectives,
and communication was the most important skill acquired during their experience. Presumably,
these skills are transferable to other aspects of the students’ lives, resulting in more positive
interpersonal relationships with their peers and faculty, ultimately impacting their academic
experience. Additionally, the research conducted by Carter et al. also found that engineering
education focuses on leadership skills more than other fields12, which suggests that engineering
coursework and professional opportunities such as internships, align to create a more holistic
professional development opportunity for engineering students.
Methods
To measure student involvement in co-curricular and non-co-curricular activities, we
employed the PosSE survey13,14 which was spearheaded by Dr. Denise Simmons at Virginia
Tech as part of an NSF CAREER award. Beyond student demographic information, the PosSE
survey asks survey respondents to (1) identify the type of out-of-class activities they participate
in, (2) what factors promoted and hindered involvement in out-of-class activities, (3) the positive
and negative outcomes from participation in out-of-class activities, and (4) affectual responses
about their involvement as a student at their institution. Survey results were published13 in 2017
based on 133 undergraduate and graduate students from a university in the Mid-Atlantic portion
of the United States. Using a modified PosSE survey, we proceeded with a quantitative research
method. The modified PosSE survey was sent via email to all engineering students at a primarily
8
undergraduate institution on the west coast of the United States in May of 2020. We received
534 survey responses, of which 454 responses were “mostly complete”. Our version of the
PosSE survey was nearly identical to the PosSE survey as published13. We did omit a generic
“student clubs” out-of-class activity as we felt this category was not specific enough as the rich
diversity of student clubs at this institution which includes over 200 clubs in the college of
engineering alone.
Results
Table 1 shows the demographics of the survey population from our institution, a “west-
coast (primarily) undergraduate university” (from hereon referred to WCUU). Out-of-class
activities for WCUU’s students are shown in Table 2, with Job (65.42%), Design Competition
Team (61.89%), Sports (55.51%), Pre-professional (54.19%) as the top choices of activities.
Table 3 shows the factors in the PosSE survey that promote involvement in out-of-class
activities. Respondents were asked to rate from a scale of 1 to 6 where a response of “1” is
“Strongly disagree” and a response of 6 is “Strongly agree”. The most highly rated were “to
fulfill my personal interests” (M=5.388; SD=0.66), “I agree with the goals of the organization”
(M=5.088; SD=0.77), “to try something new” (M=5.064; SD=0.83), and “to gain experiences that
make me competitive in the job market” (M=5.004; SD=1.01). Results of the survey on barriers
for students to participate in out-of-class activities are in Table 4. The most common barriers are
“lack of time, scheduling issue” (M=4.56; SD=1.13), “possibility of negative impact” (M=3.732;
SD=1.23), “cost (time and money) of joining was too high” (M=3.72; SD=1.29), and “lack the
knowledge about the opportunities” (M=3.672; SD=1.19).
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the positive and negative outcomes perceived by students from
out-of-class activities. The highest rated positive outcomes are “personal development” (M=5.25;
9
SD=0.67), “communication skills” (M=5.18; SD=0.66), “social development” (M=5.09;
SD=0.73), and “satisfaction with the college experience” (M=5.08; SD=0.8). The highest rated
negative outcomes are “consumed my time therefore my schedule was less flexible” (M=4.45;
SD=1.11), “consumed my time therefore my free time was reduced” (M=3.71; SD=1.11),
“Increased expense” (M=3.50; SD=1.16), and “decreased my GPA in college” (M=3.05;
SD=1.16).
Table 7 reports the results of affective questions from the PosSE survey at WCUU, and
Table 8 shows the top 7 responses to the affectual questions on the PosSE survey broken down
by students who participate in co-curricular activities and students who do not. The rows in
Table 8 marked in grey show results without statistical significance. To create this table, we had
to make assumptions of which student activities are co-curricular. The activities marked as co-
curricular from the PosSE survey were research, academic and/or design competition team,
living and/or learning community, or professional experiences such as co-operative education.
