Low-Choice Culture in Undergraduate Engineering and Autonomy-Supportive Exceptions
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 144, Issue 1
Abstract
Over the last century, colleges and universities in the United States have increasingly provided students with opportunities in the curriculum to choose the courses they take. Have engineering programs followed suit? This study explores the course-choice opportunities (e.g., free electives and technical electives) afforded to undergraduate engineering students versus their nonengineering campus peers. Using 2013–2014 university catalogs, course-choice opportunities for 553 degree programs across 46 engineering colleges were quantified, including 309 ABET-accredited engineering programs and 244 nonengineering programs. At the median, nonengineering undergraduates choose 23% of their degree programs as free (unrestricted) electives, versus only 3% for engineering students. Regarding the amount of total degree coursework that engineering students can choose as free electives, they could choose approximately one-fifth the amount compared with level of choice common in mathematics, physics and chemistry programs. Engineering students are typically provided choices in the selection of half as many courses as their nonengineering peers. It is hypothesized that the bleak course-choice opportunity in engineering programs is a barrier to enrollment, in-migration, and retention in undergraduate engineering. Eleven universities were identified that provide students with substantial course-choice opportunities and less course-choice peer disparity.
Introduction
Over the last century, curricular choice increased in colleges and universities in the United States, with the curriculum evolving from being prescribed into being “primarily about the individual student with an elaborate curricular structure centralizing choice” (Robinson 2011). Thus, many programs evolved from a curriculum where nearly all courses were specifically identified and required, to providing electives and opportunities for students to select courses to apply toward graduation requirements. Some engineering programs have analogously evolved, taking advantage of the opportunity provided by ABET’s outcomes-based accreditation criteria that “allow[s] programs to develop flexible approaches to undergraduate education” (Ettema et al. 2003). One large public university, for example, developed new flexible undergraduate engineering curricula to educate “engineers and something more” via exposure to the breadth of education opportunities at the university (Ettema et al. 2003). Similarly, flexibility-focused engineering curricular reform has taken place at numerous universities (Knox and Barat 2004; Koubek and Chandra 2006; Meixell et al. 2015; Powell et al. 1997; Schell et al. 2014).
This rise of curricular choice is a reflection of the “institutionalization of the individual in society” (Robinson 2011), and also appears in keeping with the self-determination theory (SDT) tenet that identifies autonomy—facilitated through choice—as a fundamental psychological need of all humans (Deci et al. 1991; Ryan and Deci 2000). Significant SDT research has explored autonomy-supportive versus controlling social contexts and the motivational and outcome variables they prompt in various life domains, including considerable research in educational settings ranging from elementary schools to medical schools (Vansteenkiste et al. 2006). Findings yielded tangible recommendations for supporting student autonomy in classrooms (Stefanou et al. 2004), including optimal teacher strategies for increased autonomy support and student engagement in schoolwork (Assor et al. 2002) by providing students with opportunities to make choices (Deci et al. 1991; Jones 2009; Jones and Wilkins 2013; Ryan and Deci 2000; Vanasupa et al. 2009, 2010) within constraints (Schwartz 2004).
Specific to undergraduate education settings, research demonstrated the favorable impact that student autonomy in college classrooms can have on motivational factors, including goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy (Garcia and Pintrich 1996), the critical role that faculty play as designers of learning experiences and educational environments to support student engagement (Chen et al. 2008), and the impact of instructor autonomy support on the performance of college students in the class (Black and Deci 2000). Specific to undergraduate engineering education, infusing choice opportunities (such as a menu of design projects) in engineering courses has demonstrated the “power of choice” to positively influence student outcomes (Meadows et al. 2012; Shepard 2013), and recommendations have been made for the design of SDT-supportive engineering-student learning experiences (Vanasupa et al. 2009, 2010).
The power of choice is largely unexplored, however, with respect to the previously referenced rise of curricular choice in undergraduate education. Do meaningful opportunities for students to select the courses they take as they matriculate through an undergraduate degree program yield benefits, such as increased student motivation, commitment, and performance, as demonstrated at the classroom level? Conversely, do highly constrained and restricted engineering degree programs lacking course-choice opportunities hinder broadening participation, program enrollments, retention, and persistence to graduation? Before answering these critical questions, the state of course-choice opportunities across undergraduate engineering degree programs nationwide must be understood, and how the opportunities afforded to engineering students compare to those of their nonengineering peers on campus.
