Exploring the Effects of a Summer Bridge on Role Identities of Low-Income Engineering Students

• In Event: Dynamic Integration of Identity, Learning, and Motivation Across Various Social-Cultural Contexts

Abstract

For several decades, summer bridges have proven to be an effective retention tool for incoming students in technical fields (e.g., Lang, 2001; Schrader & Brown, 2008; Cohan et al., 2020). Common features of bridge programs which have shown promise include intensive mathematics review, community building, mentoring, and networking. However, only a quarter of low-income youth are academically “well-prepared” for college (Tinto, 2004) and the research is clear that also teaching metacognitive learning strategies is essential for STEM-persistence (McGuire, 2015). This study leverages a 4-week summer bridge program for low-income first year engineering students that focuses on all the aforementioned academic competencies in addition to a cohort experience. Using the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI; Kaplan & Garner, 2017) we investigate the integrative nature of low-income/college-student/future-engineer role identities at two different time points prior to student’s first semester of college: (1) pre-summer bridge; (2) post-summer bridge. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted and transcribed from each of n=7 students and the DSMRI Analysis Guide & Codebook (Kaplan & Garner, 2017b) was used to identify superordinate themes across narratives. Specifically, this repeated-measures study design looks at how ontological and epistemological beliefs, purpose and goals, self-perceptions and self-definitions, and perceived-action possibilities within and between various role identities effect the identity development of low-income first year engineering students. Findings suggest (1) a need for creating more robust identity education programs; (2) a need for stronger financial aid counseling for low-income students; (3) a need to increase collaborations between K-12 and institutions of Higher Education focused on better helping students transition to college; (4) a need to normalize young children’s desire to use their hands by creating more formal engineering education experiences; and (5) a need to change the narrative about engineering to include a more human service-oriented career that sets out to make people’s lives better.

Author

• Ryan S. Hassler, Pennsylvania State University - Berks