All other activities were marked as non-co-curricular. From this table, we can see that students
who do participate in co-curricular activities are 0.41 points more likely to feel part of the family
in their academic discipline, 0.31 points more likely to have a strong sense of belonging in their
major and 0.30 points more likely to engage in activities such as tutoring.
N Percentage
Gender
Male 223 42%
Female 202 38%
Not Reported 100 19%
Queer/Non-binary 10 2%
Race/Ethnicity
Asian 162 30%
Black 0 0%
Hispanic 30 6%
White 198 37%
Other 14 3%
N/A or Blank 116 22%
Classification 1st Year 50 9%
10
Sophomore 72 13%
Junior 121 23%
Senior 178 33%
5th Year and Beyond 84 16%
Graduate 29 5%
Transfer 28 5%
Table 1. Survey Respondent Demographics
Activity N Percentage
Job 297 65.42%
Design Competition Team 281 61.89%
Sports 252 55.51%
Pre-professional 246 54.19%
Professional Experience 213 46.92%
Engineering Outreach 194 42.73%
Culture/Faith/Gender/Identity 181 39.87%
Service 140 30.84%
Other 130 28.63%
Living-Learning Community 129 28.41%
Research 128 28.19%
Music/Dance 105 23.13%
Environmental 78 17.18%
International 62 13.66%
Film/Theater/Vis Arts 57 12.56%
Greek Life, Social 55 12.11%
Greek Life, Service 41 9.03%
Media, Publication 24 5.29%
Government 16 3.52%
Military 5 1.10%
Table 2. Out-of-class Activities
Item M SD
To fulfill my personal interests 5.388 0.66
I agree with the goals of the organization 5.088 0.77
11
To try something new 5.064 0.83
To gain experiences that make me competitive in the job market 5.004 1.01
To provide entertainment 4.788 1.01
To create positive impact on campus/community 4.452 1.02
I was provided information concerning the activities 4.452 0.89
I could afford the costs/expenses 4.296 0.97
I had the time 4.296 0.97
To relieve stress 3.99 1.01
To be on par with other students in terms of involvement in activities 3.972 1.22
To break down barriers of any kind (i.e., religion, race, Gender, sexual orientation) 3.576 1.29
To follow encouragement from an advisor or faculty member 3.288 1.08
My parents influence 2.544 1.03
Table 3. Factors that promote involvement with out-of-class activities
Item M SD
Lack of time, scheduling issue 4.56 1.13
Possibility of negative impact 3.732 1.23
Cost (time and money) of joining was too high 3.72 1.29
Lack the knowledge about the opportunities 3.672 1.19
Introverted personality 3.408 1.26
Lack of motivation 3.396 1.26
Don’t contribute to what I want to learn 3.312 1.2
Social inertia 3.24 1.34
Limit to number of participants; a competitive process to join 2.928 1.2
Lengthy, difficult membership process 2.904 1.12
Didn’t feel supported by faculty advisor 2.604 1
I am not a ‘‘joiner’’ 2.496 0.99
Gender issue 2.376 1.07
Race/ethnicity issues 2.304 1.02
Family or personal matters 2.16 0.94
Table 4. Factors that hinder involvement with out-of-class activities.