In the present study, the authors explore the state of course-choice opportunity in undergraduate engineering education by asking:
•
What is the extent of course-choice opportunities afforded to undergraduate engineering students at the highly regarded U.S. engineering institutions?
•
How do the course choices afforded to engineering students compare to those made available to nonengineering students on campus?
•
What is the extent to which course-choice opportunity disparities exist between undergraduate engineering and nonengineering students at campuses across the United States? and
•
If overall disparities exist (indicating that undergraduate engineering degree programs provide comparatively less autonomy support in terms of course-choice opportunity), do exceptional programs exist that demonstrate the possibility of being a highly regarded engineering institution with ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC)-accredited engineering degree programs while also affording students a comparatively greater freedom to choose courses? Or, rather, are ABET-accredited engineering programs at highly ranked institutions and autonomy-supportive degree programs with respect to course-choice opportunity mutually exclusive?
Methods
With the goal to understand the magnitude and frequency of course-choice opportunities afforded to engineering students versus their nonengineering peers on campus, a large quantitative study was conducted, spanning 46 top-ranked diverse engineering colleges throughout the United States. The universities encompassed the 2013 U.S. News and World Report’s 22 top-ranked engineering colleges that offer doctoral programs and the 24 top-ranked engineering colleges where doctoral programs are not offered. These engineering rankings were based solely on peer-assessment surveys (U.S. News and World Report 2013). The top-ranked military academies were excluded from this study because of their supplementary educational objectives that stand to influence degree program design and are thus outside the research focus. The general characteristics of the institutions included in the study are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
| Value type | Total undergraduate populationa | Undergraduate population enrolled in engineering college (%) | Female university undergraduate population (%) | University 6-year graduation rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 0 (under 500) | 2.9 | 17.0 | 46.0 |
| Median | 6,000 | 21.7 | 49.0 | 85.0 |
| Average | 13,000 | 29.1 | 46.4 | 81.9 |
| Maximum | 77,000 | 96.6 | 100.0 | 97.0 |
a
Rounded to nearest 1,000.
| Carnegie classification | Number of institutions |
|---|---|
| Baccalaureate college—diverse fields (Bac/diverse) | 3 |
| Baccalaureate college—arts and sciences (Bac/A&S) | 5 |
| Master’s university; smaller program (Master’s S) | 1 |
| Master’s university; medium program (Master’s M) | 2 |
| Master’s university; large program (Master’s L) | 10 |
| Research university; very high research activity (RU/VH) | 21 |
| Research university; high research activity (RU/H) | 1 |
| Doctoral/research university (DRU) | 1 |
| Special-focus institutions—institutions of engineering (Spec/Eng) | 2 |
Course-choice opportunities within engineering bachelor’s degree programs accredited by ABET’s EAC (ABET 2015) at each of the 46 universities were analyzed using university 2013–2014 online course catalogs. A total of 309 engineering bachelor’s degrees were characterized; of those, 292 were degrees in specialty fields such as mechanical (), electrical (), civil (), chemical (), biomedical/bioengineering (), aerospace (), industrial (), materials (), and other disciplines (agricultural, architectural, biological, computer, construction, environmental, geological, mining, nuclear, ocean, petroleum, and software). Of these 46 universities, 23 also offered nonaccredited engineering degree programs that were not included in this study.
Nonengineering Comparator Programs
To provide a comparison between the undergraduate engineering and nonengineering degree program course-choice opportunities that students experience on campus, five nonengineering degree program types were also analyzed for each institution: bachelor of science (B.S.) and/or bachelor of arts (B.A.) degree programs in mathematics, physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology. Selection of these nonengineering degree programs for inclusion in this study was informed by the authors’ university’s 20-year historical trends of the degrees students earned if they left the engineering college but continued on to earn university degrees. The top majors of those students who were in engineering at some time but completed degrees outside of engineering were economics, finance, psychology, integrative physiology, biochemistry, and mathematics. Of those, economics and psychology were chosen for the study because they are degree programs commonly offered at other institutions, whereas mathematics, physics, and chemistry were included in the study to gain an understanding of curricular choice opportunity in nonengineering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.
