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.