Item M SD
Personal development 5.25 0.67
Communication skills 5.18 0.66
12
Social development 5.09 0.73
Satisfaction with the college experience 5.08 0.8
Sense of belonging to college 4.98 0.89
Opportunity to be independent 4.95 0.78
Leadership skills 4.91 0.84
Professional development 4.70 0.95
Intellectual development 4.50 0.89
Academic engagement 4.44 0.93
Cross-cultural awareness 4.03 0.95
Civic development 3.87 0.93
Social engagement n/a n/a
Table 5. Positive outcomes of student participation in out-of-class activities
Item M SD
Consumed my time therefore my schedule was less flexible 4.45 1.11
Consumed my time therefore my free time was reduced 3.71 1.11
Increased expense 3.50 1.16
Decreased my GPA in college 3.05 1.16
Declined personal health 2.87 1.19
Decreased academic engagement 2.84 1.11
Academic timeline extended 2.76 1.21
Damaged interpersonal relationships 2.50 1.03
Decreased social engagement 2.47 1.13
Personal development negatively impacted 2.27 0.98
Social development negatively impacted 2.17 0.96
Table 6. Negative outcomes of student participation in out-of-class activities
Construct Item M SD
Major
Affective
I regret having entered in my major. 1.81 0.95
I am enthusiastic about my major. 4.15 0.88
Career
Commitment
I think I will be very happy to spend the rest of my career in my
current academic discipline. 3.91 0.99
I do not feel a strong sense of "belonging" to my academic
discipline. 2.41 1.17
I do not feel "emotionally attached" to my academic discipline. 2.59 1.17
I do not feel like "part of the family" in my academic discipline. 2.57 1.21
13
Perceived Fit
with Career
My eventual career will directly relate to a job in my academic
discipline. 3.98 0.95
In the future, I will not have a career that requires me to have skills
related to my academic discipline. 2.21 1.09
Major
Identification
Being good at my major is an important part of who I am. 3.87 0.98
It matters to me how well I do in my major at school. 4.23 0.83
Proactive
Personality
I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life. 4.17 0.78
If I see something I don't like, I fix it. 3.97 0.74
I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others'
opposition. 3.63 0.96
I excel at identifying opportunities. 3.53 0.95
If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it
happen. 3.38 1.00
Program
Belonging
I am treated with as much respect as other students in my program. 3.83 1.00
The instructors in my program respect me. 4.05 0.83
Major
Satisfaction
I am satisfied with the faculty in my major 3.91 0.93
I don't intend to change my major from current major to another
major. 4.36 0.87
Overall, I am happy with the major I've chosen. 4.22 0.89
Peer
Involvement
I discuss academic issues with peers. 4.23 0.75
I discuss social issues with peers. 3.94 0.98
I explain course materials to one or more students (e.g., tutoring). 3.86 1.00
I discuss career issues with peers. 4.00 0.85
I discuss cultural issues with peers. 3.51 1.09
Table 7. Results of affective questions from the PosSE survey at WCUU.
Co-Curricular
Participation
No Co-
Curricular
Participation
M SD M SD Differential
14
I do not feel like "part of the family"
in my academic discipline. 2.44 1.16 2.85 1.22 -0.41 p=0.002
I do not feel a strong sense of
"belonging" to my academic
discipline. 2.29 1.09 2.61 1.20 -0.31 p=0.012
I explain course materials to one or
more students (e.g., tutoring). 3.96 0.98 3.66 1.02 0.30 p=0.001
I do not feel "emotionally attached"
to my academic discipline. 2.52 1.22 2.72 1.07 -0.20 p=0.081
I am enthusiastic about my major. 4.21 0.88 4.03 0.87 0.18 p=0.035
In the future, I will not have a career
that requires me to have skills
related to my academic discipline. 2.16 1.11 2.30 1.06 -0.14 p=0.180
I think I will be very happy to spend
the rest of my career in my current
academic discipline. 3.95 1.01 3.83 0.95 0.13 p=0.164
Table 8. Top 7 differences between co-curricular students and non-co-curricular students
Discussion
This study is intended as a baseline for a multi-year research study to determine the
benefits of and barriers to participation in co-curricular activities for academically talented, low-
income engineering and computer science community college transfer students to a highly
selective predominantly white institution. Our initial analyses of the baseline survey data
suggests that there are significant benefits to co-curricular participation, including students
feeling part of the family in the disciplines of engineering and computer science, having a strong
sense of belonging in their major, and engaging in important activities like tutoring.
This study has a few limitations that we plan to address in our next round of data
collection. Given our focus is on transfer students, another significant limitation was the small
number of transfer students (N=28; 5% of sample) who completed the survey. We plan to
employ a more targeted approach to recruit participants for the study to ensure a larger
proportion of transfers students complete the survey so that we may run analyses that compare
transfer vs. non-transfer students.