In the present study, 244 nonengineering degree programs were characterized. Of the 46 institutions studied, five technically focused universities [1 Master’s Small (S), 1 Master’s Medium (M), , and ] offered none of the five nonengineering degree programs, and therefore choice opportunity disparities are not presented for these five institutions. Of the 41 remaining comparator universities, 34 offered all five of the nonengineering comparator degrees: chemistry, economics, mathematics, physics, and psychology. Five of the 41 universities offered four of the five nonengineering degree programs; one offered three of the nonengineering degree programs; and one offered only two of the nonengineering degree programs. For these seven institutions, all choice variable calculations were based on the university-offered nonengineering degree programs included in the study. Some universities offered both B.A. and B.S. degrees in the same nonengineering discipline(s), and in these cases, course-choice opportunity data for both degree programs were included in the nonengineering summary data.
Choice Variables
A statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U ) disparity was noted in the total credits required for accredited engineering [] versus nonengineering () degree programs. Of the 41 comparator universities, 71% required a higher number of total credit hours for engineering programs compared to nonengineering programs. Because of the universities’ varying credit-hour metrics, all degree program course-choice opportunity data were delineated as a percentage of total degree credit hours. This approach also accounted for differences in how institutions counted credits, including variabilities resulting from quarter versus semester schedules. Two variables were used to quantitatively capture course-choice opportunity for each degree program of interest:
•
Percent free electives: This is the percentage of total degree credit hours that were free (unrestricted) electives. In other words, this metric captured the percentage of degree program coursework for which no restrictions were placed on students’ course selection(s)—students were free to pick any course(s) of their choosing; and
•
Percent total choice: This is the percent of total degree credit hours for which students were afforded choices in their course selection(s). Examples of course-choice opportunities include free electives, technical electives, humanities electives, and the opportunity to choose from a menu or list of courses.
University Median Choice Variable Values
Median percentage values were calculated for percent free electives and percent total choice across all EAC-accredited engineering degree programs within each university and across all of the two to five benchmarked nonengineering degree programs within each university. These median values were used to represent student course-choice opportunities at each institution.
Statistical Analyses and Software
Because the data for this study were based on course and credit-hour counts and are ordinal in nature, nonparametric statistical tests were used. The pairwise Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used to detect statistically significant differences between engineering versus nonengineering median choice variable values because these values are by university and therefore represent two dependent groups of ordinal data. The Friedman ANOVA, a nonparametric test for more than two dependent groups of ordinal data, was used to test for significant differences in choice variable values between the five nonengineering program types across the 41 comparator universities. Dispersion analyses comparing the spread of choice variable values for engineering versus nonengineering programs were conducted by running Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests on the absolute deviation from median (ADM) scores. Pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests (for two independent groups) were used to test for statistically significant differences between universities. The Fisher’s Exact test was used to test for a statistically significant difference between proportions. Statistical analyses were performed using MVPstats using a two-tailed .
Results
Free Electives
Results of the median (Mdn) percent free-elective calculations by university are presented in Fig. 1. Each university nonengineering and engineering degree program free-elective data points are shown as unique points for the straightforward identification of individual universities. An overlaid box-and-whisker plot marking the minimum, maximum, upper and lower quartiles, and median values offers further nonengineering versus engineering comparisons across the university range. Accounting for the five universities that do not offer the studied nonengineering degree programs, median free-elective engineering versus nonengineering degree-program values are presented for a total of 41 universities. These same 41 universities were included in all engineering versus nonengineering comparative analyses throughout this paper.
EI.1943-5541.0000348/asset/32410b8c-0cb1-4ffe-a200-6bc7de67b48d/assets/images/large/figure1.jpg)
Almost half () of the universities allocate a median of 0% of their total engineering degree program to free electives, indicating that they commonly do not provide any free-elective opportunities to their undergraduate engineering students; the median for engineering degrees across all 46 universities is 2%. Across the 41 universities offering the nonengineering comparator degrees, engineering students are afforded a median of 3% free electives, significantly less than the median of 23% free electives afforded to the nonengineering students (Wilcoxon Signed Rank ). In terms of the student experience, this differential translates to the nonengineering students choosing approximately one to two free elective courses every semester of their 4-year degree programs, versus the engineering students choosing approximately one free elective over the duration of the entire undergraduate experience—a substantial difference in college-level academic experiences between engineering and nonengineering students. This commonplace minimal to zero free-elective opportunities in engineering programs is frequently coupled with higher total degree credits for an engineering degree; if free electives were present in these degree programs, it might be argued that total program credits could be reduced.
The dispersion analysis identified a statistically significant difference () in the spread of free-elective opportunities for engineering students versus nonengineering students across the 41 universities (Fig. 1). Thus, although there was little variability in the median free-elective opportunities for engineering students across institutions, more variability was present in the amount of free electives provided to nonengineering students from university to university.
Significant differences were also found between the nonengineering degree-program comparators: physics and chemistry generally afford fewer free-elective credits (, ) than mathematics (), which affords fewer than economics () and psychology () (Friedman ANOVA ). At the median, despite offering fewer free-elective opportunities than the psychology and economics programs, the mathematics, physics, and chemistry programs across the 41 comparator universities therefore offer more than five times the number of free-elective opportunities than the engineering programs across the same institutions.
One exceptional university (labeled F in Fig. 1) afforded a median of 19% free electives to its engineering students, followed by a cluster of universities that afford medians of 8 to 13% free electives to engineering students. These universities were categorized as high-choice exceptions (HCEs), defined as engineering institutions whose median choice variable value(s) for engineering programs fell at or above the median of values above the third quartile of the 46 university engineering values. For example, across the 46 universities, the third-quartile value for median percent free electives (Fig. 1) was 5.8%. Twelve universities offered their engineering students medians of more than 5.8% free electives; among those 12 universities, the median percent of free elective offered to engineering students was 9.5%. Therefore, the seven universities that offered their engineering students a median of greater than 9.5% free electives were categorized as HCEs (Universities A–G in Fig. 1). The same methodology was used to identify HCEs in terms of the percent total-choice metric. HCE choice data for each of the course-choice variables are presented in Table 3 and discussed in a later section of this paper.
| University alias | Carnegie classification | Institution type | Institution sizea | Engineering undergraduate populationb (%) | Number of ABET EAC-accredited programs at university | percent free-elective HCEs | percent total-choice HCEs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | RU/VH | Public | Large | 20 | 11 | 8 | 45 |
| B | RU/VH | Private | Medium | 30 | 5 | 12 | 43 |
| C | RU/VH | Private | Small | 50 | 14 | 12 | 72 |
| D | RU/VH | Private | Small | 35 | 6 | 13 | 46 |
| E | RU/VH | Private | Medium | 20 | 9 | 11 | 54 |
| F | RU/VH | Private | Medium | 25 | 6 | 19 | 74 |
| G | Master’s L | Private | Small | 15 | 4 | 12 | 44 |
| H | RU/VH | Private | Medium | 45 | 3 | 0 | 65 |
| I | Bacc. | Private | Small | 5 | 1 | 6 | 59 |
| J | RU/VH | Private | Medium | 20 | 5 | 6 | 65 |
| K | RU/VH | Private | Medium | 20 | 7 | 0 | 63 |
| Engineering median across all 46 universities | 2 | 48 | |||||
| Engineering median across 41 comparator universities | 4 | 49 | |||||
| Non-engineering median across 41 comparator universities | 30 | 98 | |||||
Note: Bold numbers identify the top two values for each choice variable.
a
Institiution size refers to total undergraduate population size: small = fewer than 5,000 students, students, students (Collegedata 2015).
b
Rounded to the nearest 5% U.S. News and World Report (2013).
Total Choice
Results of the median percent total-choice values by university are presented in Fig. 2. Across all 46 universities, engineering degree programs provide students with choice in a median of 37% of total degree courses. Across the 41 universities offering the studied nonengineering degree programs, engineering students are afforded a median of 38% total choice, significantly less than the 75% total choice afforded nonengineering students (Wilcoxon Signed Rank ). In other words, at the median, nonengineering students are afforded with choice in almost twice as much of their total coursework as engineering students.
EI.1943-5541.0000348/asset/d0676121-bdbd-4714-a777-d59855017829/assets/images/large/figure2.jpg)
For students across all studied engineering programs, a median of 45% of total course choice is comprised of course selections from menus or lists of options, is chosen from a single department, is chosen from two or more departments, and are free electives. By comparison, the nonengineering students choose a median of 25% of their total course-choice opportunities from menus or lists, from a single department, from two or more departments, and free electives. Therefore, at the median, the engineering students are not only provided less total choice in their coursework, but the choices they are afforded are more constrained than those afforded to their nonengineering peers.
Again, a notable disparity emerged in percent total choice across the nonengineering degree types (, , , , and ; Friedman ANOVA ). Unlike the results of the free-electives dispersion analysis, no difference was detected in the spread of engineering versus nonengineering total choice across the 41 universities ().
Of the 46 universities, 6 have comparatively high median percent total-choice values (, 63, 64, 65, 72, and 94%, respectively) that fall above the 58% credit-hour third-quartile median, and are therefore HCEs. These six institutions demonstrate that offering engineering students a comparatively greater frequency of encountered course-choice opportunities is possible within strongly ranked programs.