15
Based on this baseline research, we also plan to make several edits to the PosSE survey
for future rounds of data collection. First, we plan to shorten the survey to hopefully reduce the
large number of partial responses/missing data which will also increase the overall sample to
provide the opportunity for more robust analyses of the survey data. The next limitation was the
fact that we did not collect information about GPA on the baseline survey. Given we have an
interest in determining the relationship of students’ involvement in co-curricular activities to
both their overall GPA and their major GPA, we will ask students to self-report both GPA
measures in subsequent surveys. Another limitation was the bi-partite breakdown of curricular
vs. non-co-curricular that was conducted by the researcher team after the administration of the
survey. The reality is the spectrum of out-of-class activities is more of a continuum. To address
this limitation, we will edit the survey to have students indicate on a Likert scale the degree to
which they believe their activities are co-curricular. We will also include COVID-19 as a
potential barrier to participation in our next round of data collection planned for June 2021.
Given the inherent limitation to the quantitative method we implemented for the baseline
survey, in the future we plan to include a qualitative component to this research by interviewing
students about their experiences in out-of-class activities. This mixed methods approach will
allow for an interrogation of students’ perceptions of their out-of-class activities. This will aid in
our understanding of the nature of their involvement in co-curricular activities, as well as provide
insight into the context of the barriers to (including COVID-19) and benefits of their
participation.
16
References
[1]J. Hills, “Transfer Shock: The Academic Performance of the Junior College Transfer,” (1965). The Journal of
Experimental Education, 33(3).
[2]F. Laanan. “Transfer student adjustment,” 2001. New Directions for Community Colleges, 114: 5-13.
[3]R. Delgado and J. Stephanic (Eds.), “Critical race theory: The cutting edge.” Philadelphia: Temple University,
2000
[4]M. Gardner and D. Toope, “A Social Justice Perspective on Strength-Based Approaches: Exploring Educators’
Perspectives and Practices,” (2011). Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 86-102.
[5]T. Hodges & D. Clifton, “Strengths-Based Development in Practice,” 2004. Positive psychology in practice, 256–
268.
[6]M. Ohland, S. Sheppard, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris, D. Chachra, and R. Layton. “Persistence, engagement, and
migration in engineering programs,” J. Eng. Educ., 97(3), 259–278, 2008.
[7]D. Simmons, Y. Yincheng, M. Ohland, and Garahan, K. “Understanding Students’ Incentives for and Barriers to
Out-of-Class Participation: Profile of Civil Engineering Student Engagement,” (2018). J. Eng. Educ., 144(2). DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000353.
[8]S. Jones and E. Abes, “Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions
of identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2013
[9]F. Laanan. Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of community college transfer
students. Community College Review, [s. l.], v. 23, n. 4, p. 69, 1996. DOI 10.1177/009155219602300407.
[10]K. Webber, R. Krylow, and Q. Zhang. “Does Involvement Really Matter? Indicators of College Student Success
and Satisfaction” (2013). College Student Development, 54(6), 591-611.
[11]D. Cole and A. Espinoza. Examining the academic success of latino students in science technology engineering
and mathematics (STEM) majors, (2018). Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.
[12]D. Carter, H. Ro, B. Alcott, and L. Lattuca. “Co-Curricular Connections: The Role of Undergraduate Research
Experiences in Promoting Engineering Students' Communication, Teamwork, and Leadership Skills,” (2016).
Research in Higher Education, 57(3), 363-393.
[13]D. Simmons, N. Hunsu, O. Adesope, “Enabling Multi-Dimensional Measurement of Student Engagement in
Engineering Learning Environments” (2019). International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 35, No. 6(A),
1827-1838
[14] D. Simmons, Y. Ye, N. Hunsu and O. Adesope, “Development of a survey to explore out-of-class engagement
of engineering students” (2017). International Journal of Engineering Education. 33. 1213-1221.