HCEs: Demonstrating Greater Course-Choice Opportunity in Engineering
Despite the overarching state of limited course-choice opportunity in the studied university populations, some top-ranked engineering colleges provide their undergraduate students with considerable opportunities to choose their courses. HCEs were defined as universities whose median choice variable value(s) for engineering programs fell at or above the median of values above the third quartile of the 46 university engineering values. Eleven HCEs whose median scores are comparatively high within one or both choice variables are listed in Table 3.
Of the 72 accredited engineering degree programs offered across these 11 HCE universities, all but one are engineering discipline-specific (such as aerospace, civil, electrical, and mechanical) degree programs. In other words, these are not degree programs whose lack of engineering-discipline-specific focus lends itself to more possible course-choice opportunities than is expected or reasonable for specialized degree programs. To the contrary, these are highly ranked engineering colleges comprised of specialized engineering degree programs that offer students greater course-choice opportunity in spite of—or perhaps more aptly in complement with—engineering specialization. These universities, although exceptions, demonstrate the possibility of granting students considerable opportunities for less-restricted academic exploration within the context of their highly regarded engineering programs.
Two institutions, Universities C and F, are HCEs across both choice variables. At University C, for example, free electives comprise a median of 12% of engineering degree programs, and students choose the majority of their courses (72%). For some engineering disciplines at University C, student course-choice autonomy is almost at parity with the studied nonengineering degree-program autonomy for the various choice metrics, but overall course-choice opportunity is still lower for engineering students.
Five other universities (Universities A–G) are median engineering HCEs in terms of percent free electives, but not in percent total choice, suggesting that the frequency of course-choice opportunities that engineering students encounter throughout the duration of the degree program is comparatively low. It is apparent from Table 3 that numerous possible manifestations of course-choice opportunities exist for engineering degree programs, and therefore, myriad possibilities exist for engineering educators and leaders looking to infuse opportunities into their own undergraduate programs.
Probing into Distinguishing Features of the HCE Universities
It was hypothesized that, as a group, the HCEs might have comparable distinguishing features. Ten of the 11 HCE institutions are private institutions (compared to 21 private institutions among the other 35 non-HCE top-ranked institutions; Fisher’s Exact ). A Mann-Whitney U test was used to look for differences between the total number of tenured and tenure-track engineering faculty members at the 11 HCE versus 35 non-HCE institutions, motivated by the hypothesis that smaller faculty populations may be more likely to agree on and implement novel engineering baccalaureate programs, including those infused with more course choice and flexibility. However, results show no detectable differences in the engineering faculty sizes for these two populations (). In fact, the HCEs have a wide range of faculty sizes, from less than 10 total tenured or tenure-track engineering faculty members at the low end to almost 400 at the high end, with a median of 150 (ASEE 2015).
It was also hypothesized that the HCEs may be home to newer engineering programs that came online in the post-2000 outcomes-based accreditation era when flexibility became highly feasible from an accreditation standpoint. Results of a Mann-Whitney U test comparing the first year of ABET accreditation for the HCE versus non-HCE universities does show a detectable difference (), but the data do not support the hypothesis that the exceptional high-choice universities have more recent initial program accreditations. Rather, 10 of the 11 HCE universities were first accredited in 1936, the same year as more than half () of the non-HCE institutions ( and ). If anything, this analysis is more indicative of old, well-established engineering colleges perhaps having a leg-up in the U.S. News and World Report engineering institution rankings, which are based solely on peer-assessment surveys (U.S. News and World Report 2013).
The 11 exceptional high-choice institutions were also not found to be more highly ranked within the total population of 46 institutions than the non-HCE institutions (Mann-Whitney U ). Thus, despite some attempts to detect any features that distinguish the HCE universities, no such features were found.
Ratios of University Median Choice Variables
Having established that significant differences exist between engineering and nonengineering degree programs in terms of both choice variables, these results have yet to tell the story of the course-choice disparities that individual engineering students encounter while matriculating at the respective 41 universities included in the comparative analysis. To paint this picture, choice variable median ratios between the nonengineering and engineering degree programs were calculated for each university. These values represent the difference in course-choice opportunity that students encounter in pursuit of the studied nonengineering degrees (chemistry, economics, mathematics, physics, or psychology) compared to the college’s accredited engineering degree(s). Higher ratios (greater than 1) represent greater disparities between nonengineering and engineering programs and signify greater choice in the nonengineering degree programs. Conversely, ratio values below 1 indicate greater choice in engineering degree programs than in the nonengineering degree programs. University choice variable median ratios were calculated for each of the choice variables individually. Eq. (1) shows the median choice value ratio equation using the percent free-electives variable example engineering
(1)
In the event of a 0% university median percent free-elective value for engineering (in cases), a value of 1 was substituted into Eq. (1) to avoid dividing by zero and allow a ratio to be estimated. One university offered no free-elective opportunities to their nonengineering students, whereas their engineering students were afforded a median of 6% free electives; in this case, the nonengineering students had a number of general education requirements that the engineering students were excused from. Here again, a value of 1 was substituted into the numerator of Eq. (1) to allow a ratio to be estimated. Table 4 presents a summary of the university median course-choice variable ratios and provides a sense of the state of course-choice disparity between engineering and nonengineering students at the 41 comparator universities included in this analysis.
| Value type | Median percent free-elective ratios | Median percent total-choice ratios |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 0.2 | 1.1 |
| Median | 7.7 | 1.8 |
| Maximum | 45.5 | 3.7 |
A median percent free-elective choice-opportunity disparity of 7.7 was found across all universities, indicating that the median of engineering students are provided with almost one-eighth of the free-elective opportunities as a percentage of their overall coursework than their nonengineering peers on campus. At 40 of the 41 studied institutions, free electives comprise a greater percentage of total degree coursework for nonengineering students than engineering peers. At most, engineering students have approximately of the amount of total degree coursework designated for free electives compared with the amount so designated for their nonengineering peers. Aside from the previously mentioned non-HCE university that provides engineering students with some free electives whereas their nonengineering students are not afforded with any, the HCE Universities C and F are tied for the lowest median percent free-electives ratio of 1.3, indicating that their engineering students experience almost no disparity in the percent free-elective choices they are afforded compared to their nonengineering peers on campus.
The median percent total choice-opportunity disparity across all universities is 1.8, indicating that the median of nonengineering students choose almost double the number of their total courses than their engineering peers on campus. Although engineering students appear to choose a large number of their courses, as previously discussed, in many instances those opportunities are not substantial, such as frequent opportunities ( of total choice) to choose from a menu or list of options (which could be as small as choosing between two different versions of a Calculus 1 course). Here, Universities C and H (Table 3) both have the lowest median percent total-choice ratio of 1.1.
Pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests () were used to test for statistically significant differences in median choice variable ratios between HCE and non-HCE universities (Table 5). Results of the Mann-Whitney U tests indicate that statistically significant differences exist between HCE universities and non-HCE universities in terms of median choice variable ratios for both percent free electives and percent total choice. Thus, for both choice metrics, HCEs have lower median choice variable ratios than non-HCEs; the HCE institutions not only offer their engineering students comparatively more course-choice opportunity but also have less choice-opportunity disparity between their engineering and nonengineering students. Thus, the HCE engineering students are afforded more course-choice opportunities, and those choice opportunities are more comparable to those afforded to their nonengineering peers on campus.
Discussion
This study provided a quantitative delineation of the course-choice opportunities undergraduate students experience as they matriculate through various degree programs. Results indicate that nonengineering undergraduates commonly choose almost 25% of their degree programs as free electives, versus just 3% for engineering students (approximately as common in mathematics, physics, and chemistry programs). Across dozens of (top-rated) universities from across the United States, engineering students are commonly afforded half as much total choice in their course selections than their nonengineering peers. These results extend across university types and describe the median state of course-choice opportunity in the studied population across Carnegie Classifications (Center for Postsecondary Research 2015) and both public and private institutions (Forbes 2015).
These results are suggestive of a course-choice opportunity disparity at the studied institutions between engineering and nonengineering students in terms of free electives and total course-choice opportunities, with engineering students in each case experiencing considerably less choice than their nonengineering peers. For the studied population, these results also depict a mainstream low course-choice opportunity culture in undergraduate engineering. In light of self-determination theory and a developmental need in most 18–24 year olds for exploration (Watson and Froyd 2007), this culture may be unsatisfying to some engineering students.
Choice and Quality
These low-choice results are explicable, considering the formidable task for undergraduate engineering programs to prepare well-rounded graduates with the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies for a professional degree amidst longstanding pressures to decrease total credit hours during the same 4-year period (Bucknam 1998; Russell et al. 2000). Faced with fewer credit hours, swelling educational costs, and the need to impart a complex, evolving skillset to engineering students, flexibility in some degree programs has been diminished, with free electives commonly eliminated (Epstein 1991).
However, 11 HCE universities from the studied population provide considerable choice opportunities to engineering students. As a group, across all choice metrics, the HCEs not only offer engineering students comparatively more course-choice opportunities but also have less choice-opportunity disparity between their engineering and nonengineering students. Thus, engineering students at these HCE universities experience the freedom to choose more courses, and those course-choice opportunity experiences are more congruent with those of their nonengineering peers on campus. Notably, only 1 of the 71 engineering degree programs offered across the 11 HCE universities is a broad engineering degree program—the remaining 98% are high course-choice engineering discipline-specific degree programs.
These HCEs confirm that highly regarded ABET EAC-accredited specialized engineering degree programs and significant course-choice opportunity are not mutually exclusive. The flexibility inherent in ABET’s outcomes-based accreditation approach lends itself naturally to choice-infused engineering program designs. Furthermore, although the demonstrated tendency in the studied population toward highly restrictive engineering degree program designs is unnecessary from an accreditation standpoint, these exceptional and prestigious colleges with high choice discipline-specific engineering programs suggest that minimal course choice may also be unnecessary to responsibly and effectively educate 21st-century engineers.
Emphasizing curricular flexibility, customizability, or increased course choice in engineering programs may run the risk of being biased as easier, less rigorous, and/or engineering-light, but this research demonstrates that comparatively high-choice engineering programs can be top-ranked and held in high regard, presenting an invitation to dismiss such limited perceptions. Thus, it is not only possible to afford students with both choice and quality, but may even be essential to best cultivate student development and satisfaction.
Limitations and Future Work
The current study was limited to engineering programs at 46 top-ranked institutions as ranked by just one organization. The state of choice across the other institutions that offer ABET EAC-accredited bachelor’s degrees in engineering is unknown. Most likely, the course-choice opportunities are similar, with many that are fairly restrictive and some that are more similar to the HCE institutions identified in this study.
It remains to be seen whether course-choice opportunities are positively correlated to meaningful educational outcomes, such as broadened participation, increased enrollment, and improved in-migration, retention, and graduation rates in engineering education, and, if so, whether certain types of course-choice opportunities yield greater correlations. More work is therefore needed to not only establish whether increased course-choice opportunities can yield beneficial educational outcomes, but if so, how to best optimize those choices, including the most beneficial types of course choices as well as the optimal frequency and magnitude of those choices.
Conclusion
Infusing curricular self-direction and course-choice opportunities into restrictive, lock-step engineering degree programs is feasible without sacrificing program effectiveness, quality and/or reputation and could benefit students.
Increasing free-elective opportunities in engineering degree programs may improve the low rate of migration into the major (Ohland et al. 2008), enabling students to switch into engineering with a greater chance of maintaining on-time graduation. The ability for students migrating into engineering to apply previously taken courses to an engineering degree via free-elective opportunities is particularly important given that, in many cases, migrating into engineering from a nonengineering major comes with an increased total credit-hour requirement, which poses a financial burden if a number of college courses also do not count toward graduation. Free-elective opportunities additionally provide students with a greater ease of pursuing minors and certificates, which enables students to explore their unique interests and develop skillsets that may be complementary to their primary degrees and assets to their careers and the engineering profession. Increasing free-elective opportunities may also correlate to lower time to graduation.
Restrictive engineering programs with little student choice might realize lower retention of those engineering students who desire more autonomy and choice (that is, lose them from engineering to nonengineering programs). At institutions where nonengineering degrees offer significantly more choice, undergraduate students desirous of self-determination might be attracted to those nonengineering programs. Further research is needed to test these hypotheses.
Regardless of the answers to these higher-level questions it appears—based on the implications of self-determination theory and the possibilities highlighted by the HCE universities—that there is strong evidence to support bettering student pathways through undergraduate engineering education with individual well-being in mind: if more curricular choice is possible, it should be provided.
Acknowledgments
Sincere thanks to the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, whose vision, generous support, and funding made this research possible as part of the Engineering Plus and CU Teach Engineering initiative.
References
ABET (Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology). (2015). “Engineering accreditation commission.” ⟨http://www.abet.org/about-abet/governance/accreditation-commissions/engineering-accreditation-commission/⟩ (Jul. 17, 2015).
ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education). (2015). “Engineering college online profiles.” ⟨http://profiles.asee.org/⟩ (Aug. 23, 2015).
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., and Roth, G. (2002). “Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork.” Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 72(2), 261–278.
Black, A. E., and Deci, E. L. (2000). “The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective.” Sci. Educ., 84(6), 740–756.
Bucknam, R. E. (1998). “Ethics in professional practice: Cases-of-the month program.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 124(1), 1–2.
Center for Postsecondary Research. (2015). “Standard listings.” ⟨http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/standard.php⟩ (Jan. 24, 2015).
Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., and Hamilton, E. R. (2008). “Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of faculty to student engagement in engineering.” J. Eng. Educ., 97(3), 339–353.
Collegedata. (2015). “College size: Small, medium or large?” ⟨http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_choosearticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10006⟩ (Oct. 22, 2015).
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., and Ryan, R. M. (1991). “Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective.” Educ. Psychol., 26(3, 4), 325–346.
Epstein, H. I. (1991). “Why four years?” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 117(2), 150–154.
Ettema, R., Stoner, J., Holly, F., and Nixon, W. (2003). “A flexible undergraduate civil engineering curriculum.” Paper Presented at 2003 Annual Conf., American Society for Engineering Education, Nashville, TN.
Forbes, M. H. (2015). “Course choice opportunity and technical–non-technical balance in undergraduate engineering education.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO.
Garcia, T., and Pintrich, P. R. (1996). “The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom.” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 21(4), 477–486.
Jones, B. D. (2009). “Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC model of academic motivation.” Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ., 21(2), 272–285.
Jones, B. D., and Wilkins, J. L. (2013). “Testing the MUSIC model of academic motivation through confirmatory factor analysis.” Educ. Psychol., 33(4), 482–503.
Knox, D., and Barat, R. (2004). “Updating the chemical engineering curriculum for the 21st century.” Proc., 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conf. & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City.
Koubek, R., and Chandra, M. J. (2006). “New curriculum in industrial engineering.” Proc., 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conf. & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Chicago.
Meadows, L. A., Fowler, R., and Hildinger, E. S. (2012). “Empowering students with choice in the first year.” Paper Presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio.
Meixell, M. J., Buyurgan, N., and Kiassat, C. (2015). “Curriculum innovation in industrial engineering: Developing a new degree program.” Paper Presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Seattle.
MVPstats [Computer software]. MVP Programs, Vancouver, WA.
Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., and Layton, R. A. (2008). “Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering.” J. Eng. Educ., 97(3), 259–278.
Powell, K., et al. (1997). “University of Michigan’s aerospace engineering curriculum 2000.” 35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 734.
Robinson, K. J. (2011). “The rise of choice in the US university and college: 1910–2005.” Sociological Forum, 26(3), 601–622.
Russell, J. S., Stouffer, B., and Walesh, S. G. (2000). “The first professional degree: A historic opportunity.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 126(2), 54–63.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.” Am. Psychol., 55(1), 68–78.
Schell, W. J., Claudio, D., Sobek, D. K., Stanley, L., and Ward, N. (2014). “Introducing flexibility in an engineering curriculum through student designed elective programs.” Paper Presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice, Ecco, New York.
Shepard, T. (2013). “Implementing first-year design projects with the power of choice.” Paper Presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., and Turner, J. C. (2004). “Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership.” Educ. Psychol., 39(2), 97–110.
U.S. News and World Report. (2013). “Undergraduate engineering programs.” ⟨https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings#undergraduate-engineering⟩ (Jan. 15, 2013).
Vanasupa, L., Stolk, J., and Harding, T. (2010). “Application of self-determination and self-regulation theories to course design: Planting the seeds for adaptive expertise.” Int. J. Eng. Educ., 26(4), 914.
Vanasupa, L., Stolk, J., and Herter, R. J. (2009). “The four domain development diagram: A guide for holistic design of effective learning experiences for the twenty-first century engineer.” J. Eng. Educ., 98(1), 67–81.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., and Deci, E. L. (2006). “Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.” Educ. Psychol., 41(1), 19–31.
Watson, K., and Froyd, J. (2007). “Diversifying the U.S. engineering workforce: A new model.” J. Eng. Educ., 96(1), 19–32.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 144 • Issue 1 • January 2018
Copyright
This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
History
Received: Apr 29, 2016
Accepted: Jun 6, 2017
Published online: Nov 1, 2017
Published in print: Jan 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Apr 1, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.